HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.22.06.PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
May 22, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the May 22, 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
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi (arrived at 7:07 p.m.)
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 8, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission
were approved as mailed. C. Cauchi arrived.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented that she was sorry that her
complementary comments about the job Commissioner Auran did as Chair
for the last year were not included in the May 8, 2006, minutes. She felt that
he did an exceptional and even-handed job. In addition, she wanted to be
sure that her comments made this evening regarding the implementation of
the design review guidelines were included in the minutes. She feels that the
design review guidelines work well for a remodel of an existing structure but
not so well when the structure is to be replaced and all limits are pushed to
the maximum or beyond; concerned that real estate advertisements are noting
that houses are 'dozers' by substituting computer generated simulations for
pictures of the existing structure as was done for 1212 Balboa in an
advertisement sent out by Stanley Lo, Green Banker. Do not feel that a
house should be called a remodel and allowed to keep all its currently
nonconforming setbacks if all of it but one wall is removed, should be
required to meet all current building envelop requirements. 1453 Balboa is an
example. CP Monroe noted that there are clear definitions in the code for
new construction and for a remodel and suggested that when it was
convenient for her, staff would be happy to review them with Ms. Giorni.
There were no further comments from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1125 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A -- APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND AND CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF AN
EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (GOKHAN KAHRAMAN, KAHRAMAN LLC, APPLICANT;
ARNIE GAPESIN, DESIGNER; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
2
concerned with interpretation of eligibility for design review, changing more than 50% of the White
Dove Jewelry façade, this proposal will remove an existing active retail site and replace with a blank
wall, this was not the intent of the commercial design guidelines, will not be pedestrian friendly;
clarify the number of customers expected on site in five years, commercial application indicates a
maximum of 55 customers expected on site, however the proposed floor plans show 60 seats in the
dining area and 8 seats at the bar; please revise the commercial application or floor plans
accordingly;
clarify number of employees, numbers in commercial application do not appear to be consistent with
staff report;
on-site parking space is incorrectly labeled, should note that it is only for use by 1123 Burlingame
Avenue, not 1125 Burlingame Avenue;
plans need to more accurately show what is happening on the building elevations, this building relies
on the details, for example downspouts and leaders are not shown, a lot of details missing from the
building elevations, should be added, details contribute to the overall appear of the restaurant;
will the exterior be repainted;
provided details for the new clearstory windows;
concerned with the quality of the information shown on the plans, hard to tell what is being
proposed;
provide details of proposed window type and window trim;
provide details of all materials proposed including awnings, like what has been done with the
building at 1100 Burlingame Avenue;
clarify if there will be an exhaust fan or other mechanical equipment over the kitchen, if so please
show on roof plan and building elevations, will the vents be screened;
location of property on vicinity map on plans is incorrect, please revise;
will there be outdoor seating in the public right-of-way, outdoor seating would liven up the
sidewalk; and
project includes removing the existing tile base along Burlingame and Lorton Avenue, suggest a
different material along the base to make the facade more attractive.
CA Anderson noted that although this project is not subject to commercial design review, the proposed
changes to the facades can be addressed because a finding has to be made for the conditional use permit that
the proposed project is compatible with aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential
uses in the area.
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.
2. 1409 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT TO ADD TRUCK RENTAL TO AN EXISTING CAR RENTAL FACILITY (ADAM
RUDD, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, APPLICANT; HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT;
ALICE HONERLAH, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked:
provide more detailed landscape plan, include automatic irrigation for all landscaping on-site;
provide size of trucks in rental fleet, 24' back up space may not be enough for the rental trucks;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
3
at time of site visit there were no customers on site and the front door was locked, the vehicles on the
lot were employee vehicles and two vehicles were parked in the driveway, clarify where employees
will park and how it will be designated on-site;
it appears that several rental trucks are currently being stored at 40 Edwards Court, does that
applicant have an agreement with the property owner at 40 Edwards Court, is this an overflow site
for rental trucks; there may be a lot of pressure at this site, can the site accommodate all vehicles and
trucks it needs to; and
what is the intended use of the a.c. paving area south of parking stalls 4 and 6.
This item concluded at 7:30 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.
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
3a. 1800 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (DAVID AND HOLLY PARRY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; STEWART
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
3b. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, SUITE D, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXPAND AN EXISTING FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION (TIM MULLEN, FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, APPLICANT; WESLEY FUKUMORI,
ARCHITECT; GREEN BANKER, PROPERTY OWNER) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners'
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Commission discussion: Commission asked what the filing fee is for an extension to a planning approval;
CP Monroe noted that the fee is about $200 plus noticing costs.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 7:32 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
4
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4-5. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FOR REDUCTION OF
PARKING SPACES ON-SITE FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the
dais and left the Council chambers.
Reference staff report May 22, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Steve Love, property owner, was available to answer questions.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran 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 May 2, 2006, sheets
1-2, 4 and 6-7, 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) 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 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; 5) 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; 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 Chief Building Official's
May 13, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 16, 2005, memos,
and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2005, memo 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; 9) 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; 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. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
5
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal
abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias.
6. 1124 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DETACHED
GARAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (STEVE MENDENHALL, APPLICANT; CANDIDA-
RENE ORDONEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report May 22, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. She noted that is item is a code enforcement item based on a complaint about
construction without a building permit. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Steve Mendenhall, 1120 Illinois Avenue, Sacramento,
represented the project noting that they made the improvements to the garage to provide a decent life for his
father-in-law because of his needs created by Alzheimer's disease and the issues his mother-in-law has
caring for him. The father-in-law has been away for a year, after they were told to stop work on the garage,
living with a daughter, she is now selling her house and he needs to move back to this property; the father-
in-law will sleep in the house, and be in the garage and rear yard during the day, his mother-in-law can
watch him from inside the house through the sliding glass doors. Commissioners asked: can a bedroom
inside the house be converted to meet his needs? How is he kept in the yard inside the gate? Has this
problem been discussed with the neighbors? How important is the shower? Applicant noted that it would be
more difficult to observe his father-in-law inside the house and he would need to be taken frequently to the
bathroom; in the garage the door to the bathroom can be left open so he can see the bathroom, he uses the
shower two or three times a day; the gate is kept locked and he cannot open it; and they have not discussed
this situation with the neighbors. Commission noted that with this application there is no legal on-site
parking, how many cars are there in this household? Applicant noted that there are two cars, one used by
the daughter and one shared by the two grand daughters, there is one parking space in front of the gate in the
driveway and one parking space at the curb in front of the house. Commission expressed concern with how
this space does not become a second unit in the future? Applicant noted that there is no cooking element in
the garage; and that his father-in-law must be monitored all the time. Commission noted then it does not
matter if he is inside the house or out. Applicant noted that it is easier for his father in law to be in a single
room environment. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: Is the commission limited on how they can condition a use permit? CA noted are
not allowed to tie the duration of a use permit to a single person or the sale or rental of the property, may
link a use permit to a given period of time, for example 3 years. Concerned that there is no record of the
toilet being in the garage before this work was discovered, how do we know it was installed according to
code. CP noted that this use permit would address that, if approved, would need to get a building permit
and insure that the toilet is installed to current CBC requirements. Commissioner noted that in the past 16
years can recall two similar requests but in both cases the use was in free standing accessory structures and
not converting the covered parking. Seems that there are other ways to address the needs of this individual
without using all the required on-site parking, particularly since there is space in the house where he sleeps
at night; sympathetic to family's needs but concerned with work done that adds a full bath and closet, looks
like an apartment; agree that there are other options for care on-site and do not want to burden the neighbor
with a second unit; looks like plans show work done on the house at some time; CP noted not aware of work
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
6
being done on the house now; concerned with garage conversion which leaves the site without any covered
parking; view from the sliding glass doors is limited, the gates cannot be seen; better to modify inside.
C. Deal moved to deny the application for the reasons stated noting that this request goes too far by
providing no on site covered parking and asking for a variance for all on-site parking where there is an easy
resolution to remodel the inside of the house for the father-in-law. The motion was seconded by C. Oren.
Comment on the motion: have sympathy for the medical condition and realize that this is an expeditious
solution, but not for the neighborhood and it's parking problems, there is another way to modify the first
floor which is within the design guidelines of the city.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 1465 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN ROCHE, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that comment #9 in the Chief
Building Official's memo is incorrectly stated, should state "provide handrails at all stairs where there are
four or more risers". There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack McCarthy, designer, 5339 Prospect Road #311, San
Jose, was available to answer questions. The Commission made the following comments:
concerned with the flat roof design at the top of the roof, do not want to see a roof curb, could design
without a curb, or if designed with a roof curb, it should not be visible from below;
garage eaves extend in to setbacks along side and rear property lines, not allowed under the building
code, please revise to comply;
proposed design has the appearance of a tract house, house lacks character and charm;
embellishment is all proposed at the front elevation and is not carried to the rest of the house, typical
of a track house, should review residential design guidelines, they explain what is appropriate for
Burlingame;
house is too big, very massive and bulky, second floor mimics the first floor, too boxy;
should study the siting of the house on the lot, a house of this size and scale would make it work
better if the house was shifted to the center of the lot, need to separate from the house on the right;
porch is too small, concerned with foam molding around the door, front entry and windows, do not
see these materials on other homes in the neighborhood, traditional wood trim should be used
throughout;
concerned with the stucco band around the house, need to find a better solution to create a band;
the keystone over the archway and living room door is too crowded;
concerned with how the concrete balustrade is shown, is this the way it is going look when installed,
looks too heavy; please clarify drawings with accurate to scale representation of balustrade;
provide detail of how the upper dormer on the front elevation works, it appears that there are some
details missing;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
7
concerned with the small windows on the front elevation, they are not integrated well into the
façade, are placed around the corner from larger standard size windows, smaller windows are
typically seen on a Tudor style house, can be an interesting detail but it is not appropriate in the
proposed design;
concerned with amount of blank walls on the left side elevation, need more than just a belly band to
break up the massing;
concerned with the blank wall on the second floor on the rear elevation, looks odd to have a
projecting dormer without windows;
detailed notes need to be added describing the type of window and window trim to be used;
gutters and downspouts need to be accurately shown on building elevations, as drawn there appear to
be no gutters;
there are a lot of different options available to make this house blend into the neighborhood better;
there are not enough windows in the dining room, suggesting adding a bay window or similar
feature;
concerned with the gas vent fireplace without a chimney along the right side of the house at the
front, creates an awkward projection with a vent on the side, should consider adding a false chimney
to make it look better;
concerned with the choice of trees, scale of trees proposed at the front are too small, landscape
architect should choose a tree from the city's street tree list, all trees should be evergreen;
Crape Myrtle tree does not do well in Burlingame, it should be replaced with another tree from the
city's street tree list, suggest using Bay Laurel;
may want to consider a remodel and addition rather than a new house;
this project will need a serious redesign, there are too many concerns with this project;
concerned with the amount of paving proposed, should reduce paving areas and also consider using
a pervious material for the driveway and patio areas, would help to recharge the groundwater, this
much paving may have a negative affect on the groundwater system and may overload the storm
drain system;
may be going a bit too far to request pervious paving materials, should leave up to applicant; revised
plans should differentiate pervious and impervious paved areas; and
concerned that there is no clear design style, need to pick a clear style.
Public Comments: Patricia Gray, 1616 Adeline Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Rosita Munoz,
13460 Roblita Road, Los Altos; Matthew O'Brien, 1469 Balboa Avenue. Letter from Donna Cerna, 1457
Balboa Avenue, dated May 22, 2006, submitted for the record. Not necessarily concerned with this
particular house, but more concerned with what is happening on every block, there are so many large houses
being built, suggest there should be a moratorium on demolition of houses, also suggest that a study be done
of what has been occurring in the City with regard to residential construction within the last five years;
concerned that the city is losing modest housing for working class families, modest houses are being torn
down and replaced with housing for millionaires, seeing a social change in Burlingame, people working and
teachers who used to live on this block are gone because they can't afford to live here, there is a shortage of
housing for school teachers, police, nurses, etc., middle class people are being removed, we need to do
something to keep diversity in the city; there is a lot of remodeling going on, not for families, but by
developers who are doubling the size of houses for a profit. Concerned that the front porch is being lost, the
architectural design is not clear, concerned that the enclosed patio at the front can only be accessed from the
inside of the house, living room is set back 21 feet, but patio is a lot closer to the street, was this area exempt
from floor area and setbacks? Concerned with two story flat walls, proposed house will be four feet closer
to the house on the right which is a single story bungalow, most of the living space will face the new
windows, this is the long side of the house, will have an impact on the house to the right; concerned with
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
8
noise from the utility rooms, they would be less of an impact along the left side of the house adjacent to the
driveway; roof plan would be clearer if it were done as a separate drawing, not on the site plan as shown; did
not see a comment from the City Arborist regarding the Acacia tree, it does not appear to be a Black Acacia,
would like to see an arborist report submitted; plans indicate that the windows will be wood prime sash with
stucco mold with simulated divided lite grills, want to make sure proposed windows meet the design
requirements of true divided lites; property owner has a business relationship with the designer of the next
project on the agenda, wished property owner used that designer. Live in Los Altos Hills and also owns a
house in Palo Alto, Los Alto Hills used to be 'rural', because it cost more to build here it encouraged rich
people to live here, concerned that developers are taking modest houses off the market, people who sell their
house after owning it for 20 years will make a profit, don't think city needs to encourage more profit; school
are important, but concerned that too much value will eliminate basic aid; will not serve Burlingame well if
character is allowed to change. Asked if second floor is allowed to extend beyond the declining height
envelope; yes, there is a window enclosure exemption and it applies here. Concerned that this is another big
house, roof ridge cut off to comply with height requirement, feel that the house does not fit in with the
natural architecture of the neighborhood; concerned with amount of paving for long, narrow driveway
without landscaping along the fence. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
Commission discussion: some difficult issues were brought up tonight by several residents, there are
Planning Commission subcommittees established to think through the affordability issues, would encourage
that residents also speak to Council members about these issues.
C. Auran 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 that the style is not clearly defined, neighborhood is made up of many
houses built in the 1920's, would challenge the designer to propose a style which can be identified and is
consistent with the styles in the neighborhood.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the comments
made. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m.
8. 440 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT MORTON
JONES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC.,
DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Cauchi recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He stepped down from the
dais and left the chambers.
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description, noting that historical information was submitted about
the site by Jennifer Pfaff. Commission asked if this site is historically significant and how that would affect
review of the proposed project. CA Anderson noted that as part of this process, staff will determine if this
project is categorically exempt by CEQA, but that the Commission should move forward with the design
review at this time. There were no further questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
9
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Robert Morton-Jones, property owner and James Chu, designer,
were available to answer questions, worked hard to save enough money to purchase this house, like this
neighborhood because it is family oriented, spoke to adjacent neighbors and the had no objections with the
proposed project, two remodels have occurred at this house, house is in poor condition, there is mold on the
walls, bathroom is old, kitchen is original and not useable, attached garage is nonconforming since it is on
property line, existing indoor barbeque is a fire hazard; was just informed of the historical information
today, willing to sell the existing house to the City for $1; tried to keep the character of the existing house by
using horizontal siding, salt box design; also keeping the existing 45-inch cedar tree in the rear yard.
Designer noted that an addition to the existing house was considered, but found too many problems with the
house, submitted measurements of the existing house for reference. The Commission made the following
comments:
nice to see that the proposed design is derivative of the original design, massing is handled well and
is compact;
the fascia on the gables on either side of the front entry appear to be too heavy;
concerned that there is no bed wall provided in bedroom #1, shifting the game room towards
Plymouth Way would eliminate a window in the bedroom and create room for the bed, increase the
size of the yard and allow for room under the stairs for mechanical equipment;
there are some errors on the front elevation which need to be corrected, first floor roof over porch,
recess is not shown;
if other Commissioners agree, would like to see a larger porch and a different material used for the
chimney other than wood siding, such as a stone or brick veneer;
proposed house is substantially more than the existing house, proposed house is located close to the
sidewalk along Bloomfield Road, create more space between the sidewalk and house; should
consider moving the house back a few feet along Bloomfield Road and leave the minimum required
9'-6" clear area for driveway, may have to loose landscape strip along the fence at the game room;
would like to see an arborist report submitted for the existing tree to remain along the proposed new
driveway, some rooting area for this tree will be lost, this tree will require protection fencing during
construction, there should be automatic irrigation provided for this tree, would like to see in arborist
report;
pervious paving around this tree may not help that much, amount of groundwater recharge through
pervious paving is minimum after 3-4 years because the gaps tend to seal over time especially in
areas with a lot of clay in the soil; visually, pavers are better since less concrete is visible;
window above the front entry in the second floor hall is too small, will not let much natural light in,
should increase the size of this window;
considered adding a base (water table) to the house to break up the mass, a material other than wood
siding to differentiate it from the rest of the house; and
could also consider eliminating the game room which would reduce the number of bedrooms to four,
then only a one-car garage would be required which could be accessed from Bloomfield Road, this
alternative would eliminate the long driveway from Plymouth Way, reduce the amount of paving on
site, reduce the impact on the adjacent house on Plymouth Way and create a larger useable yard; for
this alternative must factor in the existing 45-inch cedar tree and the 5 foot public utility easement
along the rear property line.
Public Comments: Elrae Bilsey, 112 Howard Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. House next
door at 631 Plymouth Way is owned by United Methodist Church of Burlingame and provides housing for
the Senior Pastor, concerned with removing this house, house was designed for the 1939 San Francisco
World's Fair, after the Fair it was taken by barge from Treasure Island to 440 Bloomfield Road, it was an
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
10
experimental house when it was built, house has not sustained any damage from earthquakes, the house is
old and needs refurbishing; Burlingame is known as the "Carmel of the North", however there are no
monster houses in Carmel, have no problem with living in a big house, house should be compatible with the
neighborhood; when moved to Burlingame bought old house, fixed it up and have lived here for 35 years;
existing house next door on Plymouth Way has three windows facing the new driveway, maintaining the
existing trees will be critical to provide screening and privacy, over the years both property owners have
worked together well to keep the trees pruned to insure privacy for each other, would like to maintain that
relationship with new owner; concerned with size and length of driveway, may become a problem in the
future; called the Burlingame Historical Society for more information about this house, also contacted Judith
Bekenheim who has written books on the 1939 Expo. Proposed plans indicate double glazed wood
casement windows, note should be added to indicate windows will be simulated true divided lite windows;
it's unfortunate that the front of the house is proposed along the long side of the lot, makes the house look
bigger. Applicant noted that he will work with the Senior Pastor to maintain the trees along that side of the
lot, will have arborist report address impacts to the existing tree along the proposed driveway. There were
no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: for clarification, Commission can conduct the design review on the proposed
design and staff will apply CEQA to this project to address the historical issues; CA noted that the project
will not return for action until CEQA review is complete.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions have
been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed. This motion was seconded
by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: Commission wanted clarification regarding the suggestion to move the house back
further along Bloomfield Road, is this a suggestion or direction to the applicant? CA noted that there needs
to be a motion to reconsider the original motion.
Chair Brownrigg made a motion to reconsider the original motion. This motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to reconsider. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-
0-1 (C. Cauchi abstain).
Commission discussion: would like Commission to direct application to move the house back an additional
2'-9" along Bloomfield Road, this would provide a 9'-6" driveway width at the game room, the landscape
strip along the sidewalk at the game room would have to be eliminated. Concerned with moving the house
further back, house will be closer to the neighbor on Plymouth Way; Commission pointed out that the
existing house is located on property line, so this would be a better situation for the neighbor.
Chair Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with direction to move the
house back an additional 2'-9" along Bloomfield Road, when the revisions have been made and plan checked
and when the CEQA review has been completed. This motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar
with direction to move the house back an additional 2'-9" along Bloomfield Road, when the revisions have
been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed. The motion failed on a roll
call vote 3-3-1 (Cers. Auran, Osterling and Brownrigg dissenting, C. Cauchi abstain).
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
11
Chair Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with the original motion when
the revisions have been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed. It will be
at the designer's discretion to move the house further back along Bloomfield Road. This motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a
time when the revisions have been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed.
The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abstain). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
C. Cauchi returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias.
9. 1524 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY
GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL BROWNRIGG AND
MARTY BURCHELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Brownrigg passed the gavel to Vice Chair Deal and noted he would abstain from this action because he
owns the property, stepped down from the dias and left the chambers.
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Asked if C. Brownrigg
could present the project. CA noted that C. Brownrigg cannot be present in the chambers for the item,
although he may comment on the request and leave if he wishes.
Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architecture, 205 Park Road, presented
the project noting several issues with the property, this is a remodel of a Tudor, tried to stay within the
Tudor revival style of this house and others on the block; in 1980 there was a previous second story addition
which was not consistent with the style, that will be removed and add a new steeper roof and dormers to
bring back the Tudor style and the increase the interior space available, total square footage added with this
remodel is 451 SF, along with making both the first and second floor space more useable; the height is 31'-
9" with the increase only a small triangle, at the center of the lot, the ridges parallel to the street are lower
than the 30 feet allowed; the declining height exception on the right side is the result of the architectural
style and would be greater if this were a Colonial and is caused in part by the down slope on the lot which
lowers the point of departure for calculating the declining height, the existing driveway is 7.5 ' wide at its
narrowest point, as a part of the 1980's remodel a deck at the rear extended this 7.5' portion, the deck is
replaced with structure for the same length, so not really extending the nonconforming length of the
driveway, could not fix without removing the wall of the house.
Commissioners asked about whether the proposed water table was wood trim with stucco below, could it be
made with a stone band or base with a stone chimney and by the front door? Are the bays wood? Yes all
bays are wood. Is there a planter on the front below the bay? No that is a sill. Lot is heavily vegetated, will
any trees be removed? No. There were no further comments from the floor. The Public Comment was
closed.
C. Vistica moved to place this item on the consent calendar with the findings made in the comments and
noting that the 7'-4" driveway width is an existing condition not being increased. The motion was seconded
by C. Terrones.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
12
Comment on the motion: the use of stone or brick should be left to the designer, don't feel that a landscape
plan is needed, the lot is heavily vegetated and no trees are going to be removed, should do a tree protection
plan during construction to insure that all work stays within the noted construction area and all trees
survive.
Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when any
changes have been made, reviewed by staff and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a 6-0-1
(C. Brownrigg abstaining) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.
This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
C. Brownrigg returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. Vice Chair Deal returned the gavel to
Chair Brownrigg.
10. 2105 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DENNIS AND JULIE CARLSON,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
(59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos and
Julie Carlson, property owner, represented the project. Architect noted that this is a simple addition to a
simple house. Commission noted the following:
concerned about the left side elevation towering over the house down slope, need to break up the
massing;
should remove the cultured stone at the front entry, works along the based, veneer should wrap;
concerned about the tower on the front, does not work well with the bay, detail needed, it has a
skinny proportion;
need to provide detail on the wrought iron work, more detail would improve it and should extend
around to the left side and same railing at the rear;
single story is simple in detail, but with a second story need more detail;
emergency egress windows all should be labeled;
chimney cap is adequate if fireplace is gas;
would like to see design like the house up the block, less boxy;
would like to see a landscape plan that adds large size shrubs and small trees to break up the
massing;
since the roof is flat needs to look as if there is no curb at the top or roof needs to be extended to a
peak;
need detail about down spouts and put in larger leader head box;
give the front porch more emphasis with increased detail; and
like idea of keeping it simple, don't want it to be sparse.
Comment from public: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, shrubs could help to screen the left side of the house; don't
like the look of the tower element on the front; the front entry could be improved by deepening the side porch;
would be better if the stone were removed and replace with shrubs instead. There were no further public comments.
The public comment period was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006
13
C. Auran moved to place this item on the consent calendar when all the changes have been made to the plans,
reviewed by the staff, and there is space on the agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: needs a lot of treatment to the wall on the east side, maybe better to bring back on action;
can removed from consent calendar if not satisfied; a number of these comments are serious and need to be
addressed.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to set this time to the consent calendar when the changes
have been made and reviewed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of May 15, 2006.
CP reviewed the planning related actions at the May 15, 2006, council meeting. Noting that the Council
upheld the Planning Commission on the appeal at 1416 Balboa Avenue, however, expressed concern
about the opportunities for exceeding the 30 foot height limit offered by a special permit, thought that
the special permit would encourage certain styles of architecture which are dependent on taller roofs,
such as Tudor. Also noted that the Council introduced the proposed Rollins Road zoning regulations
and new zoning map for public hearing on June 5, 2006. Commissioners discussed subcommittee
assignments briefly, chair noted that he would update the assignment list and make it available to
everyone. In response to a letter sent to the Beautification Commission on which Planning Commission
was copied, some Commissioners noted that a certain uniformity of tree species along the streets in
certain neighborhoods was beneficial and wondered if the Beautification Commission had discussed
this. Staff noted that there is a clear division of responsibility with the Planning Commission reviewing
planting plans on private property and the Beautification Commission responsible for policy regarding
street trees and trees on public property.
- FYI: 1416 Carlos Avenue - changes to approved design review project.
Commission reviewed the changes proposed to the approved project at 1416 Carlos and noted that they
were not substantial.
- FYI: 1532 Bernal Avenue - change to approved design review project.
Since the commission cannot make recommendations to an FYI without a public hearing, the
Commissioners voted on a motion made by C. Deal and seconded by C. Cauchi to return this item to the
action calendar at the next available meeting. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
V:\MINUTES\Minutes Template.doc