HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.13.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
March 13, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the March 13, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and
Vistica (arrived at 7:03 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erica Strohmeier;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell
III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 27, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were reviewed. Staff noted three changes the representatives of
the PHS/SPCA project wished to add to clarify their testimony on item 6
Implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, page
13, line12, delete "value adoption if limit days and " and replace with "people
assign value to an adopted animal when they pay a fee and if"…; and on item
10 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court page 16, line 4, delete "silver" and
insert "LEEDS" and line 6, delete "With this facility and it walls" and
replace with "With this facility and it use of vestibule doors"…. There was a
brief discussion about other changes to the minutes suggested and the
commission determined that those changes did not address clarifying
testimony made by those commenting, and those changes were not approved.
C. Osterling made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion
was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the
motion to approve the amended minutes which passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi
absent) voice vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1299 BAYSHORE HWY, ZONED IB – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PARKING VARIANCE, REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARBAGE CONTAINER, AND
LANDSCAPE VARIANCES TO CONVERT EXISTING OFFICE SPACE TO A TABLE TENNIS
CLUB.
ZT Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: is all of the building used for
office? Yes. Does the size of the tenant space reflect the common areas? Yes. How do we impose the
landscape burden on the applicant verses the property owner? Can you incrementally increase on required
landscaping? Staff responded that the City does not decide who the landscape burden falls on, the condition
of the landscaping falls on the property and the applicant and the property owner figure out who addresses
it; if this becomes nonconforming, additional conditions can be established.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
2
Commission commented:
What is the average age of the people in the club?
Are there going to be any tournaments? Do people come to watch the matches? Is there the ability to
move the tables aside for tournaments?
Provide more information about the Caltrans lease; can lease with Caltrans be renewed? Parking
variance is a big deal given proximity to overpass;
landscaping on this site is a cut above asphalt, would like applicant to propose a fix to the
landscaping;
Is the ADA accessible restroom in the lobby unisex? How will women’s restrooms be
accommodated?
Is the shower unisex and does it meet code requirements for the facility?
Are lobby areas counted as office for upstairs areas?
Can we be informed by Caltrans if they will allow them to use the spaces without a lease?
Can they provide a parking study with information based on the use of the current tenants?
How do they plan on informing people to get to the site using Old Bayshore without the illegal U-
turn?
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 7:25 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.
2A. 1125 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE
SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SATISH AND MEENU DUTT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; AND MARK SANO, DESIGNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
2B. 701 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED
GARAGE. (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFFREY
BASHAW, PROPERTY OWNER) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. Chair Auran and C. Osterling noted that they would abstain on 1329 De Soto Avenue because
they live within 500 feet of the project. C. Brownrigg requested an amendment to the conditions for 125
Clovelly to require that the washer and dryer be relocated from the garage into the house.
Chair Auran noted that he had a request from the public to call item 2c, 1329 De Soto Avenue off the
consent calendar.
C. Brownrigg moved approval of items 2a 1125 Covelly Lane with the amended condition regarding
requiring relocation of the washer and dryer from the garage into the house, and 2b 701 Vernon Way on the
consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
3
reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C.
Terrones.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2C. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK
ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
(CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Cers. Auran and Osterling noted that they would abstain from this action because they live within 500
feet of the proposed project. Chair Auran passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Brownrigg. Cers. Auran and
Osterling stepped down from the dias and left the council chambers.
Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked
staff: to CA Anderson, is the Commission limited to discussing changes proposed and carried out? To gain
approval must consider if the changes proposed trigger other changes which you can identify and those may
be addressed, however, your action does not jeopardize the original approval, the applicant may go back to
that.
Vice Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa
spoke noting the legal representative of this project seems to be unclear, what good is design review if the
builder changes the project after approval but before the Commission has been asked to review the changes
for their consistency with the approved design; no one came to represent this project the last time to address
these issues; these changes were made because the house sold and these changes were a collaboration
between the contactor and the new owner, when were these changes agreed to? This action should be
looked at closely for its legality. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was
closed.
Commission comment: Project predates my time on the commission, however I have reviewed the record;
am put off by the cavalier nature of this action, the lack of clarity of what has been presented, and the fact
that the applicant is not here; reviewed in detail and find responses to previous concerns adequate,
concerned about previously approved and revised landscape plans. ZT Strohmeier noted that the walkway
was redirected to the front, but there were no changes to the planting plan except that the Juniper was
removed because it was infested with rats, when it was removed they installed a 30 inch wall at the front in
order to level the front yard. Staff approved this change because the planting plan for the trees was not
affected. Problem is that the retaining wall causes the site to show differently from the street. The applicant
made a request to change, was not caught at inspection in the field; yes, applicant requested change. CA
noted the commission could add a condition regarding landscaping if they wished. Regarding comments
from the floor about changes in the field, need some flexibility, if change is for the better or makes the
project no worse should be allowed; if the change is for the worse can go back to the Commission for
hearing. Problem is the site plan shows a different landscape plan from what is now there.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
4
C. Terrones made a motion to accept the revisions with the condition that the Cyprus, Acacia and Holly
shrub be replaced with similar species at a minimum 15 gallon size, that a minimum of 4, 15 gallon plants be
placed in the planting area created by the retaining wall at the front of the property. The motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: Staff noted that the retaining wall was placed on the front property line, and
plantings would have to be placed in the public right of way. The maker and second of the motion withdrew
their motion and second.
C. Vistica moved that this item be continued and that the landscape plan be revised to show the retaining
wall and an appropriate planting plan to address the changes at the front of the house created by the 30 inch
retaining wall, and that this item be returned on an action calendar when there is space, and the applicant is
in attendance.
Vice Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this project to the action calendar
when a revised landscape plan has been prepared, there is space on the agenda and the applicant can be
present. This action is not appealable. The item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
3. 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR
A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
AND GARY PARTEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that because
of a Planning Commission suggestion, the project is back for further review.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Gary Partee, property owner, 317 Occidental Avenue, was available
to answer any questions. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, am confused over who is applicant and who is
property owner, submitted applications reflect different property owners and applicants; do not understand
why applicant now wants to submit for a special permit for declining height envelope when originally they
did not want to pursue the special permit and moved the house on the site to avoid it. Commission asked
property owner if Con Brosnan was his business partner on this project. Property owner responded yes.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal noted that this is a minor change to retain the architectural character of the building and that the
special permit for declining height envelope was originally suggested by the Planning Commission to retain
the architectural features on the side of the house and moved to approve the application, 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 February 21, 2006, sheets A.1 through A.5, and date stamped July 7, 2005, sheet
L1.0, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan and site survey; that any changes to the
footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the first floor of the
dwelling shall be at an elevation of 54.45' 2) 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; 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
5
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; all new windows shall be true divided light
wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible;
5) 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; 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 scheduling the foundation inspection
a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 8) 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; 9) 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; 10) 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;
11) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 11, 2005 memo, the Building Official's July 8, 2005 and
February 24, 2006 memos, the Fire Marshal's July 11, 2005 and February 27, 2006 memos, the Recycling
Specialist's July 13, 2005 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 18, 2005 memo shall be met; 12) 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; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 14) 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. Osterling.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
4. 1141 ROSEDALE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ANDREW AND
FLORENCE HASKELL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; VINCENT C. WONG,
ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Vince Wong, architect, was available to answer questions and
stated that he appreciated the help from both staff and the consultant; he felt that all changes requested by
the Planning Commission were addressed; and he asked the Commission if the existing windows at the rear
of the house could be retained. Commission stated that the floor plans indicate that these are existing
windows and asked if the window in the garage would remain and what is the type of the existing windows?
Architect responded that there are grids in between the glass of the existing windows and that all other
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
6
windows aside from the living room, dining room and garage windows will be new. Commission
commented that the revised floor plans indicate that the dining room window and living room windows are
to remain; does not see any problem with keeping the indicated existing windows including the garage
window; landscaping at front on the Rosedale side is barren as far as trees are concerned; would like to see
two new trees from the City approved tree list planted on each side of the entry walk and one planted by the
driveway; calling out for PVC windows? Wood windows with simulated divided lights should be put in
because they add dimension; back end of house is somewhat massive and needs something to negate the
vertical mass, add a window in the blank space below the vent; could put in a clear story window in order to
protect privacy of neighbors; window in the closet will help articulate the rear elevation; east elevation at
rear and south elevation seems barren, roof on first floor might be hipped at back side to negate the second
floor and help the south elevation; use a hip roof at the corner; PVC greenhouse window stuck on kitchen at
the front is objectionable, a nice window with plants down below would be better; built in bay wood
window with a gable or flat roof would be a better option; the point is to have something built on as part of
the house instead of the greenhouse window.
Nicole Zucca, 1561 Westmoor, will the large tree along Westmoor side be affected by the addition?
Commission responded that the tree will stay and that there should be no problem for survival. There were
no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica stated that a lot of minor adjustments are needed but that the revised project is a huge
improvement and moved to approve the application with the suggested changes, 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 February 8, 2006, sheets A1 through A5, 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 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; 3) the existing windows
in the garage, dining room and living room shall remain; 4) a new window shall be added at the second floor
below the vent to the closet along the east elevation; and a built in bay type window shall replace the pre-
fabricated green house window at the kitchen; and all new windows shall be simulated true divided light
windows with three dimensional wood mullions; and traditional stucco mold shall be used on all windows
except those being retained; 5) the first floor roof at the rear shall be hipped to match the roof over the
garage; 6) three landscape trees shall be added in the side yard along Rosedale including one tree on each
side of the entry walk and one closer to the driveway; 7) 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; 8) 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; 9) 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; 10) 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; 11) that
the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 2, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's December 15,
2005, memo, the City Arborist's December 14, 2005, memo, and the Fire Marshal's, Recycling Specialist's
and NPDES Coordinator's December 5, 2005, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's, memo shall be met;
12) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
7
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; 13) 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 14) 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. Brownrigg.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the suggested changes. The motion
passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
5. 1616 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO
RECONFIGURE LOT LINES (GARY AND JOYCE TOOTHMAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER, BGT LAND SURVEYING, LAND SURVEYOR) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER:
VICTOR VOONG
Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report and reviewed
criteria for subdivision maps. Commissioners asked about the minimum lot size for the area? 5,000 SF.
Does that mean that the larger of these two lots, about 12, 000 SF, could be divided in the future? Yes, if the
structures on the lot were demolished and a map prepared; providing the two lots resulting could be
developed without any exceptions to the zoning code. Appears that the driveway proposed off Newhall will
pass over the roots of some big Oak trees; will this be a problem in the future? CA suggested that the
Commission asked the applicant if there is another way to gain access to the garage. Commissioner noted
that modifications could be made to the driveway, problem if they are required to use the existing curb-cut.
CA noted could add a condition that the Oaks need to be preserved and that to do that the curb-cut could be
removed or relocated. Any new structure or curb work which might affect the trees is reviewable; condition
should require review of any paving or construction of a driveway to protect the oaks.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Gary Toothman, 1616 Willow Avenue. Proposing a new driveway
off Newhall, submitted a survey from an arborist who did 6 inch deep exploration around the roots, said
based on 6 inch deep survey no problem with base rock. Could driveway come off Willow and be shared
with new lot? Not possible because of the location of the garage for the new development on the Willow
lot. Can the utilities and driveway be separated so there will be no trenching through the tree roots? Will
work on surface, and provide a pervious surface. There were no further comments from the floor. The
public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: Should add a condition that any request for a cub-cut or driveway shall come
before the Planning Commission for review; don't like idea of shared driveways, they never work and cause
future problems; Mayne Tree says can do the driveway, need to have the City Arborist oversee; agree that if
the plans are sent to the City Arborist, and if the site is tested deeper for roots, applicant need not come back
to the Planning Commission, it is in the mutual interest of the property owner and city to preserve these
trees. Am interested in a treatment for the driveway which will preserve the Oak trees for a long time,
longer than 10 years, does the letter from Mayne identify that kind of treatment? CA suggested that perhaps
the driveway could come back as an FYI to the Commission, and then if the Commission did not agree, it
could be put on a regular agenda. Not adverse to dividing the property, if the report says no driveway
because roots are more extensive, then find a solution.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
8
C. Osterling noted that there are several options to protect these tress, In this case have an opportunity to be
creative, see the sections and detail, the City Arborist can review, so moved to recommend the parcel map to
the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Comment on the motion: limited action if the lot split is already approved, how then require access to
accommodate new site? CA suggest that Commission could approve the lot line adjustment but hold off on
recording the action until the Planning Commission has reviewed the arborist’s report to be sure that a
driveway can be installed without damaging the Oak trees. The maker and second of the motion agreed to
amend the motion with the provision that the Commission recommend to Council action on the lot line
adjustment but that the map shall not be recorded until the Planning Commission has reviewed and approved
a more detailed arborist report which defines how the driveway can be installed without damaging the roots
of the large Oak trees in the vicinity of the proposed 'new driveway on the larger lot.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the lot line adjustment map to the City
Council for approval with the condition that the map shall not be recorded until the applicant has prepared a
detailed arborist’s report addressing the installation of the driveway in the vicinity of the large Oak trees
providing for the long term protection of these trees, and the report has been reviewed by the City Arborist
andreviewed by the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
6. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DEREK & AMY CHUNG, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; AND GEORGE SUN, SUN ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Twenty five conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. George Sun, architect, represented the project and was available to
answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal stated that he had no objections to the changes proposed and moved to approve the application, 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 February 13, 2006, sheets A2.0, A2.1, A3.0 and A4.0 and date
stamped April 14, 2004, sheets A1.0, A1.1, A5.0, topographic map, C-2 and L1.0; 2) that any changes to
the size or envelope of the basement, 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; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 17, 2006,
memo, the Fire Marshal's February 21, 2006 and November 17, 2004, memos, the Recycling Specialist’s
February 22, 2006 and November 17, 2004, memos, and the City Engineer’s November 17, 2004 memos
shall be met; 4) that the 24" Weeping Willow tree located in the front of Lot #1 is approved for removal by
the City Arborist as per Code Section 11.06.060(c); 5) that the 43" Coastal Live Oak located on Lot #2,
immediately adjacent to Lot #1, shall not be removed and the property owner shall be responsible for
implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures , prior to any grading or demolition on the site.
The tree protection measures, as defined in the applicant’s arborist report by the Green Jeannie (date
stamped January 6, 2004) which has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, shall be maintained
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
9
on site until after the final inspection and the City Arborist authorizes their removal; the contractor shall call
for the City Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a grading permit shall be issued, and
that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the certified arborist's
report; failure to continually provide the tree protection and implementation of any of those requirements in
the arborist’s report shall result in the property owner paying for an independent inspection of the site by an
arborist selected by the City; 6) that a certified arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading
or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, and that a certified arborist
shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning
Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are
being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and
that a certified arborist shall be given written authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on
the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation
and maintenance of trees on the site, and the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the
conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 7) that prior to
demolition or construction the 43” Coastal Live Oak located on right side of Lot #2, immediately adjacent to
Lot #1, shall be trimmed, raising the fringe only six feet over the existing roof line, this shall be done under
the direct supervision of a certified arborist at a time during the project determined by the City Arborist; 8)
that prior to demolition or construction 6” of mulch shall be placed 10’ around the trunk of the 43” Coastal
Live Oak located on the right side of Lot #2, immediately adjacent to Lot #1, but shall not be placed directly
against the trunk; 9) that prior to demolition of the rear deck temporary barrier fencing shall be placed at
8’ on the southwest side of the 43” Coastal Live Oak, and 28’on the northeast side of the trunk; 10) that
after the demolition of the rear deck, but prior to the construction of the new homes, protective barrier
fencing shall be placed as close to the drip line of the 43” Coast Live Oak as possible and shall remain in
place throughout the construction of both houses on Lot #1 and Lot #2; 11) that the protective barrier
fencing shall be a minimum of 4 feet high, and shall be made of pig wire, snow fence, or cyclone fence, with
steel stakes or pipes as posts; there shall be no storage of materials or equipment, unnecessary trenching,
grading or compaction within the protective barrier fencing; encroachment into these areas is forbidden; 12)
Tree Maintenance: The developer shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction
work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the 43” Coastal Live Oak, including deep root
fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the
recommendations of the January 6, 2004 Green Jeannie report as well as such additional recommendations
as the developer shall receive from a certified arborist; 13) that for purposes of these conditions a certified
arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 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 demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
16) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
set the building envelope; 17) that prior to under floor 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; 18)
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; 19) 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; 20) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
10
project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 21) 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; 22) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
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; 23) that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame; 24) that the shutters shall be consistent with the size and shape of the windows; and 25) that
all windows shall be true divided light windows. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m.
7. 1255 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION IF A RESUBMITTAL
OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE REPRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE FROM THE PROJECT DENIED FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH
DETACHED GARAGE (CHRISTOPHER & ANITA KENNON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Chair Auran noted that he would recuse himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the
project. He passed the gavel to Vice Chair Brownrigg and stepped down from the dias and left the
chambers.
Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. She noted that the action requested is a determination if the resubmitted project
represents a "substantial change" from the project denied without prejudice; if it does represent a substantial
change then the item should be set for action at another meeting. If the resubmittal does not represent a
substantial change, the applicant should be directed regarding the changes required. Commission asked the
CA for clarification of this request. CA noted that this request was unusual in the sense that the denial was
without prejudice, where the more common determination action follows a denial; but the issue is the same,
this project as resubmitted did not comply with the directions given by the Planning Commission, the
changes did not represent a 'significant change'.
Vice Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, designer
and Chirs Kennon, applicant and property owner, represented the project. Noted the things they had done to
respond to the Commission comments, reduced the plate height at the front from 8'1" to 6', redesigned the
roof so that it looks better than before, added arch elements and two new trees at the front and 5 street trees;
noted that the neighbors support these changes even though they did not come tonight. Commissioner asked
applicant to respond to the itemized staff comments on page 4, added variation at the rear, pushed out the
master bath tub and added a gable, changed the trellis to a patio and reduced the mass by added roof element
which affected the side as well; made no change to the footprint, did not understand the denial without
prejudice to mean a complete redesign of the house; FAR is still under the maximum, the increase proposed
in the revision is minor, square footage not the issue, it is mass and bulk; disagree that it is good to put a
design feature out toward the front of the lot, if the majority of the commission had directed the redesign of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
11
the house we would not be here; roof pitch was never mentioned, the overall height is 28'6", if we change
the roof the height would be 6" to 8" less.
Commission questions to applicant: asked about suggestion of bringing part of the first floor forward to
reduce the mass or rotate the house 90 degrees? Lot is an odd shape, if bring part forward would move
house back and reduce the back yard, already removed the swimming pool to increase the use of the back
yard. Where was the plate height changed? Reduced the bulk at front. Commissioner noted FAR is not the
issue, problem is how the square footage is handled, notice increasingly applicants see allowances as
maximums and more are pushing over the line and the Commission is accepting this, now we have a two
story house with a second floor the same size as the first floor; not opposed to the front, issue is mass, this is
a big building, 575 SF larger than what is typical on a 6,000 SF lot. Applicant commented to a
commissioner that his comments were not fair because they were not made before. Commissioner noted that
he speaks only for himself, what is important is what the whole commission says, the aggregate.
Public hearing continued: Seen a number of projects prepared by this designer, on those have a rather steep
roof pitch which pushes the roof form down and addresses the first floor better than this design, there are
also features in the craftsman designs he prepares which address the mass and bulk issues better; should add
a first floor element at the front such as a large porch which would provide more presence at the front,
reduce the stair window and move the porch out to the front of the house, lot is pie shaped but this designer
has a lot of successful designs which would work on this lot.
Public Comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa. Note that at last meeting when discussed this project there was
a Crepe Myrtle tree proposed, this tree does not do well in this climate; could reduce the mass and bulk with
a couple of trees, increasing the square footage in this revised design is thumbing their nose at the
Commission; past advice is good, if want this house can appeal to the City Council. There were no further
comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: Is this revision a 'substantial change'? If commission makes suggestions they can
come back; feel should back the City Planners determination, issue less about context, know a house like
this will have a big impact on the neighborhood, twice a wide, two full stories will look like a big box, FAR
can be handled, but the design is wrong to handle it, for example, there is an consistent second story plate on
most of the house; the changes are 'tweaks' but was denied without prejudice, maybe should have denied to
get our point across before. Agree with City Planner recommendation, know that this is a wider lot than
others in the neighborhood, but could do things to reduce the bulk of this house, allowed to have a big house
but need to show how it fits in the neighborhood, have shown in redesign a couple of elements at the front,
these need to be carried throughout; other ways to orient house, could be 'L' shaped, maybe an attached
garage would work better, reduces FAR but better solution for rear yard, garage is so close now will almost
look attached.
C. Vistica noted that the design needs to be rethought approach is not right: attach garage, 'L' shaped house,
spec house looks like a big box is proposed because it is easy, not merited, all change should be generated
by the neighborhood, house that is there now is hardly visible and moved to uphold the City Planner's
determination that this submittal does not represent a 'substantial change' and cannot be accepted for further
review by the Planning Commission. The motion was clarified to note that the direction given was not
included.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
12
C. Vistica rephrased the motion to uphold the City Planner's determination that this submittal does not
represent a 'substantial change' and cannot be accepted for further review by the Planning Commission. The
clarified motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Vice Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the City Planners determination that
the project as submitted does not represent a 'substantial change' and cannot be submitted to the Planning
Commission for action. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran abstain; C. Cauchi absent).
Commission comment on the action: number of things could do: on the right side could attach the garage;
could create a side yard and push the square footage to the rear yard (reduce the street impact); odd shaped
lot, hard to meet the setbacks it is possible that a variance is in order; not about FAR need a smaller
appearing design, include things to reduce the mass like dormers; some room on the site for reorientation, 16
feet on the driveway side; could reduce second floor by reducing plate height; sitting of the building could
be key, current structure is off kilter to the street, to follow this and work on the massing would better
address the pie shaped lot particularly on the north side. Given a lot of differing guidance, applicant need to
weigh in total and address.
Appeal right were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m.
8. 1764 MARCO POLO WAY, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCES FOR AN EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM AND PRESCHOOL
FACILITY (WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, COMMUNITY GATEPATH,
PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Chair Auran noted that he would abstain from this project because he owns a property within 500 feet. He
remained out of the chambers. Vice Chair Brownrigg continued as chair.
Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP suggested amendment to
conditions 4, 6, and 7 for the purpose of clarifying the operation of the preschool program and its evening
meeting schedule, making it clear that a change to the hours of operation as approved would require review
by the Planning Commission, and requiring a sign-in program which does not require a parent to park for the
80% of the preschool program participants who are typically developing children. C. Osterling noted that he
was absent at the last meeting where this item was considered, however he has reviewed the tapes of that
meeting and the materials presented. Commissioners asked how the notice was given of this meeting to the
apartments across the street. CP commented that notices it was mailed to all property owners within 300
feet.
Vice Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges, architect, and Cathy Costello represented
Community Gatepath. Feel that the Burlingame parking requirements for schools are not correct for a
preschool, where the students don’t drive and the classes are small; revised tables on trip generation and
parking prepared show the maximum parking between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. is 51 and there will be 53
parking spaces on site; that is a half hour span, the maximum parking demand will not be exceeded, even in
the worse case that all of the people come within the same 10 minutes; 16 cars entering over a half hour is
not a problem. Commission asked when heard this item before asked for it to be continued, did you have any
concerns about the conditions then and the amendments proposed by staff tonight? No. Commissioner
expressed concern about the signage at the entrance, did not want it to be large and incompatible with the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
13
residential nature of the area, would you agree to submit signage program as an FYI to the Commission after
you have developed it? Applicant agreed that they would submit the signage program FYI to the
Commission. Commission asked if all the landscaping was automatically irrigated including the parking
islands. Applicant noted that it was. Is there an expediter envisioned to facilitate the arrival and departure
of the children? Presently think of it as a contingency plan, but will prepare a program designed so that
parents delivering children do not need to park as noted in the condition of approval. There were no further
comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling noted that the information was now very complete in providing documentation included in the
staff report on this project and its parking impacts and moved to approve the application, by resolution,
with the following conditions as amended: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 22, 2005, sheets T-1, C.1, A1.0, A1.1,
A1.3, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0 through A5.0 and L1.0, and shall be limited to offices (3,956 SF), health
service/therapy rooms (3,299 SF), classrooms (6,703 SF) and storage areas including the basement (2,088
SF); 2) that the conditional use permit and parking variances shall apply only to a children's early
intervention program for children with special needs and the preschool for typically developing children as
well as children with special needs, and shall become void if the special needs early intervention program
or special needs and typically developing child preschool uses change in the clientele they serve or cease,
is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded in the number or square footage of children served,
demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3) that the children's early
intervention program at this site shall be limited to serving children with special needs in a small group
setting consisting of three sessions per day lasting two hours with 15 children per session as well as service
special needs children on an individual basis; enrollment for the children's early intervention program shall
be limited to a maximum of 45 children served on-site per day; the children's early intervention program
shall employ a maximum of 20 full-time and four part-time staff members; the children's early intervention
program shall be open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m.; 4) that the preschool for children
aged 3 to 5 at this site shall be limited to serving typically developing children (80%) as well as children
with special needs (20%) consisting of three sessions per day lasting three hours with a maximum of 48
children enrolled per day in a maximum of three classes a day each class with a maximum of 16 students;
the preschool shall employ a maximum of two full-time and two part-time staff members specifically for
the preschool program and staff from the early intervention program shall be used on an as-needed basis;
the preschool shall be open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and a maximum of four
evening meetings for parents and staff from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. shall be allowed each calendar year;
5) that there shall be no more than 121 people on-site at any one time (93 children and 28 staff members),
including the manager, staff members and children; 6) that any changes in operation of the child day care
or preschool program, floor area, number of employees or children, hours of operation or number of
evening meetings of parents with staff which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall
require an amendment to this use permit and issuance of a new parking variance; 7) that drop off and
pick up of children for the child day care and preschool facility shall occur on-site and that the applicant
shall monitor the safety of the transfer of the children, and a sign-in, sign-out program which does not
require parents to park their vehicles in order to deliver children to the preschool program shall be
provided for the typically developing children served by this program; 8) that the 53 on-site parking
spaces shall be used only for staff members and visitors at this site and shall not be leased or rented for
storage of automobiles either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; 9) that
one-way directional signage shall be installed and painted throughout the parking area to clearly define the
vehicular direction for employees and visitors to the site; prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant/property owner shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and
markings on the pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction; 10) that the proposed
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
14
landscaping shall be installed as shown on the Landscape Plan, sheet L1.0, date stamped December 22,
2005, and that all areas of landscaping shall be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system on a timer and
shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 11) that prior to
issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive the necessary approvals and permits from the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) for the proposed improvements in the 60' wide SFPUC
water easement at the rear of the site; 12) that the conditions of the Traffic Engineer's November 29,
2005, memo, the Chief Building Official’s September 23, 2005, memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire
Marshal's, Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's September 26, 2005 memos shall be met; 13)
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 14) that this application for conditional use permit
and parking variances shall be reviewed upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Commissioners asked: if the building is ever demolished will the parking variance go away? Staff noted
that it would, there is a condition addressing this requirement. What if the use changes on site? Staff
responded that if the use changed on the site then the parking required on the site would be required to meet
the needs of the new use.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the amended conditions. The
motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran abstaining, C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m.
9. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON
PROPOSED NEW ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH SUBAREA OF THE
BAYFRONT AREA AND CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM C-4
(WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL) TO APN (ANZA POINT NORTH) (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND
25 NOTICED) CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting the items
which the Commission had referred back to the Subcommittee after the last hearing on this proposed zoning
district and the recommendations made by the Subcommittee to address each of the concerns. She noted that
in their discussions the Subcommittee members (Cers. Cauchi, Deal, Vistica) had reviewed all the
correspondence, comments and issues raised by the public; all of the correspondence was included in the
staff report for reference. Commissioners asked how height was measured. Staff noted mechanical
equipment on the roof was not included in height measurements if the installation was no taller than 10 feet
as measured from the adjacent roof surface and covered 5% or less of the roof area. This is the same
standard applied throughout the city. Staff noted that in previous discussion it was noted that for some
biotech uses roof equipment might cover 80 or 90 percent of the roof area. In that case the height of the
building would be measured from the average top of curb at the front to the top of the mechanical
equipment/penthouse.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Like the Bayfront Plan, it was
developed with the environment on the Bayfront in mind. Concerned about allowing 10 additional feet of
height over 30'-50' limits even with a wind study, if we need to redo the community wind standards we
should do it now, not allow exceptions. Would like to prohibit extended stay hotels, allow them in the TW
zone which is more residential, should not be here because could be converted in the future to residential
uses; should be conditioned that they can never be converted to any residential use. Would like to prohibit
health services and clinics do not want a free standing clinic like is being proposed for San Carlos in this
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
15
area, if a clinic is for employees in the area it is OK. Proposed solution for 'time share properties' is a good
one. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg noted that this proposed ordinance reflects a lot of hard thought, last piece for the Bayfront
Plan implementation, move that it be recommended without change to the City Council for action. The
motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Comment on the motion: lot of good logic went into each decision made by the Subcommittee; understand
why health services were allowed. CA noted that the proposed regulations for Anza Point North along with
Rollins Road would go to the City Council for a study session on March 29, 2006.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote to recommend the proposed Anza Point North zoning district
regulations, without change, to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi
absent) voice vote. This action is not appealable. The item concluded at 9:55 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 2501 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR
SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PAUL R. SCHAUER JR. AND
GAIL D. SCHAUER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND ROBERT ALLEN WILLIAMS,
ARCHITECT) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if this was considered to be a
substandard lot, could be reason for variances. Staff answered yes, 4,030 SF is a substandard sized lot.
There were no additional questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Paul Schauer, property owner, and Bob Williams, architect were
available to answer questions. Commission asked where will the new floor area be generated; architect
noted that floor area was added in the new bay windows at the front and side of the house, the outer skin on
the house has not been changed, staircase was widened into storage closet which added to FAR, eliminated
shed roof to make house more tutor oriented with gable dormers facing the street and not pushing out any
wall lines at all. Commission noted that they don’t disapprove of what architect is doing, sloped roof can
have a 4/12 pitch without much of a difference, could add to the dormers and make them more tutor style
with a pitched roof in between them; architect responded that they used a sloped Dutch ceiling to get the 7’-
6” ceiling height and did roof this way in order to stay under the maximum 30’ building height.
Commission commented that using the argument for FAR variance that this parcel is smaller then other
properties in the area doesn’t work because FAR calculation works in favor of smaller properties; did a good
job, especially on bringing the staircase up to current code; project improves the property with the existing
non-conforming conditions; thinks that when it is done it will look beautiful. Commission noted that the
elevation along Castillo is not that friendly and could use more human scale, bay window here should match
bay window along Hale, bay at kitchen window should be proportionally scaled down so that Castillo
elevation doesn’t feel like a side yard; architect responded that the bay on Hale is tutor style and the bay at
the kitchen is at counter level with a copper roof and that he can bring the window down on the Castillo
side. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
16
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested changes have
been made and plan checked:
Dormers on second floor along Hale be bridged by a sloped roof and become more stately;
Reason for side setback variance is because they have a staircase that is non-conforming and they
are bringing it up to current code standards; and
Added bay windows are deminimus as far as FAR is concerned and they do a lot for the style of the
house;
Revise bay on Castillo side to reflect more the design features of the bay on Hale; and
trim around entry door should be cast stone and not Styrofoam.
This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: applicant should be sensitive about how they revise the dormers so they don’t add too
much mass and bulk to the house; this application is doing a lot to enhance the house and is a minor trade
off for the FAR variance.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been
revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m.
11. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND REAR
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
(DON VISEL, VIA BUILDERS, APPLICANT; JAY AND JANET GARCIA, PROPERTY OWNERS;
AND TODD SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., DESIGNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if a side setback variance would be
required based upon the diagram that was provided in the staff report, because it looks like the nook on the
west side would be intruding into a required 7’-0” side setback. Staff responded that will conform the
setback compliance. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Ralph Saviano represented the property owners and the design
team, commented that the setback issue may be a mistake on the plans and was available to answer any
questions. Commission commented:
New house with a ceiling height of 10’-0” on the first floor and 9’-0” on the second floor is larger
then what Commission has been allowing; reduce plate heights to 9’-0” on the first floor and 8’-1”
on the second floor;
How does this design match the character of the neighborhood? should go through design review
booklet to obtain guidance of how to fit in with the design guidelines and the design of the
neighborhood; applicant needs to think about what architectural style they want and have that style
in place with some revisions prior to meeting with design review consultant; start from the
beginning;
The adjacent houses have incorporated elements that have diminished the second floor presence
should include; proposed second floor is almost same size as proposed first floor;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
17
house has a lot of elements that have been tacked on to the outside that don’t relate to one and other;
too much stuff going on in elevations; what is the style? Does not compliment the design guidelines;
elevations are busy in nature, east elevation in particular; 15 total French doors or windows in ten
different types, demonstrates how busy the windows are and lack of consistency;
A little chaotic and awkward with such a large second floor; when going to maximum FAR, second
floor has to be designed to be less massive looking; layer cake approach; nothing wrong with
building to maximum FAR, however there is a responsibility to reduce the mass and the bulk of the
house; serious questions about the massing;
Needs more articulation;
Garage eaves cannot encroach too close to property line, confirm ok;
Issue with how second floor comes down on curved roof of nook;
Some windows look distorted, might want to do a 3D rendering;
would like property lines better defined out in the field, can’t get a sense of how building will fit;
difficult to see shape of lot and relationship to house on the right;
landscape plan is very weak, Crepe Myrtle in area doesn’t work; massive presentation of house with
a minimal landscape plan; beef up landscape plan, could be a lot more interest and screening in
landscape plan;
strongly encourage to take at least 100 SF off of plan so that there is room for changes if needed
during construction;
Are Coast Redwoods being put in? They get awfully large and create problems for neighbors;
Redwoods get too large in scale and there could be a better choice; landscape architect should note
that cones and leaves of Redwoods stain the colored concrete, so should be located away from
patios; want more appropriate landscaping; reconsider Redwoods;
might be nice for the neighbors to have redwoods incorporated into the design;
difficult to find hardship for rear setback variance on second floor for new construction; if second
floor were reduced, may be receptive to setback variance, not appropriate for mass and size as
shown; shouldn’t be applying for a variance;
need explanation of how driveway at the entry is going to work to avoid any problems;
May be a feeling that this is a narrow lot, but actually 50’ wide and Commission sees this width all
the time; and
Would like to see a copy of the topographic map to get a better sense of the lot when the project
comes back.
Architect responded that wanted to maximize the use of land at the rear of the lot; wanted to set this house
back closer to the older houses and fade away instead of being right at you; lot setup creates a vary narrow
footprint; asking to go into rear setback by only a few feet, only 35 SF would be within the setback areas;
based on the lot and the lot width, consideration has to be given to the narrowness of the lot and the setbacks
within the finger of the parcel.
Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, spoke in opposition to the project, repeating a serious of comments that were
originally spoken or written by the Garcia’s in opposition to the projects at 1537 and1553 Drake Avenue,
which he felt might apply to this project. These included FAR, compatibility with neighborhood design,
number of bedrooms, requested variances, awkward ingress and egress, need for an arborist report,
providing a streetscape rendering and compatibility with the overall size of homes in the neighborhood.
Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, represented the project, stating that Mr. Miller’s project at 1537 Drake
Avenue varied from their project because it involved replacing one existing home with three new homes; the
proposed project only has three bedrooms upstairs and a media room and den downstairs which are counting
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006
18
as bedrooms; does not see this as a five bedroom house. There were no other comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented: could staff find out how large (square footage) adjacent home to the right is and
how large the two adjacent homes to the left are?
C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: concerned with comments over the years about parking in this neighborhood; this
house needs more on-site parking because of unique location on the dead end street; if owner intends to live
in new house, could resolve issues with driveway and property lines as far as setbacks are concerned for the
house to the right; in favor of Redwoods, project could handle that mass and they would be a benefit to the
area; design needs reworking; would like access to the property prior to action hearing to get an idea of
where Redwoods are going to be.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the
direction and comments given. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of March 6, 2006.
CP Monroe reviewed the March 6, 2006, council meeting.
- FYI – 1556 Los Montes Drive – review requested changes to approved design review project.
Commission felt that these proposed changes improved the design, and agreed to them.
- Update on Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting – March 18, 2006
CP Monroe noted that the staff report for the Joint Study Meeting was at the Commissioner’s desks.
The meeting will be held at Fire Station 34, on California Drive, on Saturday, March 18, 2006, at 9:00
a.m.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Deal, Secretary