HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.12.06.PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
June 12, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the June 12, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Terrones and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Osterling
Staff Present: Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Planner, Erica Strohmeier;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 22, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1410-B BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES INCIDENTAL TO A
RETAIL USE (AMY ULRICH; APPLICANT AND JOYCE SHIELDS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked if the existing retail use required
a parking variance, or is it nonconforming. SP Brooks noted that the second floor retail use is non-
conforming in parking, and noted that the requested variance is for the incremental increase in the parking
requirement for the intensification of 75 SF of space; this results in a requirement for one parking space.
Commissioners asked if a personal service could go into that space without a parking variance; yes.
Commissioners noted that a beauty shop or nail salon with five stations could generate more parking
demand than the proposed retail space with 75 SF of instructional area because of the short stay of retail
customers and the small size and off hours emphasis of the instructional activity. Commissioners asked:
• Can the variance be tied to the fiber arts and crafts instructional use only?
This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the
Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:05 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.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
2
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Commissioners asked that Item 2B, 2105 Roosevelt Avenue, be removed from the
consent calendar and considered as a regular action item. There were no other requests.
2A. 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
Chair Brownrigg recused himself from this action because he is the applicant; he stepped down from the
dais and left the Council Chambers.
C. Auran 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. Cauchi. Vice-Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion
and it passed 5-0-1-1 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 7:08 p.m.
VII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2B. 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
Reference staff report June 12, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Julie Carlson, 2105 Roosevelt Avenue, applicant, represented
the project. Commissioners made the following comments:
• Concerned about the mass and bulk on the left side elevation, cannot see that anything has changed
on this side besides the added belly band and shutters, does not address the mass and bulk issues;
• The vertical element with the stair well was removed on the exterior, but do not understand how the
stairs will work on the interior, it is not clear on the floor plan;
• Would like to see the mass on the left side wall handled differently, and to see some variation in the
wall, a portion recessed or a plate line dropped on the second floor; there is a 12' driveway width,
there is room to do something such as pop out the dining room window, could play with the second
floor plate heights, something to break up the mass; if there is an issue with overall floor area, can
remove some in one area and add some in others to create variation;
• No character, no interest on left elevation, hard to find a style for that elevation; does not make sense
to have shutters only on one window on that side;
• Tower over entryway is out of proportion and needs some work;
• Decorative conductor heads were added to the downspouts, but not consistently around the house,
only added on the one side;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
3
• Corbels over the entry should be made larger, it would better define the porch; and
• Planting will be limited because of the narrow space next to the driveway, landscaping is not really
going to work along this wall to solve the problem with mass and bulk.
C. Vistica made a motion to continue this item to the regular action calendar when the Commission's
comments have been addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Commissioners expressed
concern that the architect was not here, and encouraged him to get a copy of the tapes of the meeting.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 6-0-1
voice vote (C. Osterling absent). The continuance is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
3. 1207 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (S.E.A. CONSTRUCTION,
APPLICANT; ROGER AND ZENIAMAE GHIOTTI, PROPERTY OWNERS; MARC TETRAULT,
ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report June 12, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Tetrault, Marc Lindsell Architects, 501 Cortland
Avenue, San Francisco, and Roger Ghiotti, 1207 Cortez, applicant, represented the project. Commissioners
commented that the project is an improvement over the original submittal, it is close to being a nice project,
but the submittal suffers from drawing mishaps and lack of attention to detail. Commissioners made the
following comments:
• On front elevation, beef up the columns on the pedestals, they are a little spindly;
• On front elevation, at the far right hand side, the eave appears to be shorter than the rest of the eaves;
• On right elevation, the material on the chimney element should be carried all the way down,
fireplace on Prairie style house is usually massive and a dominant feature, make it bigger and it will
look better;
• On left elevation, the water table/wainscot along the bottom tapers to a very narrow strip, height
should be raised; either need to have a higher water table or stop the water table at some point;
• What is the intent on left elevation, need to look at recess with small window in opening below the
bay, would be better served with something other than one window in the opening;
• Columns on pedestal treatment on the front elevation could translate throughout the entire design,
could help other elevations, could use that treatment on the columns supporting the second floor
bays; detailing of bay towards the back of the house is inconsistent with the Prairie style; tie the
elements together with columns and bays;
• The first to second floor height is noted at 10'-6", this leaves only one foot between floors, cannot
get ceiling joists and new second floor joists into the one foot of space that would be left given the
existing 9'-6" plate height on the first floor; needs to be shown correctly because the overall height
will influence how things relate, need to show actual floor to floor height;
• Are gutters drawn to scale, if it is 4" round it will look too massive, will they be round or square?
• Label the different window types; should use a Prairie style window with muntin bars at the top
which accentuates the Prairie style, would be a positive addition; high quality windows help
tremendously;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
4
• Heavy horizontal line is used along the left elevation across fascia, at first bay, it profiles a plane
change; however, at back bay, same line weight is used and it is all one surface, the profile line leads
you to believe there is a plane change;
• Drawings are hard to read, too many different types of line patterns; and
• The method of shadowing used does not work, it fights with the lines in the drawing.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Cauchi moved to continue the item
to a regular action calendar when the Commission's comments have been addressed. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Osterling absent). The continuance is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m.
4. 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR
RECREATION PURPOSES/SLEEPING QUARTERS WITH A FULL BATHROOM (ALLEN
MENICUCCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report dated June 12, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Allen Menicucci, property owner, represented the project.
Commission asked why the therapy room could not be inside the house. Applicant responded that the unit
has never been used as a bedroom, but that if he needs a caretaker, then this room could be used as a
bedroom; smaller accessory structure was there when house was purchased 40 years ago; bathroom added
17 years ago, believe that wife lived four to five years longer because she could stay in her own house and
use the therapy room; all work on the structure has been done with a permit.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, talk of accessory structures has been going on for a few months; visited
Mr. Menicucci, he is not asking for anything other than what was granted for his wife in the past; was
permitted before to be used for sleeping quarters for a caregiver or family member; there could be a hardship
if he was required to remove the room from his property; he has never asked for the structure to be made a
living unit through amnesty program, and therefore he has never meant for this to be made a permanent use
when he sold his property; hoping that the Planning Commission will grant this permit through amnesty
program. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented: It is a very small 2-bedroom house and the room has been there by the grace of
the commission for 17 years; would be willing to grant extension of the use, but not make it a permanent
extension, need to discuss clause; would be in favor of granting the approval with the sunset clause of 5
years; this project has a distinction from other projects because this accessory structure is not eliminating the
garage; cannot support the project, this adds one more bedroom and bathroom in an already overcrowded
area with not enough existing parking; C. Deal noted that while he had voted for this item previously, he
would oppose the present application because the conditions do not include a sunset clause; have made
interpretation that this is a third bedroom, applicant could add additional bedrooms onto the house without
increasing the parking demand; comfortable putting the $100,000 rider if it was tied to remodel or addition
to the house; this is just another part of the house; and if there were ever to be any changes to the house or
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
5
any building permits altering the interior of the house, then the use permits and variance should go away;
would be a substantial remodel at $100,000; would like to see number substantially lowered; $50,000 would
be a better number.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1)
that the project shall continue to be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped March 30, 2005, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations; 2) that the accessory structure use shall be
limited to a therapy room and sleeping quarters for family guests or a caretaker to stay as needed; 3) that if
there is a building permit for an addition or an alteration to the main structure or for any construction valued
at $50,000 or more on this property, the accessory structure shall be demolished and any use permits for the
accessory structure voided; 4) that the accessory structure shall never be used as a second dwelling unit,
shall never include a kitchen or cooking element, and shall not include additional or upgraded utility
services without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5) that the lot coverage variance being
granted is based on the existing conditions on the property which were approved by previous permits; the lot
coverage variance is applicable only to the existing accessory structure, cannot be transferred to any other
portion of the property and will cease when any portion of the existing structure or the accessory structure is
removed; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the amended conditions. The
motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Auran and Deal dissenting and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m.
5. 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)
(37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report June 12, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. SP Brooks noted that one
additional condition is suggested based on a request from the Police Department regarding amusement
permits. Although this project is not requesting an amusement permit at this time, a condition is suggested
which would require that failure to abide by the conditions of approval of any amusement permit granted by
the City Council for this site shall result in review of the conditional use permit for the entire site by the
Planning Commission. The purpose of the condition is to aid in the enforcement of the conditions of the
amusement permits, and similar conditions will be considered for all future food establishment applications
in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial areas. Commissioners asked about a notation on the
plans which indicates that a parking space at the rear of the site is dedicated to 1123 Burlingame Avenue,
this site is 1125 Burlingame Avenue, is that an error? SP Brooks noted that this property contains several
tenant spaces, and there was a previous application at 1123 Burlingame Avenue for a food establishment,
and this parking space is intended for use by that tenant space. Commissioners asked in the future, would
the applicant be able to add a dining area in the basement area. SP Brooks noted that since the basement
area is not exempt from parking, conversion of this space from storage to dining area would require a
parking variance, in addition to an amendment to the use permit for increase in seating area.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Gokhan Kahraman, 1045 Cadillac Way, Burlingame, applicant,
represented the project, and submitted a tile sample and a paint sample, noting that they had originally
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
6
proposed to remove the tile, it will now be replaced with tile like the sample. Commissioners asked about
the window on the Lorton side which looks into the cooking area, there is an oven to the right of the
window, what is the piece of equipment to the left, will it block the window? The applicant noted that this is
a counter, which may be slightly taller than the window sill, but will not block the window. Commissioners
noted that the added window and tiles are appreciated, is there a reason a window is not being added in the
other blank space? The applicant noted that he had consulted with the structural engineer, and there is a
main column on the building in this location and adding a window may trigger seismic requirements, so it
would be a risk.
Commissioners made suggestions regarding the two entry doors, it appears that there is room to add
clerestory windows above the both doors, think if the opening were lined up with other openings, it would
be a more graceful entry. Commissioners noted that although the Planning Commission does not regulate
color, the chosen color looks okay in the small sample, but may be too bright when used on the entire
façade. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 1,
2006, sheets A-0P, A-1P and A-2P; 2) that this business location occupied by a full service food
establishment, with 875 SF of on-site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a
limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the
criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 3) that the 875 SF area
of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall only be enlarged or extended to any other areas
within the tenant space by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that this full service food
establishment may be open seven days a week, from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of 11 full-
time employees and three part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and
manager; 5) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent
with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at
any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 6) that the business shall
provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the
business; 7) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food
from this premise; 8) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any
opening within 10' of the property line; 9) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any
retail or other use this conditional use permit shall become void and a food establishment shall not be
replaced on this site; 10) that seating on the sidewalk outside the food establishment shall require an
encroachment permit and shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city;
11) that failure to abide by the conditions of approval of any amusement permit granted by the City Council
shall result in review of the conditional use permit for the entire site by the Planning Commission; 12) 2006
memo, the Fire Marshal's April 19, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist’s April 24, 2006 memo and the
NPDES Coordinator's April 17, 2006 memo shall be met; and 13) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the
City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on
the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The
motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Commissioners comment although the project is being approved as submitted, the applicant could pursue the
suggestion to include clerestory windows above the two doors, and if so, the changes would come back to
the Commission as an information item.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
7
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 62 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JACK CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGR. INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHIN-SHUI CHANG, PROPERTY OWNER)
(26 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack Chu, 39 W. 43rd Ave, architect, represented the project.
Commission commented:
• Project does not work; if you look at other houses in the neighborhood, this design does not
make sense; project is off to the wrong start and needs a complete re-work;
• Proposed house is big and bulky and lacks good qualities on the front; the house is boxy without
any scale to it; the front elevation needs more attention and more work;
• The design of this house is stucco with asphalt shingles; there is nothing to delineate the style of
the house;
• Should have a 9’ plate height on the first floor and an 8’-1” plate height on the second floor; the
proposed plate height is too large in comparison to other houses in the neighborhood;
• More detail is needed on the windows, what type are they? Should be noted on the plans;
• The massing on the left side is not bad; some of the massing is starting to get there;
• There are consistent elements along the house, but the design is lacking in charm and detail;
• Project should include a front porch element; the proposed entryway is completely uninviting;
• Should look at design guidelines and come up with an identifiable style; a Craftsman style house
might work better in this neighborhood;
• This project does not propose enough landscaping; need to add more; and
• Make sure scale is right along the driveway; there is a discrepancy between site plan and
landscape plan.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was
seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the
comments made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
8
7. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND DECLINING
HEIGHT ENVELOPE, VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT;
WAYNE SOSNICK, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
KRISTINA WOERNER
C. Deal noted he would recuse himself from this action because of a business relationship with the applicant.
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff, is office next to garage
counted as a bedroom? Yes; is the front setback variance for the existing condition? No, it is for the new
second floor setback.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Wayne Sosnick, 3105 Margarita Ave, applicant, stated that
the house does not have as much room as one would think; did not want to remove the back deck and
therefore decided to build up; problem with increasing garage length because of major bearing wall; much
articulation has been designed into elevations; because house is a split level on a sloped lot, there was little
place to add.
Brian Murphy, 3101 Margarita Ave.; Linda Murphy, 3101 Margarita Ave.; Frank Sullivan, 1560 Los
Montes Dr.; Glenn Hout, 3112 Margarita Ave.; and Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Ave., spoke. Style is
not compatible with the neighborhood; mass and bulk is out of character with the neighborhood; pool shed is
not included on the plans, shed should be upgraded and pool area should be made to drain correctly; would
prefer an addition that pushed out to the rear rather than up, especially with the allowable 40% lot coverage;
this addition could throw off the look of the street; concerned with interface of balcony with neighboring
property; do not look at this neighborhood as eclectic, mainly ranch and Dutch colonial style homes; this is a
high impact addition; disappointed that not enough consideration has been given to the neighbors with this
addition; in reality this is a completely new house that is not compatible with the neighborhood; the addition
will cause view obstruction, window that has a view of the Bay Area will be obstructed and proposed
windows will look right into neighbors bedroom window; house will be out of character with the
neighborhood and will destroy the ranch style of the neighborhood; thought that original plan was to
excavate basement and extend out towards rear of property; there is an incredible amount of mass and bulk
at the front of the house; should excavate basement and move out 10’-12’ into the rear yard and get the same
amount of square footage; it is a nice house, but could be accomplished without all of the special permits
and variances; the whole house plan goes against the mass, bulk and scale outlined in the neighborhood
design guidelines; does not need all of the variances, same thing could be accomplished in a different
manner; Spanish style is not compatible with the neighborhood; and allowing for variances and special
permits creates a precedence in the neighborhood.
Commission asked: Is there a reason why the garage width could not be 20’? Indicated that Spanish style
was embraced, but it is still a box on top of a box; why Spanish style? The rendering submitted does not
match with the Spanish style; is the rendering of the same house? It looks very different than what is
provided on the plans; house is nicely designed but could look great without a couple of the variances, for
example, the front and side setback variances and possibly one or both of the parking variances; the hillside
area construction permit ordinance is in place to protect distant views; if house was brought back 2.5’ from
the street then the bedroom would be smaller, but the variance would not be required and a balcony could be
added which is typical of the Spanish style; have not emphasized too much in terms of style; and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
9
has consideration been given to excavating the basement area?
The applicant responded that they prefer the Spanish style; that the drawing submitted to the Commission
does not depict the same style as the plans; the variances could be simplified; they would like to make the
garage 20’ wide; pushing out at the rear of the house would block more of their neighbors’ views than going
up will; in Burlingame there are many different styles of houses in all neighborhoods and this diversity adds
character to the neighborhoods; in excavating the basement, the addition would be entirely underground,
next to the garage, and would also be a great cost; there are very minimal changes to the first floor; they
want to stay in the neighborhood but they need to expand for their growing family. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented:
• The plans show a full bathroom in the basement, therefore the study could be used as a bedroom
in the basement area;
• Concerns with all of the variances, however the garage variances are quite minor, should focus
on eliminating the second floor front and side setback variances;
• Handsome design, not concerned with the fit of the style;
• Before this project comes back to the Planning Commission, story poles must be put into place
to see if there are any view blockage issues; when story poles go up neighbors will get a better
idea if their views will be blocked; views are supposed to be protected in this area;
• Could get away with a lower pitch on the roof and still stay with a Spanish style;
• Applaud applicants for going forward with this project; and
• Nice design and style, but should get rid of left side balcony.
Chair Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the
requested revisions have been made and plan checked and story poles have been installed and surveyed by a
licensed surveyor. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: there are tons of alternatives here, maybe excavating more would work better;
applicant should be sensitive to view blockage issues; the pool shed and drainage issue should also be
addressed prior to coming back to the Commission.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed and the story poles have been installed and surveyed. The motion passed on a
voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal recused and C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:28 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
8. 1017 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JERRY WINGES,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND CINDY GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (58
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Auran recused himself from this action because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped
down from the dais and left the chambers.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
10
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jerry Winges, 1290 Howard Avenue, architect, stated that the
Gilsons have done high quality development in Burlingame; the colonial style works well on this up sloped
site; no variances are being requested; the plate heights on the second floor are being kept low with dormers,
has horizontal painted wood siding and a brick base; the front elevation has a low scale with a traditional
look.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, stated that this is a beautiful house and will be a great addition to the
neighborhood; the different materials will add great detail; please make sure that the windows are simulated
true divided light windows; the house is designed well and fits in extraordinarily well; could use a driveway
with two strips of concrete and grass running down the middle; will the retaining wall at the front go away?
The architect responded that the retaining wall in the front will be eliminated and that they are proposing
sand set concrete pavers rather than stone for the driveway.
Commission discussion: In general, seems pretty successful and seems to work well, is a pretty authentic
colonial; is the change in material three times along each elevation an effort to break up mass and bulk?
Certain historic styles do carry different materials; overall, like the design; front wall of neighboring house
is equivalent to this one; colonials are nice when they are set back from the street; and will stone paving be
set in a sand base? The impervious driveway surfaces are taxing to the storm drain system.
The Commission made the following comments on the project:
• would look better without dormer additions on the sides, they do not do what they are trying to
do; the windows in these locations should have smaller shutters instead of dormers;
• a note should be added to the plans indicating that all windows will be simulated true divided
light;
• the driveway should be labeled as concrete sand-set pavers;
• the dormers on the side elevations may be removed per architects preference;
• the use of unit pavers should be left up to the applicant because after awhile pavers are not
permeable at all; and
• it is important to notice that the amount of area covered by hardscape is significant and it is good
to maintain the environmental quality of the area.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Terrones made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been
made and plan-checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Brownrigg 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 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran recused and C. Osterling
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45
p.m.
C. Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2006
11
- Review of City Council regular meeting of June 5, 2006.
CA Anderson reviewed the planning related actions of the June 5, 2006, noting that the Rollins Road
zoning was approved. He also noted that the Council will be considering a bond issue for the fall to
fund storm drain improvements and bringing City facilities up to current seismic and disabled access
regulations, as well as providing facilities for disaster preparedness.
- FYI: 1541 Burlingame Avenue – changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
Commission reviewed the changes proposed to the approved project at 1541 Burlingame Avenue and
noted they were not substantial.
- FYI: 2006/2007 Planning Commission Subcommittee Assignments
Chair Brownrigg noted that he had additional information he wanted to provide to the Commission and
asked that the discussion on Committee assignments be moved to the next meeting.
- FYI: Report on Peninsula Hospital Construction Hours
SP Brooks presented the report submitted by Peninsula Hospital regarding construction hours, noting
that although the change in hours has been approved, the hospital has not started the extended evening
hours. It is expected that the extended hours will begin in mid-June, and the next report will be
submitted to the Commission at its July 10, 2006 meeting.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
S:MINUTES\unapproved.06.12.06.doc