HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.29.07 PC Minutes 05.29.07 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
May 29, 2007
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Deal called the May 29, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling and Terrones
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi and Vistica
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Zoning
Technician, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior
Engineer; Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 14, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were reviewed and continued until a time when C. Brownrigg
has had the opportunity to review them, with the following changes: page 3,
third paragraph, line three, correct signification to significant; page 7, fifth
bullet from bottom, insert “and that the animal, while in the care of the SPCA,
shall be neutered when it is safe”; page 9, bottom of page, item (c), correct
plighting to lighting; page 10, item 20, inset “replaced with an equivalent
species, and before the issuance of a Building Permit, the Planning
Commission shall review the revised landscape plans as an FYI item”; page
15, item 64, remove 55 gallon and add following drums “up to 55 gallons”;
and page 17, item 75, the statement “for individual or combined construction
sites of larger than four acres” is irrelevant because the site is less than four
acres in size.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke to FYI 2212 Hillside Drive,
concerned that changes went forward as an FYI; requested that the
Commission give thought to a window instead of a door in the sunken
garden because that exit should be used only in case of an emergency.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1101 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARISA
RAMOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND ONI RAMOS, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
ZT Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
How do we know when a Building Permit is issued? In future, should notify neighborhood when a
Building Permit is issued; could discuss with Neighborhood Consistency Sub-Committee; suggest
posting schematic diagram on-site if project is up for review;
If proposal had come to the Commission before installation, Commission would have required
simulated true divided light windows; project would look better with simulated true divided light
windows;
How was a permit issued to put the windows in before it came to the Commission for review?
Would like clarification on open ended comments on sheet A-4 concerning the metal roof and posts
to be replaced; and
Would like to see a full landscape plan.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
2
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 7:15 p.m.
2. 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR REAL ESTATE USE (COLDWELL BANKER, APPLICANT; GRAY PEAK FORK LLC SERIES B,
PROPERTY OWNER; AND FARRO ESSALAT, AIA, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CDD Meeker presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
Should hold weekly meetings at the same time as they currently do;
Applicant needs to provide more information concerning the business at their current location on
Primrose Road; what is the square footage of the current space? How many parking spaces are
there on-site?, etc;
Although it will not be part of the approval, would like to see proposed signage for this site because
it is a historical building; and
Weekly meetings are the problem here; could applicant possibly hold weekly meetings elsewhere?
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 7:20 p.m.
3. 1828 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 802, ZONED ECN – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT (ELIZABETH S. ANGELES, APPLICANT; INDEPENDENT
HOLDINGS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND KEN IBARRA, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
CDD Meeker presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
Interesting that massage use has a waiting room and exam rooms; are the exam rooms the
massage rooms?
Would like to see a history on the company itself, a corporate background, including locations in
other cities, operation of facility, etc;
There will only be six people on site at any one time? doesn’t seem like enough; and
No business growth is shown on the commercial application.
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 7:25 p.m.
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.
There were no Consent Calendar items.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 1249 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT FOR
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING WOOD DECK WITH A NEW CONCRETE DECK OVER A CREEK
BED (JOHN & GAIL DISERENS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES,
DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from 5/14/07
Planning Commission meeting)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
3
Chair Deal noted that he would recuse himself from this item since he had a business relationship with the
applicant. He passed the gavel to C. Terrones, stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission commented
to staff: rinsing the concrete truck into the creek would harm the creek environment; could staff add a
condition from the Regional Water Quality Control Board?; only a small amount of concrete is proposed in
the retaining walls, which will not drain into the creek; and there are BMP’s in the code that require that
runoff from truck/machine cleaning be kept in a contained area as to not enter into the storm drain system
and therefore the creek.
C. Terrones opened the public hearing. There were no comments concerning the project and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
(1) that the new concrete deck, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped April 30, 2007, sheets 1 through 4 and landscape plan; that the proposed concrete deck
shall be located 2.4 feet above the existing redwood deck; and that any changes to building materials or
location of the deck shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the project shall comply with any
regulations or additional comments established by the California Department of Fish and Game; (3) that
tree protection measures shall be installed as to protect the Live Oak tree in the rear of the property; (4)
that no new concrete should be added in the creek during or after construction; (5) that the property owner
shall keep the portion of the creek located at 1249 Cabrillo Avenue clear of debris and shall maintain the
channel and protection structures on their property to insure free flow of the creek and to minimize erosion;
(6) that the deck shall remain independent of the retaining walls as designed, and shall be constructed to
be removable to clear debris if necessary; (7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s and Fire
Marshall’s February 15, 2007 memos, the NPDES Coordinator’s February 20, 2007 memo and the City
Engineer’s February 22, 2007 memo shall be met; (8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance
1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (9) 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. Brownrigg.
C. Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Chair Deal
abstaining and C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:35 p.m.
Chair Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
5. 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION (LINCOLN LUE, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; MARK AND AMY LIEW, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. 9 conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Liew, property owner, represented the project. He stated:
they were not trying to disregard the permit process; problem with loss of original contractor; ordered
windows did not fit, so window trim was cut; they were trying to keep within Title 24; the architect was
contacted about removal of the shutters and said to keep the house consistent in the front and back;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
4
neighbor on left side has no privacy problem with second story deck as built; and they didn’t intend to make
changes to the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented: a decision was made to not contact the City for all changes made; difficult to see
this number of as-built changes; was architect engaged for info about detailing the shutters?; need a way to
dress up front elevation; lost design elements when lost shutters; shutters are intended to look set off from
the wall; shutters should be reinstalled or an alternative should be researched; using Title 24 as an excuse
is not valid; can easily re-do Title 24; expansion of rear deck can affect neighbors privacy, deck should be
reduced to what it was approved at; and grey trim on rear windows is not in front.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application if the original shutters are installed and if the deck is
reduced to its originally approved size, by resolution, with the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped April 3, 2007, sheets A1, A3 and A4, and date stamped January 11, 2005, sheets A2 and A5, and
that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require
an amendment to this permit; that the shutters shall be installed as shown on the originally approved plans
and the second story deck shall be reduced to its originally approved size; (2) that any changes to the size
or envelope of the 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; (3) 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; (4) 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. (5) 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; (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 conditions
of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's June 7, 2004, memos shall be met; (8)
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; and (8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance
1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the shutters installed as shown on the
originally approved plans and the deck reduced to its originally approved size. The motion passed on a 5-
0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
6. 2561 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL (SAM AND MARIE
FAILLACE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (65
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. 11 conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, project designer, represented the project.
Commissioners comments: does current garage get used for parking?; cannot imagine backing out of a
garage at a 90 degree angle up a 15% slope; seems an enormous and complicated project to not add any
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
5
square footage; landscaping in rear is all on top of each other; suggest move pear tree out from the laurel
trees; item # 3 calls for common ivy, do not make it Algerian ivy which is too invasive; taking concrete floor
down could undermine footings; most houses that age have dry-rot and termite damage; may need to come
back to Commission for full demo of house; and there are no roof overhangs as existing drawings show.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application with the landscape comments made concerning the ivy, by
resolution, with the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped May 4, 2007, sheets 1 through 7, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,
footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the proposed ivy
on the property shall not be Algerian Ivy; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 29,
2007 memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's April 2, 2007 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; (5) 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; (6) 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; (7) 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; (8)
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; (9) 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; (10) 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; and (11) that the applicant
shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance.
Comment on the motion: have concerns with driveway and garage usability; driveway has been made
better and new garage improves front façade from street; if garage is not useable, what precedent is the
Commission setting, and self-training will make driveway useable.
The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and
C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
7. 1452 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GARAGE HEIGHT FOR A
NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND
ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAN STRAMBI, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
6
Chair Deal noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion of the Special Permit for declining height
envelope since he had a business relationship with the applicant next door to the subject property, but that
he would participate in the discussion of the garage. He passed the gavel to C. Terrones to take over as
chair and remained on the dais.
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. 17 conditions were suggested for consideration.
C. Terrones opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Ave, San Mateo; Dan Strambi, property
owner; Dan Porter, 1444 Drake Ave; Chi-Hua Hung, 1456 Drake Ave; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Ave,
spoke. Issues noted: neighbor to right has no problem with garage; property at 1436 Drake Ave has
garage that has a floor 4’ higher than rear easement; rear easement is 10’, provides extra separation;
stairwell window unit is one unit with grid pattern at upper portion; sump pump installed under garage for
water collected in garage and under garage; large Oak at rear will help mitigate height of garage; existing
house is an eyesore; problem with declining height envelope, will make family room very dark; would like a
condition to have a common fence between subject property and 1456 Drake Ave; urge PC to look at sump
pump; give better drainage without such an impact; and large setbacks proposed between 1452 and 1456
Drake Ave.
Commission commented: garage solution does not address problem; garage at rear is 6’-7’ higher then
adjacent properties; most neighbors have long driveway to single-car garage, no increase in grade; garage
is too big; issue is not if wall is retaining, issue is garage being raised; discrepancy in plans concerning
stairwell window; concern if retaining wall will be retaining a lot of water over time; and uncomfortable with
proposed garage, significant visual impact at back. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion of CUP for garage: sloped lot with house that’s designed for a flat lot; building is
articulated and looks nice; adjoining neighbors will have 7’ high fence, then a garage over that; garage will
tower above adjacent properties; house is going to read like a 3-story with a 2-story garage; retaining wall
is fighting mother nature; not compatible with the neighborhood; like having sump pump underneath
garage; visited site, made note of applicants property down the street which did not look obtrusive;
generally uncomfortable with raising garage, but in this case the raising is creating a more usable backyard
and more useable garage; this situation provides a lot of privacy; and support project the way it is.
C. Osterling moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for garage height. The motion was seconded by
C. Auran.
C. Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for garage
height. The motion passed 3-2-2 (Chair Deal and C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Cauchi and C. Vistica
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
Commission discussion of project and Special Permit for declining height envelope: could move forward in
favor of neighbors; could plant vines in 2’ strip on side to crawl up garage; neighbor on right could add more
landscaping; view at back is dominated by Oak tree and Acacia trees; and condition should be added for
vines to be planted 4’ apart on a drip irrigation system in 2’ strip around garage on both sides.
C. Auran moved to approve the application with the added landscape condition, by resolution, with the
following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped May 9, sheets A.1 through A.7, L.1, and C.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 there
shall be vines planted in the 2’ wide strip between the garage and the right side and rear property lines; that
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
7
these vines shall be planted 4’ apart; and that a drip irrigation system shall be installed for watering of the
vines; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 19 and April 27, 2007 memos, the City
Engineer's March 19 and May 2, 2007 memos, the Fire Marshal's March 19, 2007 memo, the City Arborist's
April 10 and May 9, 2007 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 19, 2007 memo shall be met; (4)
that the sump pumps and backup generator shall be enclosed in a sound attenuating structure so that
noise levels at property line shall meet city standards; (5) that an electric gate will be installed across the
driveway; (6) 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; (7) 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; (8) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a
licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (9) 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; (10) 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; (11) 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; (12) 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; (13)
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; (14) 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; (15) 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; (16) 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; (17) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
(18) 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 C. Osterling.
C. Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added landscape condition. The
motion passed 3-1-1-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, Chair Deal abstaining, C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
8. 2724 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING - (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND WAYNE PAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA
WHITMAN
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
8
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. 14 conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Ave; Bruce and Joann Thompson,
1600 Granada Drive; Una Kinsella, 501 A Vermont St, San Francisco; Chris Wong, 2720 Martinez Dr; and
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Ave, spoke. Issues noted: story poles installed with three additional scenarios;
additional drop can be implemented into residence; photos provided do not depict current story poles;
alternatives show flexibility; most significant view will be blocked; disappointed that property owners didn’t
work with neighbors; confused by options in story poles; blue option obviously blocks a significant view;
opportunity for design to be developed that will protect neighbors view; privacy issues downhill; design
against traditional ranch style in neighborhood; front porch is unusable; ask Commission to deny without
prejudice; and would like to work with neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Commissioners comments: confused what project is presented in story poles; no way to move forward with
any alternative scheme; have to vote on what is in plans, blue story pole scheme; alternate story poles
were to develop new plans for project; front porch to right is unusable; like design and detail, good revisions
have been made; issue is with view blockage and extension of roof element; neighbors should
communicate to address view blockage issues; addition away from neighbor on downhill helps reduce
privacy impacts; and master bedroom should be dropped to patio level.
C. Terrones moved to deny the application without prejudice, based on the view blockage issue. The
motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-2 (C.
Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m.
9. 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN
REVIEW PROJECT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED
GARAGE (TINA CHENG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
(65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Chair Deal noted that he would recuse himself from this item since he had a business relationship with the
applicant. He passed the gavel to C. Terrones, stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. 15 conditions were suggested for consideration.
C. Terrones opened the public hearing. Tina Cheng, property owner; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke.
Issues noted: removal of opening was not caught, could put it back in; second opening in turret should be
put back in; spark arrestor too visible; and panels box at front does not look right. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: garage door could have same single door in a carriage style design; grill over round
openings on turret should be painted black; second opening on turret needs to be put back in; garage door
needs to look more like what was approved, could add better hardware and dress it up; and garage should
come back as an FYI when the door is complete.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application with the requested changes to the turret and garage door,
by resolution, with the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped May 17, 2007, revised site plan, revised building elevations and revised garage plan; date
stamped August 16, 2006, landscape plan; date stamped June 13, 2006, floor plans, roof plan and floor
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
9
.
area calculations; and date stamped April 25, 2006, Boundary and Topographic Survey; and that any
changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; (2) that
the second opening with grill shall be added back into the left side of the front turret; and that the garage
door shall be improved with new hardware and other details; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Official’s March 31, 2006 memo, the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator’s April 3,
2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's April 5, 2006 memo shall be met; (4) 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; (5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or
second floors, 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 design review; (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 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; all windows shall be simulated true
divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions and shall contain a stucco-mould trim; (8) 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; (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 scheduling the foundation
inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (11) 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; (12) 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; (13) 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; (14) 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; (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 shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
C. Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the requested changes. The
motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Chair Deal abstaining, C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m.
Chair Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, LOTS 9 AND 10, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EMERGING LOTS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE (LOT 9) AND BUILDING
HEIGHT (LOT 10) TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (OTTO
MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC.,
DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CA Anderson noted that he would recuse himself from this item. He stepped down from the dais and left
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
10
the Council Chambers.
CDD Meeker briefly presented the project description. Commission asked: where was master bedroom
wall previously?
Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Ave.,
San Mateo; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Chris McCrum, 1540 Drake Avenue; and Janet Garcia, 1561
Drake Avenue, spoke. They noted: was extensive design review when project was originally submitted;
trees have had 3 ½ years of breathing room and are healthy; new foundation designed to eliminate root
damage, raised houses up; design of houses is virtually unchanged; master bedroom wall before was set
back in an “L” shape; consulting arborist in 2004 was hired by the City; new grading restrictions; designs
were approved three years ago; deposit should not be returned until 5 years after houses are finaled;
designer is asking to go higher than allowed again; house too bold from street; do not want Special Permit
for height approved; City Arborist letter concerning pier and beam foundation; and could work with neighbor
to left concerning fencing. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission commented on lot #9:
Not seeing on site plan or landscape plan if there will be a new fence constructed on left side
property line; will it be in place of existing grape stakes?, should work with neighbor;
Is there going to be a fence to separate the two properties?
Roof pitch is being taken down, house has stepped up, but roof pitch has been made shallower?
Should eliminate the flat portion of the roof and go for a Special Permit for height; height of homes
is mitigated by the extremely tall redwood trees;
A condition should be added that states the applicant shall work with the neighbor to the left
concerning the installation of a new fence;
Arborists are very talented; don’t think there will be any issues with the trees if the tree protection
measures are carried through construction;
Landscape plan shows a fence between lots 9 and 10, there should be no fence in front of the
house;
Project should be brought back on action so that neighborhood does not have to pull project off
Consent Calendar for discussion; and
Either the home on Lot 9 or Lot 10 should have only one chimney.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar with the addition of a
Special Permit for height for the change in the roof configuration; that one chimney should be eliminated
from one of the two properties; and that the landscape architect should look at the redwood grove as a unit
between the two properties instead of as two separate, distinct landscape plans. This motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m.
Commission commented on lot # 10:
Urge architect to look and see if the shed roof can drop to a 3:12 pitch, even though it has already
been dropped; could see roof drop a few inches;
Don’t believe that the Special Permit for declining height envelope is a large impediment on
neighbors; and
Roof ridge is going to be set back very far from the street; shed roof would help to create some
additional relief.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar with the requested revision
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
11
to the roof pitch. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Commission commented that the discussion of the deposit will be continued to the action hearing.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
11. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (MIKE AND AMY KERWIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN
MANISCALLO ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
CDD Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Mike Kerwin, property owner; John Maniscalco, 1501
Waller St, San Francisco; and Frank Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes Drive, spoke. They noted: project is mostly
excavation instead of building up; designed house in order to preserve the view of the surrounding
neighbors; new scheme addresses all previous concerns from previous projects on this site; roof material
will be consistent; upper level addition at right side property line is at ground level then slopes down; upper
level addition will effect view from 1560 Los Montes Drive; ask for story poles; and Commissioners should
stop by 1560 Los Montes prior to action meeting when story poles are installed. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented:
Consider stepping kitchen down?; could lower upper level addition into the crawl space which would
help view from neighbors and story poles; and
Addition is rather modest; issue is with the view; will need to see story poles.
C. Terrones made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar once the story poles have
been installed and certified by a licensed surveyor and there is room on the agenda. This motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: would like to have contact number for property owners at 1560 Los Montes Drive to
visit site before action hearing; and would encourage applicant to plant two smaller scale trees in the front
yard.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when story
poles have been installed and surveyed and there is room on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice
vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m.
12. 1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 – application for design review and Special Permit for an attached garage
for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (Heidi Richardson, Richardson Architects,
applicant and architect; Andrew and Taryn Sutton, property owners) (85 noticed) Project Planner: Ruben
Hurin
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment. Heidi Richardson, 319 Miller Avenue, Suite 5, Mill Valley,
represented the project and stated that the owners have spoken with the neighbors who express no
concern with the project. Commission commented:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
12
Concerned with broad face of proposed garage from street elevation; can it look more like existing
setup with a separation look between house and garage?
Could guest bedroom over garage be more of an attic/guest bedroom with a steeper pitched roof
and dormers?
Beautiful house as is with house as major element and garage as minor element, which is being
eliminated due to the scale and massiveness of the proposed garage;
Bay window would break up the mass at the front but would not reduce the mass of the building;
lowering the plate height would reduce the mass significantly;
Concerned with how guest bedroom over garage is a separate space; appears it could be more of a
rental unit;
Could reverse roof ridge to reduce mass from the street elevation; and
Proposed garage door looks too modern; should be more of a carriage style door.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar at a time when the
requested changes have been made and there is room on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C.
Auran.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m.
13. 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (PATTY AND ANDREW JORDAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND GEORGE
SKINNER, ARCHITECT) (31 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that they would like to see a
copy of the application and plans for the project 2533 Hayward Drive when this project comes back for
discussion.
Chair Deal opened the public comment. George Skinner, 4231 Terrace Ave, Oakland; and Andrew Jordan,
property owner, represented the project. They noted: the project was redesigned to address concerns of
the neighbors and the Planning Commission; the style is craftsman, similar to next door approved project;
and most of existing roof will be kept, the existing and proposed pitch is 3:12. Commission commented:
Is the architect confident with the way the roof pitch has been drawn?; looks like roof pitch is
steeper then what’s shown; pitch looks like it is 4:12;
Not too concerned about the design, the addition is modest;
Would help if there was some relief between the roof and the transom windows; window area over
the garage is too crowded;
Chimney caps are articulated a couple of different ways;
Shed roof is shown as aligning with the gable roof over the garage, this needs to be corrected to
show a step in the roof change;
2” x 6” trim not drawn to look like 2” x 6”; is it drawn at an angle?
Was plan to highlight the living room and make it the main focal point of the house? Want the front
porch to be more of a focal point; and
If entryway is brought forward, it will be more inviting; will have no resistance from the Commission
to push the entrance out; receptive to an FAR Variance to allow the front entrance to push out;
house does not look that massive.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes May 29, 2007
13
Further Commission comment: is there a need for story poles? Have to ask for story poles because this
project is in the hillside area.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar at a time when the story
poles have been installed and certified by a licensed surveyor, the front porch has been slightly expanded,
when all Commission comments have been addressed and when the slope of the roof has been verified.
This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:45
p.m.
X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports for review.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- CDD Meeker reviewed the actions of City Council regular meeting of May 21, 2007.
- FYI: Update to a previously approved design review project at 2212 Hillside Drive. Commissioner
asked that this item be placed on the Regular Action Calendar for discussion, particularly with
respect to the window designs.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Terrones, Secretary
V:\MINUTES\unapproved 05.29.07.doc