HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.28.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
April 28, 2008 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the April 28, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie, (Vistica arrived at 7:05
P.M.)
Absent: Commissioner Auran
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Zoning Technician, Lisa Whitman; and
City Attorney, Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the April 14,
2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:
Correct the spelling of Commissioner Yie's name "Yie" not "Yee".
Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioner Auran and Vistica absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project at 1473 Cortez Avenue. The property
was sold two days after the Commission's approval was granted. She noted that it was curious that
the current owner has not asked for approval of the as -built changes; the request is being made by
the contractor. The current owner's name does not appear in requests. With respect to the project
at 1348 Drake Avenue; this is an example of why the Commission should review FAR restrictions.
The Commission's direction was to avoid designing to the maximum FAR; the project falls only five
square feet below the maximum.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
9 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR WINDOWS
WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROPERTY LINE AND MORE THAN TEN FEET ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE
AND FOR STORAGE EXCEEDING TEN PERCENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN
DWELLING FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JERRY KUHEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
AND JERRY CARMINE, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
Zoning Technician Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 28, 2008.
Commission comments:
■ Clarify what will happen with the fencing at the corner of the property; add this information to the
plans.
■ Clarify the use of the accessory structure. The structure includes a telephone jack, skylight and a
window; these elements would not be necessary for a storage building.
■ The request for approval of a window within ten feet of the property line could be eliminated with
design changes.
■ Move the skylight to front roof ridge to eliminate light impact on the neighbor.
This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by
the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m.
2. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MIKE PRESCOTT, PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 28, 2008.
Commission comments:
■ Clarify the design of the accessory structure exiting the garage; looks too utilitarian; could have
more character to encourage use of the outdoor area.
■ Changes on west elevation; the change is not an improvement at the entry portico.
■ Give more definition to ceramic tile decorative element at elevator.
■ Noted that the pillars are only cast stone on the first floor; concern that glass fiber elements on
upper floors may age differently.
■ Appreciated applicant using glass fiber elements rather than stucco foam.
This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public, or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent
Calendar.
Item 3c, the application for 1790 Escalante Way, was pulled from the Consent Calendarby June Kaufman,
1760 Escalante Way.
3a. 1348 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JENNY
NGO, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN (continued from April 14, 2008
meeting)
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
3b. 2533 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION WITH
A TEN -FOOT PLATE HEIGHT (DAVID AND KELLY TILLMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;
AND GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT/DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
3d. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY
GRANGE, TRG ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JOE MCVEIGH, PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of the Consent Calendar (Items 3a, 3b and 3d) based on the
facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended
conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Auran absent).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3c. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FORA NEW BASEMENT FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
John Lee, 711 San Miguel Lane, Foster City; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
None
Public comments:
June Kaufmann and Jeff Kaufman, 1760 Escalante Way; and Dana Wemple, 3130 Atwater Drive;
expressed concern regarding the basement and the height of the addition. The addition could block
views of the Bay; were story poles required? Also concerned regarding the impacts during
construction; doesn't want construction vehicles parked in front of their home; concerned regarding
the potential placement of a portable toilet. Story poles were to go up, were story poles needed
near the library; were provided; lies adjacent to their house. Expressed concern regarding impacts
to trees located on a bank along the rear of the property due to construction of the proposed
basement.
Additional Commission comments:
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
Asked how the view from the neighbor is blocked; by the ridgeline?
A condition of approval could address the protection of the neighbor's trees; a soils report will be
required prior to construction to assess potential impacts due to the basement's construction.
Additional public comments:
John Lee (project architect), 711 San Miguel Lane, Foster City; noted that the basement will be
approximately 20-feet from the property line and quite some distance from the neighbor's trees.
Any roots will be far below the basement. The view from the neighbor's property is at a sharp angle
to the property.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to continue the item to the May 12, 2008 agenda, requesting that the
Planning Commission visit the neighbor's property to observe view blockage. The City Arborist is also to
review the plans to determine if there is a potential impact upon the neighbor's trees. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-
0-1 (CommissionerAuran absent). This item concluded at 7:38 p.m.
4. 1316 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD & ASSOCIATES,
DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
Since the March 10t" meeting, sat down with the owner and suggested a classical Nantucket
design.
Agrees with findings of designer reviewer.
Commission comments:
■ Design is improved.
■ Need comprehensive notes regarding finishing materials, such as: gable vents; gates; more detail
on entry portico.
■ Concerned with the boxy massing being inappropriate for the site; lot is at the crest of the hill; the
structure will be very prominent; not convinced it is the right style for the location.
■ How does structure relate to maximum heights, particularly relative to the adjacent homes?
■ Could a photo -montage be prepared to show how it fits the setting?
■ Applicant demonstrated that there is a precedent for the style, but not in this location.
Public comments:
51
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
April 28, 2008
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; beautifully designed; but leaving appropriateness of the design for
the site to the Commission. Concern about the materials; a past project by the applicant came back
as an FYI with different materials.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Main concern is the way the building works on this particular site; homes on either side slope down
from the peak. A photo -montage showing the mass and bulk of the proposal would be very helpful
to show how it would fit into the streetscape.
■ Consider mature landscaping to soften the fagade. The properties to the left and right have mature
trees, but this site does not, exacerbates the issue.
■ A Dutch colonial roofline may be more appropriate.
■ The house will read as a three story structure, and it is situated at the top of a hill, which
exacerbates the contrast. Should borrow elements of some of the Colonial examples the architect
provided to bring down the mass.
■ The design and massing could be improved with articulation along roofline and re -working of the
dormers. Could support with these changes.
Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to prepare a photo
montage showing how the structure would fit into the neighborhood and looking at design solutions that
could lessen the apparent mass of the structure when viewed from the street. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Denial without prejudice is the better option. Concern is that it could be sending a mixed signal to
applicant — Colonial design is not appropriate.
If the design is not altered to meet the Commission's expectations, the project could be denied.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg
dissenting, Commissioner Auran absent). This item concluded at 7:56 p.m.
5. 3202 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (FARIBA MOKHHTARI KARCHGANI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND NGHI
THANH LE, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Raymond Babaoghli ; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Clarify the roofing material.
Asked for clarification regarding landscape revisions in the front yard area.
Clarify details regarding the intended wood trim; successful execution of the design will rest on the
details.
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
Composition tile roof would be better.
The windows look like they're missing something by lacking the vertical pieces on the outside of the
jambs.
If the brick posts at the outside of the property remain, they should be stuccoed to match house, or
veneered with material from bottom of house.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni 1445 Balboa Avenue; asked if the representative could talk about the type of aluminum
true divided light windows proposed.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped April 3, 2008, sheets A0, A0.2, Al through A5, and 1-1.0, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit;
2. that the roof shall be finished with composition shingles.
3. that the existing brick pillars at the outside edge of the property shall be clad in a material similar to
that used at the base of the pillars flanking the entry to the residence.
4. that the windows shall be installed with a traditional stucco mold jamb detail.
5. that the columns flanking the entry shall be reduced in scale to between twelve to fifteen inches, the
final design of the columns shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI.
6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 13 and October 18, 2007 memos, the City
Engineer's July 23, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 11, 2007 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's July 16, 2007 memo shall be met;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
April 28, 2008
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Discussion of motion:
The columns could be reduced in scale so as not to overpower roof that is supported, scale down to
as narrow as twelve to fifteen inches would be appropriate.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner
Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m.
6. 1477 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BART GAUL, APPLICANT; 1477 CORTEZ LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER; AND JACK MCCARTHY, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
None
Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant.
Asked to separate the discussion of the architectural items from the Conditional Use Permit
request.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Questioned the design of the sprinkler system standpipe.
■ The home is beautiful; it is too bad a seven foot fence was erected.
■ There is a good argument for the Conditional Use Permit; rear yard acts as a courtyard.
■ Like the sunburst design.
■ Carriage house style garage doors would have been a better design solution.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; the design is fabulous. Provided chain of property transactions.
Amendment request is signed by property owner Bart Gaul; a change of ownership was recorded a
month before the application was submitted; property was sold before completion; changes likely
made by the new property owner. Has observed the frustration of the Commission with flagrant
disregard of desires of the City relative to the design of projects. Takes exception to statements in
McCarthy's letter that all changes were made to improve design; assumes the Commission will turn
a blind -eye to the changes. Should at a minimum require the installation of the desired garage
door. Applicant should replace French doors with original man door; questions installation of glass
doors at the location in the garage. Not inconceivable that space could be converted to living
space.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped February 22, 2007, sheets 1 through 3, 4 (left side elevation), 5 and L1, and As -built
elevations (front, right side, rear, front garage, and left side garage) date -stamped April 7, 2008,
and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 15, 2006 and January 24, 2007
memos, the City Engineer's December 15, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 18, 2006
memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 18, 2006 memo shall be met;
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use
Permit as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
4. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building footprint;
7. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled.
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
11. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
16. that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner
Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
9
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
Commissioner Brownrigg commented that the Commission has developed a respect for Ms. Giorni's input,
and appreciated her comments regarding this project.
Commissioner Yie recused herself from the public hearing for 1140 Cortez Avenue (Item 7) since she
resides less than 500-feet from the subject property. She left the dais.
7. 1140 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (SIMON JANG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD AND
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Noted that the proposed FAR is at the maximum allowed.
Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
The CAD measures including the exterior finishes, which leads to the maximum FAR.
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped April 3, 2008, sheets A-1 through A-6, G-1, SF and L-1, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 1, 2008, memo, and the City Engineer's,
Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's February 4, 2008 memos shall be met;
3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
8.
April 28, 2008
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
10. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Commissioner Brownrigg noted that he supported the motion, but strongly discourages any
changes to finishing materials. Would not support a future request for a Variance to exceed the
maximum FAR.
Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner
Auran absent, Commissioner Yie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38
p. M.
Commissioner Yie returned to the dais.
2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE (GILL AND JANE YEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD &
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Asked if story poles were required; staff noted that there was no direction included in the minutes
from the last meeting.
Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; and Gill Yee, 2707 Martinez Drive represented the
applicant.
Noted objections from neighbor due to tree issue.
Additional Commission comments:
Asked if the applicant proposes trimming the trees.
Prepared not to get too involved in tree removal issues. Would like some clarification on which
trees are to be removed. Plans call for removal of at least four trees. Two trees in the rear have
branches protruding over property. In front yard, the removal of the two black Acacias and
Eucalyptus trees has an active permit. There are two trees to be removed within rear.
Would like to see story poles. Could also tape the trees that are to be removed in order to best
address view impacts.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Leo Redmond, 2711 Martinez Drive; and Gill Yee, 2707 Martinez
Drive; Black Acacia are on list of trees that the City Arborist would like to have removed. Once
pruned, the tree will grow more and more and will require more frequent pruning. There is a way for
reasonable people to work out the issues. The trees were encroaching upon the property at 2711
Martinez Drive, and the property owner had them trimmed by an arborist. The owner of the
neighboring property has worked for years with the applicant to have trees trimmed and the distant
Bay views restored. The trees are a problem in the front and rear of the property. The neighbor at
2711 Martinez Drive initiated mediation and made a generous offer with regards to the fence.
Rescinded his offer due to lack of cooperation of applicant. They have done nothing to restore the
view. Have endured a patchwork of materials on the roof of the Yee's house. Has diminished the
value of 2711 Martinez Drive. The applicant is requesting special treatment on the part of the City.
The applicant has not made any attempt to show the plans to the neighbor. Without a firm
commitment to address the issues raised, the neighbor at 2711 Martinez Drive will not support the
project. Requested installation of story poles; the project will have an impact upon the distant Bay
views and the airport. Not opposed to completion of remodel.
Further Commission comments:
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
Requested that story poles be erected and trees marked so that the Commission can assess view
impacts.
Front entry element needs to have story poles as does the ridge line tying the elements together,
and to the down slope corner.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item until May 12, 2008, with direction to the applicant to erect
story poles and mark trees that are scheduled for removal when the project is constructed. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner A uran absent). This
item concluded at 9:09 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIAL ART, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND CHRIS DUNNING, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Melanie Heck and Basilia Macias; 5141 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante and Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive;
represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Questioned the decision to keep slate veneer on front, but not continue it around the structure.
■ The neighborhood has a preponderance of brick veneer; will not serve the intended purpose unless
carried through. Also concerned about the size of the twelve inch squares.
■ The rear elevation appears to have balconies on top of balconies. No details on posts supporting
the decks, may intend to provide detail, but not shown. Reference the design guidelines to look for
ways to refine scale and design.
■ Main concern is broad left side elevation, two-story wall, not consistent with the style of the house.
The addition looks stacked on top of the house. Provide more articulation.
■ Right elevation contains a lot of stucco and no articulation or detail.
■ Massing looks layered.
■ Shift addition over and center door.
■ Concerned about use of vinyl windows.
■ Clarify that wood trim, not stucco foam trim, will be provided.
Public comments:
Patricia and Paul Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; would like the addition to not be too high, want home to
blend with neighborhood and retain views.
Additional Commission comments:
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
■ Usually insist on story poles. Are their distant views from her house?
■ Noted that there is space to lower the plate heights to reduce view impacts.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar, with direction to
the applicant to install story poles.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
■ Commissioner Vistica noted that he wouldn't support motion, the design should likely go through a
design reviewer since applicant has not worked in the City.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when story
poles have been erected and plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-
2-1 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom dissenting, Commissioner Auran absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:33 p.m.
10. 1620 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES
FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MARY LOU AND
DOUG MORTON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Nancy Scheinholz, Scheinholz Associates, 1319 Howard Avenue; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Clarify proposed FAR, differences within staff report, which number is correct.
■ Roof structure; hodgepodge of roofs coming together; not opposed to bay structure, but did she
consider doing a hip roof and shed roof.
■ Plans indicate wood windows with wood trim. Will the addition will be same, with simulated or true
divided lights?
■ Supports application. The neighbor's structure encroachment supports FAR Variance, overall the
FAR will decrease, and the existing condition of needing to exit the home to enter the family room
will be eliminated.
■ Asked if the architect considered using part of the laundry room for the family room?
Public comments:
■ None
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete with
direction to applicant to look at roof configuration.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
Clarify that the laundry room is seven feet high and that prevents using portion of area for family
room.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (CommissionerAuran absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:44 p.m.
11. 466 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR
AREA RATIO, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND STEVE DRUSKIN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., 405 Bayswater Avenue and Steve Druskin, 466 Marin
Drive; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Requested clarification from staff on whether dormer counts toward floor area.
■ Commented on the hardship for moving wall back to meet parking dimension. The applicant's
justification appears to be worded too strongly.
■ Noted that the platform at the dormer shouldn't count towards floor area because a person can't
stand in the area.
■ Neither the floor area nor the front setback Variances seem justifiable. Adding detail (such as a
front porch) doesn't constitute a hardship.
■ Is there a way to configure the space to eliminate the need for the front setback Variance?
■ Design is good provided that the FAR Variance can be addressed.
■ Creating a usable front porch is good. In order to create a useable porch, it needs to move outward
a bit to provide a place to land. Hindered by the block average. The hardship is the location of the
front wall of the house. The proposed front porch does not encroach too much into the setback.
■ If the dormer counts in FAR, scale back the family room to eliminate the need for the floor area
Variance.
Public comments:
None
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete if the
FAR Variance is eliminated, if not, then place on the Regular Action Calendar.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar if the FAR Variance
is eliminated, or on the Regular Action Calendar if it is not eliminated, when plans have been revised as
directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Auran absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:58 p.m.
Chair Cauchi indicated that he had to leave the meeting by 10:00 p.m. and left the dais, turning over the
meeting to Vice -Chair Terrones.
12. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY USE AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING
VARIANCE FOR A NEW, THREE-STORY, 46-UNIT GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE
ELDERLY (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND THE YERBY COMPANY,
PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description and clarified the scope of the evening's discussion. Mr. Meeker
further explained the reason for the proposed General Plan amendment, and the rationale for considering it
at this time. He indicated that no action would be taken regarding the project this evening. Comments
received would be passed along to the environmental consultant to guide the environmental evaluation of
the proposal.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, 851 Burlway Road and Mark Hudak, 261 Park Road; represented the
applicant:
■ Reviewed changes made to the project since December 10, 2007 scoping meeting.
■ Noted visiting hours are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. — shouldn't be noise after those times.
■ Current project is roughly 60 square feet smaller than the nearby fire station, is almost exactly the
height of the fire station. Proportions are similar; fire station deeper, but project is somewhat wider.
■ Discussed General Plan amendment; need for consistency between General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Amendments are not unheard of, may occur up to 4 times per year.
■ The Zoning Code is the most recent representation of the types of uses that should occur on
California Drive.
■ The City is best served by strengthening the connection between Broadway and Burlingame
Avenue. Believes the City will be well -served with the proposed amendment.
■ Referenced Housing Element policies encouraging senior housing.
■ Amendment to General Plan does not eliminate City Control of uses.
■ All of the uses that are not clearly C-2 uses (but referenced in other zones) require a Conditional
Use Permit.
Commission comments:
■ None
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
Public comments:
Betsy McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; Tim Behrens, 1133 Palm Drive; Katie Treu, 745 Neuchatel
Avenue; Nancy Myers, 1117 Edgehill Drive; Tracy Ismert, 853 Paloma Avenue; Toni Montgomery,
741 California Drive; Bob Frudenberg, 1109 Palm Drive; Carol Zell, 756 Willborough Avenue; Dave
Schnell, 924 Chula Vista Avenue; Ramona Martinez, 709 Walnut Avenue; Iry Ungar, 1200 Edgehill
Drive; Brian McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; Tom Paine, 728 Concord Way; Lisa Tyree, 724 Neuchatel
Avenue; Robert Ruth, 1128 Palm Drive; Sylvie Hale, 1208 Palm Drive; Greg Scupazzi, 815 Edgehill
Drive; Margie Ungar, 1214 Edgehill Drive; Cole Montgomery, 741 California Drive; Pat Giorni 1445
Balboa Avenue; and Mimi Argeris, 754 Crossway Road; spoke regarding the matter. It was noted
that only about 50 neighbors tonight, but another 52 could not be present. Mr. Hudak's points
between Broadway and Burlingame Avenue are good; but encouraged looking at the entire area to
create consistency. Do not place an individual building in the area that breaks the consistency.
The Burlingame/North Rollins Road Specific Plan provided guidance for senior housing.
Referenced the public outreach used in the past planning efforts. Encouraged using a similar
community inclusive approach to look at the planning for the entire area. Neighbors have ideas
about uses that would be appropriate for the area. Asked the Planning Commission to carry the
message of the need for a comprehensive, open look at the land -uses along California Drive. Want
a specific plan, not a plan amendment. Asked the Commission to think how they would feel if this
type of project were to be placed in their neighborhood. Submitted a document signed by other
interested residents. Spoke to height and bulk of the project. Doesn't meet the intent of the Design
Standards. The project is not compatible with mass, bulk and scale of existing development.
Concerned with the original design that it was a big box. Have taken a floor off, but still appears as
a big box, without the types of architectural features you would find in a transitional area. One-story
buildings will be flanking the project on either side. Height and mass should be addressed
sympathetically to nearby development. Guidelines encourage a dialog between residents and the
developer. Project appears to be moving forward without engaging the neighbors. Have yet to find
one neighbor in support of the project. Everyone is in favor of having a say in what occurs along
California Drive. If the Commission deems it appropriate to approve the amendment, there are still
many issues that the neighbors have with the proposed project design. It is still a huge box; it
impacts the "environmental quality rights" of the neighbors. Will affect scenic resources (the
Eucalyptus trees on California Drive). Would create a new source of light and glare. Would place
added burden on infrastructure. Mechanical noises of a 24-hour operation would be an impact.
Since 2005, traffic and noise have increased due to merger of Fire Department, and added "baby
bullet train" service. The mass, bulk and character of the proposed project are inconsistent with the
neighborhood. Proposal does not follow Commercial Design Guidelines for transitional land -uses.
Requires commercial building to have massing handled carefully. Should not be built to maximum
height limit when adjacent to residential land -uses. Supports strong and prosperous businesses on
California Drive, but project not appropriate for the area. Would be more suitable for north
Burlingame. Please consider how the proposed General Plan amendment would benefit the
Burlingame, and not just the developer. Noted earlier comments that having an area to walk around
is necessary. California Drive is not a pedestrian -friendly street; the outdoor deck was removed
from the project design. The quality of life of the residents will be affected by the project design.
The fire station is a required function for the area, this project is not needed. Putting through an
amendment for the specific purpose of benefitting one developer is inappropriate. Community
needs to be involved in developing a plan for the area. Do not exclude the neighbors from the
process. Do not believe that the area between Burlingame Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue is an
appropriate location for non-commercial uses. Placing the residential use on the property is an
unsafe place for this type of use. The Blue Ribbon Cleaners would be next door to a building under
construction; the mess will affect the business. Would be problematic to keep the business running
during construction. Need to keep the area commercial oriented. Consider the facility to be a
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
residential use. Seems like in the last few years, homes are being torn down, multi -family units built
with a lot more people living in them. Contributing to garbage, pollution, traffic, etc. Why are all of
the residential uses being eliminated? Likes the uses that are already present on the street. The
existing businesses have few employees. The City has a tendency to look at number of parking
spaces for residential uses. Why does City not require enough parking for commercial uses. There
is a lot of training that occurs at the fire department that impacts parking and traffic. This use will
not help. Should have a lot more parking. Doesn't think a 35-foot building is appropriate for the
area. How many employees will be needed? Concerned with how many people would be going in
and out of the facility. Summarized a letter from residents at 716 Neuchatel Avenue; referred to a
"future general development plan". Greatest concern is that there is no plan for the area; bad timing
for this proposal. How will we plan for future generations? What is the rush for the project to move
forward? Want to be sure that there is compliance with the General Plan, story poles are erected,
light and noise impacts are assessed, etc. Isn't clear that all of the Commissioner's comments have
been addressed by the scaled -down project. Is the Commission satisfied with the amount of
outside area? Along California Drive, would like to see the storefronts remain. Perhaps stipulate
that the street level maintains a storefront. The project does not belong in this part of town.
Concern regarding "spot zoning". Next area for a specific plan should be Broadway and the
California Drive corridor. Could not conceive of placing a loved -one in a facility of this design and
location. A very active fire station and train station in the area. California Drive is the principle
access to downtown Burlingame. Its development should be planned, rather than backed into. The
area deserves a specific plan. Should try to determine what we want our city to look like for the
future. Taking action on the basis of this application could set the tone for future development
along California Drive. A specific plan would avoid that result. Consistency is the hallmark of good
planning and zoning. No evidence that the absence of a residential reference in the General Plan
was an oversight. Project is inconsistent with the surrounding development. Foolish to initiate the
environmental review process until it is determined if the use will be permitted in the area. Consider
what is good for the residents and the community. The City is expending a lot of money to have
staff evaluate the project. Look at all of the neighbors who are opposed. There is a lot of traffic
with board and care facilities. If approved, should it be restricted to Burlingame residents. Asked if
the use is residential or commercial; is it custodial, assisted care, board and care? What type of
use is it? What kind of elderly care is to be provided?
Commission comments:
■ Include an analysis of existing noise conditions at property lines at nighttime.
■ Conduct an evaluation of ratios of outdoor space to patient count when compared to other similar
facilities.
■ Evaluate comings and goings of visitors and staff.
■ Evaluate light and glare impacts.
■ Evaluate noise impacts.
■ Consider affect of having such a large structure next to residential uses.
■ Asked if there is some way for this project to contribute some life to California Drive. What are the
impacts of providing commercial uses at the ground level? Commercial uses could add some life to
the street. The applicant was requested to look at uses that enhance pedestrian activity to the
project.
■ Provide a visual simulation showing perspectives of the project from other properties, and not just
from California Drive.
■ Study employee parking.
■ Asked the neighbors to reflect on what the real issue is; the code allows for a 35' building at that
location. What use would you like to see there?
IN
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 28, 2008
■ The facades need a lot of work. The roof detail needs to be more prominent. Lack of porosity at
ground level. Front of building needs more study as it relates to California Drive. Lacking in detail
and repetitive.
■ Could be beneficial as a facility for independent living that would contribute to the community and to
the businesses.
■ Story poles will be critical to see impacts.
■ Building frontage could be enhanced by something that at least mimics mixed use (mock
storefronts, openings into building from street); front of the building should be more porous at street
level. More focus should be given to the relationship between the front fagade and the street.
■ Acknowledge that the design is still preliminary.
■ Facades still need a lot of work; northwest elevation is monotonous and repetitive.
■ Roof detail needs to be better articulated and more prominent.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Staff was directed to pass along a summary of the scoping hearing comments to the environmental
consultant to consider when preparing the environmental evaluation for the proposed project.
This item concluded at 11:42 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Reminded the Commission of the upcoming appeal hearing scheduled for May 5, 2008 before the
City Council regarding 3066 Hillside Drive.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 21, 2008:
None
FYI: 1537 Howard Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved design review project:
Accepted.
FYI: 1473 Cortez Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved design review project:
Pulled for discussion.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Vice -Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 11:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
19