HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.12.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
February 12, 2007
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the February 12, 2007, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Vistica
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Lisa
Whitman; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 22, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were reviewed. Commissioner clarified for the Sisters of Mercy
project on page 8, in condition 11 where ‘agency’ is referred to it means an
individual in the employ of the Sisters of Mercy or Mercy High School hired
to oversee the event, not the leasee. Commissioners agreed to the
clarification. Commissioner Osterling moved approval of the minutes. C.
Terrones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and
Vistica absent) on a voice vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe introduced Lisa Whitman
to the Commission. Lisa is the newest member of the Planning Staff and is
covering her first Planning Commission meeting tonight.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, commented on the FYI items on tonight’s agenda;
there are 7 FYI's on the agenda, good to see builders taking the design
requirements seriously, one even resulted from an architectural framing
inspection; two requests are not minor: 1450 Bernal, which is a new spec
house, not asking a minor change to façade, had a similar request on a house
at 2112 Easton last year and Commission made them install the trim, new
houses are larger than old and need all the trim. 2209 Hillside, also a spec
house, the house is very plain and changes are being requested to reduce the
cost, trim is important to a simple house, the inclusion of copper gutters adds
elegance, upset that the existing house on the lot was demolished without a
permit, before at 110 Clarendon owner asked to change the garage door to
save money and Commission said no. Asked about whether the story poles
were installed at 1501 Los Montes. Commissioners noted that they had been
installed.
C. Osterling noted that after the Commission’s action, he received a letter
from the Sisters of Mercy at home this week which notified him of the
contact numbers on their site for neighbors to use, and encouraging people to
call if there is a problem.
There were no further comments from the floor. This item concluded at 7:05
p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
2
VI. STUDY ITEMS Chair Brownrigg noted that there were no Study Items this evening. He then
asked the Commissioners if they had visited all the sites of projects on the
calendar tonight. All Commissioners indicated that they had visited all the
sites.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on
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.
1a. 1592 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE ON-SITE PARKING (JAMES MCFALL,
MCFALL ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREG AND LYNNE MCVEY,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
1b. 1538 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND REAR
SETBACK FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
NANCY BLACHMAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
1c. 1501 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TIFFANY AND
GUS KINIRIS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (47
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There
were no requests to remove an item from the audience or staff. C. Auran noted that there was a letter
regarding item lc at their desk but he had spoken to these particular property owners today and wanted to
share his information. Chair Brownrigg noted that, since he was required to recuse himself from item 1a, he
would divide the consent calendar into two actions. The first action would be on items 1b, 1538 Burlingame
Avenue and 1c, 1501 Los Montes Drive.
C. Osterling noted that the story poles were installed at 1501 Los Montes and none of the neighbors had
commented that their views were affected, he then moved to approve items 1b, 1538 Burlingame Avenue,
and 1c, 1501 Los Montes, on the consent calendar based on the facts in each staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent).
Appeal procedures were advised.
Chair Brownrigg then recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the property at 1592 Columbus
Avenue, passed the gavel to Vice Chair Deal, stepped down from the dais and left the chambers.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
3
TEM
Vice Chair Deal asked if any Commissioner had a comment. C. Auran noted that he was at the site today
and spoke to the neighbors who had written the letter asking to review plans. They discussed the driveway,
window placement, hours of construction, and told him that because of their better understanding and review
of the plans, and with the assurance that the project would be built to the plans submitted and to be
approved, they would withdraw their objection.
Vice Chair Deal called for a motion. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in
the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions
in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining; Cers.
Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
Chair Brownrigg returned to the dais and took his seat. Vice Chair Deal returned the gavel to Chair
Brownrigg.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION I
2. 1221 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND
DETACHED GARAGE (BRET AND SUZANNE BOTTARINI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. ZT Whitman presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, and
Brett Bottarini, property owner, presented the project and responded to questions from Commissioners,
stating that: they did not know that 9'-0" was a maximum plate height; property owner wants heavy crown
above windows and doors with space to ceiling; neighboring house has 9' plate heights upstairs and 10' plate
heights downstairs; intended design of porch was to be plain, country/dollhouse style and not craftsman;
porch was modeled after a similar design on Ralston.
Comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Not unreasonable to bring plate height down;
house is overbearingly large; extensive hardscape with nothing to soften the size of the house; a street tree
should be required to help mitigate the size of the house, especially when adjacent to another maximum-
sized house.
Commissioner comments during the public hearing: the plate heights are still too high; head heights are also
too high; style of columns on porch is not appropriate or aesthetically pleasing, lacks character; columns
look oddly home-made; a more craftsman-style porch would enhance the design while the porch on the
current plans does not; vertical columns on the porch could break the line and give it a more substantial feel;
as proposed, the porch has a dollhouse feel with pickets; and the design of columns and guardrail on the
porch could use more work to make it look more substantial. There were no further comments. The public
hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
4
Commission commented: Disagreement regarding whether plate heights need to be lowered; something
needs to be done with porch; the reason for establishing design review was that there was growing
community concern regarding the size of houses; design review allows property owners to maximize size of
house but they have to show how they're going to design it to reduce massing, plate heights are a key factor;
a desire for crown molding inside is not a good enough reason to increase plate heights; concern that house
will be massive once built; Commissioners should hold to 8'-1" (second floor) and 9'-0" (first floor) plate
height standards; the proposed house is too layered, from the guardrail to the porch to the plate heights; the
plate heights are fine since there is precedent for them in the neighborhood; house looks nice the way it is;
the porch does not fit the house; if the design is OK not every guideline needs to be followed; and lowering
the plate heights in the house by 6" won't make a significant difference.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions,
including changing the first floor plate height to 9'-0", the second floor plate height to 8'-1", and improving
the porch by eliminating the pickets and proposing a more craftsman architectural style, have been
addressed, the plans checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C.
Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans
had been revised as directed by the Commission and contained in the motion. The motion passed on a voice
vote 3-2-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Osterling dissenting; Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
3. 2536 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (ROBERT AND DIERDRE SHAW, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; DAVID ULDRICK, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (40 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. ZT Whitman presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff
when the Beautification Commission's "Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes" were adopted.
CA Anderson stated they were adopted in February of 2006. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, architect, 307 South B Street, San Mateo, and
Dierdre Shaw, property owner, stated: objections to the basis for the project being brought before the
Planning Commission since the Hillside Area Construction Permit (HACP) code states that review by the
Commission "shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views" and the
neighbor's reasons for calling this project up for review were not related to construction; that Planning
Commission review of this project shows the system is broken; this process has created an unfair financial
burden on the applicant; applicant is disappointed in city and neighbors that a project for a two foot addition
to a kitchen can be brought before the Planning Commission on these grounds; the HACP process needs to
be more fair to both applicants and neighbors; the neighbor who called this project before the Planning
Commission cut down several eucalyptus trees in their backyard which impacted applicant's privacy.
Comments from the floor: Grace Ngai, 2669 Martinez Drive. Acknowledged disappointment of neighbor
because she experienced same frustration when seeking approval for a proposed addition to her house
several years ago; two of the eleven conditions of approval for her project dealt with tree maintenance
issues; she cut down the trees because, as part of the HACP process, she was required to trim them and it
was discovered they were unhealthy; she had asked applicant to trim her trees and the applicant refused.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
5
Commissioner comments during the public hearing: requested CA Anderson brief Commissioners on
whether they are required to accept an appeal; CA Anderson stated that anyone may appeal and there is no
requirement for a person to state grounds for appeal; the HACP process is the only opportunity neighbors
have to have the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and look at proposed application; based on the
HACP criteria the only item before the Commission tonight is the blockage of distant views created by
construction of addition. Repeating issues from the past does not help address the applicant's project;
significant differences between 2669 Martinez and 2536 Valdivia projects, particularly that 2669 Martinez
tree requirements were imposed to compensate neighbors for views lost because of the size of the new
construction proposed; "Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes" were developed specifically for
this type of issue between neighbor; guidelines outline a process that is clearly laid out, allows for dialogue
between neighbors, and allows for mediation if an agreement cannot be reached; and the tree issue is not a
Planning Commission issue. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved to approve the hillside area construction permit application, by resolution, with the
following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped February 2, 2007, sheets A0 through A4; 2) that any changes to the footprint,
floor area, or building envelope shall require an amendment to this hillside area construction permit; 3) that
during demolition of or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site, 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; 4) that demolition for 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; and 5) 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. The motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the hillside area construction permit. The
motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
4. 1251 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (LILY LI,
APPLICANT; CLEMENT YEN, TOYO COMPANY, DESIGNER; K.J. NICKMEY LLC, PROPERTY
OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the
proceedings. He left the chambers.
Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ken Toy, applicant, and Clement Yen, designer, stated: all the
changes that Commission requested at their last meeting have been made; the unlabeled room next to the
restroom is used for storage and is also a fire exit for the salon next door; venting of the garbage room will
be up to roof not through the wall.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
6
Commission comments during the public hearing: expressed appreciation for removing the graffiti; like
how the garbage issue was solved; if planter boxes are not professionally maintained project can be brought
back before the Commission; need to clarify with Fire Department that storage can be in neighboring salon's
fire exit. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
C. Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, adding a condition that the applicant must vet
the use of the salon's fire exit for storage with the Fire Department before issuance of a building permit, with
the following conditions: 1) that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment,
with 530 SF of on-site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food
service upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment; the criteria for the new
classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 2) that the applicant shall confirm with the
Fire Department that the area adjacent to the restrooms shown on the approved plans can be used for storage
and does not interfere with the neighboring tenant's use of that space for fire egress purposes; 3) that the
conditions of the City Engineer’s January 29, 2007 and October 5, 2006 memos, the Chief Building
Official's January 26, 2007, December 19, 2006 and October 6, 2006, memos, the Recycling Specialist’s
October 16, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 29, 2007, December 20, 2006 and October 2, 2006
memos and the NPDES Coordinator’s January 29, 2007 and October 3, 2006 memos shall be met; 4) that
proposed garbage room shall have a tile floor, washable walls 6’ high, an exhaust fan to the roof and the
floor drain in the garbage room shall be connected to a new grease trap before being discharged to the City’s
sewer line; 5) 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; 6) that prior to scheduling the
framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural
certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the
approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor
shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department; 7) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city
consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the
building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 8) that the
business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all
frontages of the business; 9) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery
of prepared food from this premise; 10) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a
window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 11) that this full service food establishment
may be open seven days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of 2 full-time employees
and 3 part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 12) that no
banner shall be used per Title 22 Sign Code Section 22.48.080 and the applicant shall obtain Planning and
Building permits for all signage; 13) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail
or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall
become void; 14) that the project shall provide adequate filtering and venting to avoid dissemination of
odors on neighboring properties; 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that
failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect
any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 16) that the project shall be built
as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 24, 2007, floor plan and
garbage room details, December 18, 2006, site plan and ceiling plan, and that the 530 SF area of on-site
seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the
tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; and that all planters shall be regularly
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
7
maintained by a professional garden service contracted for by the business operator. The motion was
seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-2
(C. Deal recused; Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
8:05 p.m.
C. Deal returned to chambers and took his seat on the dias.
5. 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR MASTER
SIGN PROGRAM FOR FOX PLAZA MALL (SIGN AND SIGN AGAIN, APPLICANT; TOLU
FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked is
it correct that with the new sign code that the Subcommittee is working on the height limitation on signage
will be changed so this variance would not be required? CP commented yes. How else would the new code
differ? The amount of sign area allowed per tenant would be about the same, however, the number of signs
would increase and window label type signs would be allowed in addition to wall sign allocation. There
were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jason Tolu, property owner, and Rob Jacklin, Sign and Sign
Again, presented the project, showed examples of ‘push through’ and brushed aluminum signs, type of signs
used by ‘gold plated’ clients like Coach, important to note that there is a front and back to Fox Mall, want to
have signage for 6 main tenants, total 69 SF, all signs will be removed except the ‘Gala’ sign on the
Burlingame street frontage, this sign will visually match the proposed signage; the two wooden Fox Plaza
Mall signs will be removed. Commissioners asked: from the plans its looks like the fonts on the proposed
signs on Burlingame Avenue are different sizes? why do you need such large signs on the sides at the rear?
why are you not including the names of all the tenants? like the wooden signs, why not keep them? Will all
signs be identical? The applicants responded: the size of the signs on the inside are different size but all
the signs on the front are intended to be the size shown on the plans and have uniform type; the city granted
a previous permission for the size of sign on the sides and rear, tenants enjoy that and did not want to
change, sides at rear are very large and need signs which fill the area; height proposed on the rear side is to
get visibility from the nearby parking lots; names on the rear side are limited to those tenants who have
representation there now; wooden signs are hard to light and would like a more modern look for the Fox
Plaza Mall, if the signs can be removed in one piece will offer them to the Historical Society; some of the
logos on push through signs will need to be translucent or they will not read with back lighting. There were
no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: Agree with the sign program; can’t agree with the variance request it’s a deal
for the tenants who have the biggest signs, in the Safeway discussion want to make Fox Plaza Lane
pedestrian oriented this works against that end, could do a better program with less size.
C. Osterling moved to approve the master sign program and sign variances based on the fact that this would
be a pleasant addition to the Burlingame Avenue frontage, disagree about the signage on the rear of the
building, the lighting of these signs will be subtle, agreeable after a project is built on the Safeway site; these
are needed for the situation today, by resolution with findings in the record for the variances and with the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
8
following conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped January 30, 2007, elevations and details 11" x 17", and date stamped October
30, 2006, site plan 11" x 17"; including two illuminated 7’-8” x 9’ “push through” style wall signs (one at
the front elevation and one at the rear elevation), an illuminated 2’ x 8’ channel letter sign at the front
elevation, five non-illuminated channel letter signs at the front elevation and four non-illuminated signs at
the right and left side elevations and there shall be no window or other signage on the site; 2) that any
increase in the number, type, or area of the signs on the sites, shall require an amendment to the master sign
program; 3) that any increase in the number or area of the signs on the primary frontage, which exceed the
sign code requirements in effect at the time of application, shall require an amendment to this sign variance;
4) that the sign shall be permanently attached to the stucco wall of the building at 1419 Burlingame Avenue,
Fox Plaza Mall, by a means approved by the Building Department; 5) that any improvements for the use
shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The
motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Comment on the motion: when considered the variances noted that this building is different than others in
the area, most just have a front on the street, this one has front, rear and sides; sign at the rear will begin 12’-
8” off the ground, 7’-8” taller, its maximum height is about 20 feet the alley is only 10’ to 12’ wide, so this
sign will only be visible to people in the parking lot, those driving by will not be able to see it since it will
be above the roof of the car; note that the application is within the total gross square footage allowed, why
do we care how it is proportioned on the site? This application requires 6 variances; yes, but 3 go away if
you remove the 12 foot height limitation; under the current code can reduce the size of the sign and still
have it over 12 feet and the variance will go away, they want the biggest sign possible to the detriment of the
business district; if the signs are bigger on the sides and rear, they are smaller on the front; one way to look
at it is if we don’t want big signs on the front, we allowed them on the rear; this program will not serve the
tenants well; proposed program is below the total allowed square footage, if owner wants to reallocate
among tenants to serve him and them better he is allowed to do so, the existing parking lot toward El
Camino is some distance away need to read the sign from there without problem; half the variances for this
project will not be required with the new sign code; need to vote no on this application because feel that this
signage program is not in keeping with the style of the building.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the master signage program including
variances for exceeding the maximum square footage above 12 feet for the rear, right and left elevations of
the building. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 ( Cers. Auran, Brownrigg dissenting, Cers. Cauchi, Vistica
absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m.
6. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED SL – APPLICATION FOR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE CHANGE IN OPERATION OF A
CAR RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; VANGUARD
R/E HOLDINGS, LLC) (11 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, applicant, 216 Park Road, noted: the existing
business has been operating well within permit requirements with approximately 25% of the cars onsite that
they are permitted for; almost relocated to South San Francisco but those plans fell through and now they're
in the process of looking for a new site in the Burlingame area; requested removal of a condition of approval
regarding expanding and redesigning a narrow section of the Bay Trail because the lot conditions and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
9
existing building configurations cannot accommodate any widening of the trail; customers are now able to
walk in and rent a car; the also serve the nearby hotels from this site. Commissioner noted walk-in
customers can rent a car from the site. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the permit extension for two years and amending condition 11 to remove any
trail expansion requirements, by resolution and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 3, 2003, sheets
A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, A2.1, and A22.1, site plan, partial site plan, second floor-administration, and building C
floor plan, kiosk floor plan and reflected ceiling plan; 2) that the car rental, maintenance and storage facility
may be open for business from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., seven days a week , and that there shall be no more
an 50 employees and 25 customers on-site at any one time; 3) that there shall be a maximum of 600 cars
stored on the site at any one time, this number shall include cars that are on-site for maintenance and there
shall be a maximum of 2 car carriers on-site to deliver vehicles at any one time; 4) that no trucks delivering
or picking up cars at this site shall arrive or depart between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m. daily, and all such deliveries shall be made on-site with no impact on the public street or right-of-way;
5) that the required number of handicap stalls for employees and/or customers shall be provided and
designated at 778 Burl way Road as per the California Building Code, 2001 edition, and all employees shall
be required to park in the 78 space employee parking lot in the southwestern portion of the site, employee
parking shall be designated and employee cars shall have sticker identifying them as belonging to employees
on-site; 6) that all employee parking shall be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the south end of
the site; 7) that the car rental operation at this site shall pay to the City of Burlingame $36,500 per year; the
annual payment shall be payable in advance no later than April 30 of each year during which this permit is
in effect. When one percent (1%) of the total gross rental for any vehicles for lease or rental originating from
this site, whether those agreements are signed in Burlingame or adjacent jurisdictions exceeds $36,500
during any calendar year, the applicant shall then pay one percent of the total gross rentals to the City of
Burlingame on a quarterly basis for the duration of the permit; this amount shall be due and payable no later
than 30 days after the end of each calendar-year quarter. For purposes of this condition, agreements for
rental from San Francisco International Airport car rental facility shall not be included in calculating the 1%
payment to the City. In addition to making the payments required by this condition (either annual/flat
amount or quarterly), the car rental operation shall file quarterly statements with the City of Burlingame
Finance Department documenting the number of vehicle rental agreements signed at the site per month
during the quarter on such forms as may be required by the City, and shall include a breakdown of the
monthly vehicle rentals from the 778 Burlway Road site. In addition, the City of Burlingame shall accrue
any sales tax revenue from rental contracts written in the City of Burlingame. Whether paying a fixed fee or
1% of the gross rental rates, the car rental operation on this site shall keep and preserve, for a period of three
years, all records as may be necessary to determine the rentals from which the one percent (1%) payment
calculation may be derived. Such records shall be available for delivery to the City for review with fifteen
(15) days after request therefore; 8) that no cars shall be loaded, unloaded or stored on any public street, in
any public right-of-way, or in any public access area; 9) that any change to the rental of cars, number of
employees, amount of auto storage, addition of services or secondary business to the site, or any other aspect
of the operation of the car rental business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; 10)
that the fire lane from the east end of the site to Burlway Road shall be provided and maintained,
unobstructed, on a permanent basis as required by the Fire and Public Works Department of the City of
Burlingame; 11) that the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the public access trail
and improvements adjacent to the subject property for the life of the project and shall be liable for any
damage caused to the pubic for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard, including that the
applicant shall remove volunteer vegetation at the narrowest point of the trail and call for an inspection by
the Planning Department within 10 days (January 21, 2005) and fill the area of vegetation removal and all
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
10
pot holes in the Bay Trail and call for an inspection by the Planning Department within 90 days (April 10,
2005); 12) that the property owner shall install and maintain on a regular basis as prescribed by the city’s
NPDES inspector, petroleum filter pillows in all parking lot catch basins throughout the site, that all water
used for washing cars on site shall be recycled by a method approved by the City Engineer, and that failure
to install these systems within 90 days of approval of this use permit amendment or failure to maintain the
effectiveness of these systems on an on-going basis shall cause this conditional use permit to be review by
the Planning Commission; 13) that this approval shall expire in two years and all said uses on the site shall
cease unless the applicant applies for a permit extension by February 22, 2009, to be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission; and 14) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building
and Fire Code, 2001 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the permit extension for two years to
February 22, 2009. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). This item
concluded at 8:50 p.m.
7. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A 25-UNIT, 7-STORY
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (PAUL BOGATSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
AND DAN IONESCU ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, ARCHITECT) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT; AND
b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP – PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fifty-one (51) conditions including the mitigations for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dan Ionescu, architect, and Paul Bogatsky, property owner,
represented the project. They reviewed the changes made to the project since the study meeting.
Commissioners asked about: a problem with the roof plan and the slope on the dormers. Concerned that this
project will be lifeless at the street level with no lobby, recreation room or living area on the ground level
which is counter to the City policy for this area. Said earlier that the exterior surface would be precaste
material, is that now the plan? Will foam molding be used, not see note on plans? The detail of the front
elevation is key, so it is important to know the size of the materials uses like metal railings, cement or brick
decking etc. the plans do not show the detail/size of these elements, why? Would like to see less stucco, are
the windows metal cased wood, need windows to be deeper set to increase the shadow line on plain façade
(need to know dimension); how big are the knee braces, what is the area with hatch lines under the windows,
need to know how it will look, articulation, what the shadow lines will be. For example what are the
decorations on either side of the front door, should be identified and their size noted, this is like a single
family house, need to know what is being proposed so can determine if it is appropriate. Building looks
plain, need to see how trees will soften, see a lot of tan stucco and not much roof, not exciting. Should do
additional work on the entry, now mostly trim and detail, need structural change; are the rear two parking
ramps covered? this deck area could be used as outdoor area by the residents of the building, can this be
done? How much of the common open space was lost with the reconfiguration of the driveways and parking
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
11
spaces and aisles? Change of the materials on the front elevation and lowering the roof would help the
entry. Architect responses to questions: yes, missed the beginning of the dormer and it can be corrected
without raising the height of the overall roof; exterior surface will be stucco not pre-caste material; there
will be foam molding with 3 coats of stucco finish on top which is fire rated; building will be Type II fire
rated, the concrete edge of the decks will have stucco look; the decorations on either side of the front door
are lights; intend to develop design as it is represented here with minor adjustments for building permit
submittal, this is a type II building so will have brackets of wood or ceramic; can add notes about detail, not
change design; the rear two parking ramps are not covered because to do so would require a variance; yes
the ramps could be covered and the area put to some use for the future residents with a variance, would be a
problem with access from this area to the common open space because of the location of the 12 foot wide
driveway and the size of the podium requiring two exit stairs, but possible; about 1,000 SF of common open
space was removed to widen the driveways and fix parking dimensions.
Continued public hearing comments: CA noted that because the applicant applied under the previous
zoning, design review is not required as a part of the zoning in this case, but is required as a part of the
consistency with the general plan, so if the project is approved, the commission would not see it again;
normally applicants submit a material board so that the Commission is more aware of how what they see
will look when completed, this proposal’s approach could be a problem for the Building plan check to know
whether what is submitted was the size and materials approved. Applicant noted that there was no
requirement for a materials board, adding details just adds time to the architects work and is not an
advantage at the schematic plan stage. Commissioner noted that in the minutes of the last meeting on this
item Commission asked the applicant to add notes on the size of trim, illustrations, etc., was not done. There
were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comments: On whole pretty good but agree that more detail is needed on the plans, see more
detail on single family houses than provided here, for example, how big are the knee braces proposed, the
canopy over then entry should be reconsidered it is presently 31 feet in the air over the entry, project is
approvable except for the absence of details; agree want more detail so that the commission knows what it is
approving; project is close but not there – a materials board would help, would like to consider a variance
for covering the rear ramps to create useable open space and a better living environment for the residents
and neighbors, the enclosure would not affect the neighbors and would even enhance their properties, could
cover wall with planters and climbing vines; preferred the original entry with the stairs to the first floor
because it increased the sense of activity from this property along Trousdale, know that this requires a
variance but it brings the building to the street and announces the true front door. Could support both of
those variances, the unique condition on this site is the sewer easement which causes this major building to
be moved over on the site and moved out of the ground, early on had concern about landscaping on the
podium, putting living areas at grade causes a parking problem, need to bring people up to the living space,
need some life on the street, variance findings could also include that the parking cannot go any deeper,
could remove the extra 5 parking spaces and add a lobby and/or recreation space at the ground level.
Chair Brownrigg made a motion to continue this project to the action calendar when the applicant has
revised the plans based on the guidance of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by C.
Terrones.
Comment on the motion: for the entrance like the idea of the variances for replacement of the stairs also the
enclosed driveway at the rear, would provide a nice useable space at the rear, not supportive of the removal
of the extra five parking spaces, feel that there is a real need for more detailing on the design and
identification of the building materials including a materials board.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
12
.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the action on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, project proposal and tentative map, and to bring the application back to the Commission on the
action calendar when the architect has made the changes to the plans, staff has plan checked them, and there
is space on the Commission agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica
absent). Because the action was continued the Commission’s action is not subject to appeal. This item
concluded at 9:35 p.m.
IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 815 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEVEN RANDEL, CALIFORNIA HOME PLANS, INC., APPLICANT
AND ARCHITECT; PAT DELCHIARO, PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Steven Randel, architect, presented the project and explained
how efforts were made to: reduce mass; break up roof pitch with dormers and gables; select simple asphalt
roof shingles for economy; design a simple cottage style house; and carefully select divided lite vinyl
windows after researching wood options as advised by planner. The architect responded to questions from
Commissioners, stating that: garage door and all windows throughout house will be replaced; did not want
the elevations to get too busy with multiple materials; worked to avoid a heavy eave because it would not be
compatible with other houses in the neighborhood.
Other public comment: David Wilkins, 811 Laurel; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Way. Rear elevation seems
heavy and overbearing, especially with the bay window; more landscaping would help screen the left and
right elevations. A good design but seems large and heavy overall; do not use vinyl windows with interior
grid mold inside because they don't last; maintenance on wood windows is less than that for vinyl windows;
and the advice Commissioner's provide will yield a better house at the end of the process. There were no
other comments from the floor. The public comment period was closed.
In their discussion the Commissioner's noted the following:
The stone veneer is nice, but there is a lot of stucco surface. Generally, more materials need to be
added to the design. For example, consider a vertical wood siding (like the existing house has), a
water table trim, or continuing the stone veneer around to the side of the house. These details would
soften the front and rear. (Whether stone veneer is extended or not, the plans should show more
clearly where it ends).
Exposed rafter detail could also add texture to the elevation, as opposed to boxed eaves.
A front porch has been nicely added, but there is a confluence of roofs there. Hold front porch roof
back and extend wall down on that side.
Wood windows have a richness, depth, and feel that vinyl does not have. Vinyl windows do not
weather well.
Overall, these types of houses are difficult to put additions on but this particular proposal appears
long and boxy, and has a "warehouse look". Nothing says "great house". Would like to see more
articulation and massing.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
13
A good example of what can be done for this project can be found at a house on the corner of Laurel
and Morell that has recently had a second floor addition constructed. 816 Park is also a good
example, particularly of vertical wood finish.
Oval window on front elevation is nice, but round vents on front elevation overdo it. Rectangular
wood vents would look better than round vinyl vents. Leave the vents because they add nice detail,
just revise the design.
A handrail is required on the front porch because of the four risers. Try to get it down to three by
working with the adjacent grade so that a handrail is not required.
Show a header.
Add a base or trim to the posts on the porch.
Consider shutters on the front elevation of the house; would help the design immensely.
Increasing the eave overhang could enhance the design.
Show the gutters on the plans.
The rear elevation is too massive, and is made bulkier by the stucco, short eaves, and round bents.
There is opportunity to incorporate more style into the proposed design.
The mass of the house warrants a landscape plan; include vertical elements and automatic irrigation.
Not every window of the house needs to be divided lite; double-hung windows could work well with
this style and could simplify the elevations.
A spark arrestor on the chimney would enhance the design by adding detail.
For the garage door, look at craftsman-style doors that are made to look like carriage doors.
C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer the item to a design review consultant and bring the
project back on the action calendar when the design review process is complete and plans have been revised
and plan checked as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-2 (C. Osterling dissented; Cers.
Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:05 p.m.
9. 1477 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SEAN AND ERICA CAFFERKEY/BART AND
CAROL GAUL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JACK MCCARTHY, JACK
MCCARTHY DESIGNER, INC., DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA
WHITMAN
ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack McCarthy, designer, responded to questions from the
Commissioners: a metal rail was proposed for the front porch for simplicity and to work well with the curve
of the porch; willing to add a base trim on the right and left sides to provide a break in the wood siding; will
consider adding a pitch to the flat roof area; the applicant understands the impact their design choices will
have on the cost but feel the investment is worth it.
Other public comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Way. Will C&G Construction be working on both 1473
Cortez and 1477 Cortez at the same time? Can they share a dumpster and debris removal? Can the
dumpster be located some place other than on Adeline Drive? The designer responded that they could locate
the dumpster on Cortez, but he could not confirm construction and demolition of the two projects would
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
14
occur at the same time and therefore could not guarantee debris removal could be coordinated. There were
no other comments from the floor. The public comment period was closed.
Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioner's noted the following:
Like the round elements. Design pays attention to both frontages and has lots of merit.
Add water table trim to break up flow of building into ground, or a base trim on right and left sides
to break up the face of the wood siding. Landscaping would also cover it.
Removing the railing on the porch would provide openness, but could be left on for safety purposes.
Concerned about gable and bay at front. Out of character with simplicity of front.
Mixed feelings about inverted finial. Some Commissioners felt it was a positive element to the
design while others felt it was not.
Diminutive gable at top of left elevation doesn't fit.
Flat roof in rear will look like a mistake when built, but pitching it might make the roof come too
close to the trim.
Confirm owner has budgeted for the cost of construction. Some elements expensive, but also very
important to the design. Would not want to see this project come back to the Commission with FYIs
because of cost concerns during construction.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions
have been made and plan checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by
C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed by the Commission and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice
vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:20p.m.
10. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR A BASEMENT (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOE
AND JULIA MCVEIGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA
WHITMAN
ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, and Joe McVeigh,
property owner submitted a revised rendering of the project; noted applicant will work with neighbor at 333
Occidental to retain the fence and existing hedge; showed sample of the roof material that will not be bright
orange tile; and displayed streetscape that showed the proposed house in relation to the neighboring houses.
The architect and applicant responded to Commissioner's questions that: the planter boxes on the left
elevation, balcony, and arched element at the front of the building will all be precaste; there is so much
hardscape because they wanted a functional garage with an on-site turn-around area at the rear so that they
could exit the driveway in a forward direction; a large second-story patio of is not necessary but was
included in the design to create the outdoor patio area with fireplace on the ground floor; would be willing
to eliminate balustrade and provide partial tile roof.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
15
Other Public Comment: Robert Beaudreau, 333 Occidental Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue.
The plans look nice and have interest in keeping the hedge and wooden fence along the right side of project
area; not in favor of the second story deck that would decrease privacy on neighboring property. It is a well-
designed house that, although mansion-sized, would fit nicely into the streetscape; and suggested the trees
by the pool be removed because they would be messy. There were no further comments from the floor. The
public comment was closed.
Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioners noted the following items:
On paper, the proposed project seems like a lot for the neighborhood. After visiting the site, it does
not appear to be too much for the setting. It is an eclectic neighborhood with a lot of dramatic
houses. This project would add to fabric of the neighborhood. House fits well with neighborhood
and the lot can handle its size. Other big houses in the neighborhood save the proposed design.
Add more landscaping and decrease the amount of impervious material. The backyard is a sea of
pavers that should be broken up with more lawn area and a tree between the driveway and patio.
Find a substitute for the proposed Italian cypress. They will push into the space and their form is not
consistent with the area.
The house is too massive and belongs on a property twice the size. The lot cannot carry a house of
this size and design. It is immensely bigger than any of the projects that led to the implementation
of the design review process.
Concerned about neighbor's privacy because of the size of the second-story balcony in the rear. Is
that balcony area needed?
The terrace area beneath the second story balcony will be cold and damp, a problem exacerbated by
the hardscape, and the balcony would add bulk. The dampness in the area below could be addressed
by radiant floor heating.
The pool equipment needs to be enclosed and very well insulated so that the neighbors are not
affected by noise.
Concerned about the giant fountain monoliths around the pool and the visual impact they will have
on neighbors.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested
revisions, including reducing the size of the second story balcony and adding plants at the groundline of the
house along the driveway, have been addressed, the plans checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda.
This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed by the Commission and contained in the motion. The motion passed on a voice
vote 4-1-2 (C. Deal dissenting; Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
11. 1110 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG AND DIANE
HAUPT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS,
ARCHITECT) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
16
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road stated: uniquely shaped lot
with the curved front lot line set 7'-6" back from sidewalk; although a variance is required for encroachment
into the front setback the modest additions to the front of the house will have minimal impact on the
streetscape; when developing the proposed plans, experimented with unique elements on the broad left
elevation to enhance the design but those were not effective. The architect responded to Commissioner's
questions that: all windows will be replaced throughout and there will be a new garage door; experimented
with the left elevation and found that more detail made it look squat; challenging to break up the left
elevation and in the end tried to keep it simple; and will carry the front porch beam back around the wall
onto the right elevation, as suggested.
Other public comments: Martha McCormick, 1530 Meadow Lane. She can see six homes outside her rear
window and if they all do additions like this she'll feel boxed in; has concerns regarding the long-term
impact on the neighborhood should more neighbors put additions on their homes; does not want to make this
project difficult for neighbors. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioners noted the following:
Nice job on design; front elevation is scaled nicely and project proposes good use of materials. Porch
is a positive element and the request for variance is well substantiated.
Please edit plans to clarify 2" x 6" rafters are proposed, not 2" x 16".
Will all windows be replaced throughout? Will there be a new garage door?
The left elevation is large and broad with no clear style. Add detail to bring down the scale of the
face of the left elevation.
Add a diamond window to break up space on blank right elevation, to kitchen wall face.
There is a tricky transition on the right portion of the roof over the porch. On the right elevation on
the porch beam to side, there's really nothing there.
A balustrade, not just a handrail, is needed on the porch since it's greater than 30" high.
Landscaping in rear of lot may help address neighbor's concerns by providing some of shielding the
addition.
Both side elevations are quite prominent because of the lot proportions and location. Greenery on
both sides would help. Add landscaping, including large-scale trees and shrubs, to both sides of the
house to address side elevations. Those vertical elements would help screen the side elevations.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested
revisions, including enhancing the landscaping with large-scale trees and shrubs on the left and right sides of
the house, have been addressed, plan checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed by the Commission and included in the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote
5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.
This item concluded at 11:05p.m.
X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
- Requirements for Plan Submittals for Current Planning Projects.
CP Monroe discussed with the commission what items that they felt they needed on plans, suggesting
that a full discussion of this be referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Among the items
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
17
noted were that isometric drawings should not be included in the approved plans, the amount of detail matters
and the size of the detail items is important, that streetscapes are valuable and there should be some guidelines
about them, there was some discussion about the validity of the images presented by some approaches; like to
see a landscape plan, expectation for landscape plan needs to be better defined.
- League of California Cities, Planning Department Meeting, March 21-23, 2007.
Two commissioners, Deal and Vistica, have expressed an interest in attending this year’s League of
California Cities Planning Department meeting. CP Monroe reported on the budget allocation and asked if any
one else was interested in attending. Commission determined that Commissioners Deal and Vistica would
represent them this year. The meeting is to be held March 21-23, staff will assist in registration.
- FYI: Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project – location and process for reviewing public art.
CP Monroe noted that the city has adopted a public art process and it falls to the Commission who
oversees the project to select the public art. In the case of the Hospital, the Planning Commission provides the
oversight. Project manager has asked the City to provide guidance regarding the process for selecting the art
required in vicinity of the parking garage. Cers. Brownrigg and Deal volunteered to be on a subcommittee to
work with the hospital Project Manager. The process would begin with this subcommittee but the selection
would include the full Commission and probably the City Council as well.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- City Council regular meeting of February 5, 2007.
CP Monroe noted that the City Council adopted the amendment to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan, the El Camino North Zoning District regulations, and the amendment to the zoning map for the El
Camino North Zoning district as recommended by the Planning Commission. She noted that there would be two
appeal hearings at the Council’s next meeting: 3 Rio Court and 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, Sisters of Mercy.
The building permit extension regulations recommended to Council by the Commission will also be introduced.
- FYI Requests
CP Monroe noted that there were seven FYI items on tonight’s agenda; and asked if any should be set over
for a public hearing and action. Commissioners noted that three of the requests appeared to be diminished as a result
of the requested changes and set them over for action hearings: 1136 Oxford Avenue, 2209 Hillside Drive, and 701
Vernon which was asking to remove the shutters which was the only detail on the structure. Commissioners also
noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee might discuss the delegation of some of these decisions to
the staff in the field at the time of final inspection, rather than FYI’s on minor changes. The CA noted that the three
projects which were carried over to action hearings could always build the projects as they were originally
approved, and avoid the additional processing step. It was noted that some of the requests reviewed in the past
represented big changes to the appearance of the structure and need to be reviewed.
- FYI: 1136 Oxford Road – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Requested to be set for action hearing.
- FYI: 1141 Bernal Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Acknowledged change.
- FYI: 1145 Cortez Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Acknowledged change.
- FYI: 1456 Bernal Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Acknowledged change.
- FYI: 2209 Hillside Drive – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Requested to be set for action hearing
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 12, 2007
18
- FYI: 701 Vernon Way – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Requested to be set for action hearing
- FYI: Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project – location and process for reviewing public art.
This item was moved to Commissioners Reports.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Terrones, Acting Secretary
V:\MINUTES\Minutes\unapproved 02.12.07.doc