HomeMy WebLinkAbout062606PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
June 26, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the June 26, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 12, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with the following corrections: Page 1 item 1 at
the end of line 5 add (italics) Commissioners noted that a beauty shop or nail
salon with five stations could generate more parking demand than the
proposed retail space with 75SF of instructional area because of the short
stay of retail customers and the small size and off hours emphasis of the
instructional activity. Page 4 at end of last paragraph of Commissioners
comments: "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;" C. Deal moved to approve the minutes as amended.
The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. The motion passed on a voice
vote 6-0-1 with C. Osterling abstaining because he did not attend the June 12,
2006 meeting.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that Bill Lee of Economic Research Associates was present
tonight to discuss the conclusions of the Downtown Economic Study with the
Commission. She asked if the presentation could be added to the agenda
before From the Floor so members of the audience could comment on the
conclusions if they wished. The commission agreed to the amendment.
V. PRESENTATION William Lee of Economic Research Associates presented a summary of the
Downtown Economic Study which was prepared as a precursor to the
preparation of a downtown specific plan and included an analysis of the
potential for mixed use on the Safeway site at Howard and El Camino. As it
turns out the economic study will also provide valuable background for the
Downtown Design Charrette to be held at the end of September on Howard
Avenue. After a Power Point presentation of the high points and conclusions
of the study the Commissioners asked questions: noting the age of the
respondents to the residential survey; that the schematic shown for the mixed
use on the Safeway site was only one of a number of schematic designs
which could work on the site; asked how the cost of relocation of the box
culvert was determined, Mr. Lee noted that Public Works based it on the cost
of a recent project at another location and they inflated the price to be sure
that the actual cost would be 'in the ball park'; explored the details of why the
Auto Row area was not appropriate for housing and how the new Auto Row
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
2
on Adrian Road might develop, Mr. Lee noted that the environment of the
current auto row is not supportive of residential development, there is a high
potential for expensive hazardous clean up with the change in use, and the
auto dealers are benefiting from low land and improvement costs and an
established location which is regionally accessible and convenient to mass
transit for service, and finally auto row is a major contributor to Burlingame's
sales tax revenue advantage in the county. Wanted to know why promoting
expensive condominiums in the mixed use, Mr. Lee noted that the service
costs to the community are the same for housing at all values but the tax
revenue for dwellings which sell for more are substantially greater, and the
market is there for the higher cost units; the need and benefit for the
downtown to be attractive to outsiders was discussed, and it was noted, is as
important as bringing more residents into the downtown area to increase the
market size, Mr. Lee noted that there was sufficient capacity to add
residential uses on Howard to absorb the near term (10 year) housing
demand. Mr. Lee noted that current retail challenge is that the large scale
national tenants with broader attraction can force out the small scale tenants
who give the downtown its character; mixed use is an advantage since these
retail spaces are small, attractive to the smaller retailer, and the housing, at
the proposed price, can support below grade parking allowing the retail to
share the public parking so more than one retail visit can be made without
moving the car. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
VI. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VII. STUDY ITEMS
Chair Brownrigg confirmed with all the commissioners that they had visited all the sites with projects on
tonight's agenda.
1. 1601 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARGARET
JENSEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
KRISTINA WOERNER
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
concerned that the proposed addition doesn't comply with front setback requirements, could
reconfigure the kitchen or other space to make the addition comply;
the existing masonry wall along Crescent Avenue extends into the public right-of-way, can staff
confirm if an encroachment permit was issued;
the existing façade along Howard Avenue has character, why are the shutters and other details being
removed? Suggestion retaining the existing shutters and other architectural details throughout;
have a large front yard with nice landscaping, apple tree may be negatively affected by the proposed
addition, need to consider this more closely, show proximity of apple tree to proposed addition more
accurately;
clarify purpose of new stucco molding along the roof edge, not appropriate for aesthetic reasons, but
may o.k. if it is for water proofing;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
3
slope of the roof at the addition may be too flat for the tile roof, confirm that slope is adequate;
encourage use of wood or aluminum wood clad windows throughout the house, note on plans;
house clearly reads as if front is on Howard Avenue, can staff provide a setback analysis with
Howard Avenue as the front of the lot;
concerned with 6' tall masonry wall along Crescent Avenue, can staff provide fence regulations for
this lot; and
want to be clear that comments regarding stucco mold, affect on apple tree and suggestions for
windows do not affect my review of variance request.
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 7:55 p.m.
2. 1315 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A
FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN SCHLENKE,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ELISEY SOKOLIK, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
KRISTINA WOERNER
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioner noted that he met with the property owner
on site to review location of the addition at the rear of the house. Commissioners asked:
this is a small lot but more FAR is allowed on smaller lots, in addition an incentive is offered for
detached garages, so lot size is not a hardship;
why can't the bedroom be added on the second floor, would eliminate the variance request; and
applicant needs to provide more justification for the lot coverage variance, what are the hardships on
this property?
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 8:00 p.m.
3. 1820 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT
FOR CONVERSION OF OFFICE USE TO HEALTH SERVICE USE (JERRY WARREN, APPLICANT;
GENE WARREN, DESIGNER; SUSAN FULLERMANN AND JERRY WARREN, PROPERTY
OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioner noted that the comments from the Chief
Building Official in his memo dated November 21, 2005, regarding requirements for handrails at stairways
is incorrect and should be fixed; staff will discuss this issue with the Chief Building Official to get the
correct information in place.
Commissioners asked:
condition needs to be added noting that the parking variance shall only apply to this building and
shall become void if the building is ever expanded, replaced, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe
or natural disaster;
on site visit noticed a large storage shed in parking space #24 and other equipment in parking area,
shed and all other equipment needs to be removed to make all parking spaces available at all times;
and
landscaping needs to be added around the garbage area.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
4
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 8:05 p.m.
4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ZONING CONSISTENCY – BAYFRONT SPECIFIC
PLAN – PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
Chair Brownrigg suggested that this item be moved to the end of the agenda, since it is not a public hearing
and currently an item for Commission discussion. Commission concurred with the change.
VIII. 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. A member of the audience asked that item 5a 1017 Balboa Avenue be placed on the
action calendar for a public hearing.
5b. 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 (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner's
comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
5a. 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) (52
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Auran noted that he would recuse himself from this item because of a business relationship with the
applicant and left the dias and chambers.
Reference staff report June 26, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges, architect represented the project; Dave
Steinberger, 1021 Balboa Avenue. Neighbor noted that during the rains this spring he saw a lot of water on
his property from the property at 1017 Balboa, and wanted to know if this project would address this
condition. Architect noted that all drainage will be directed to the street as required by the city of all new
development. Commissioners noted that the new driveway would be pervious which should also help
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
5
reduce surface drainage. Staff noted that there were conditions required of this project which address
surface run-off and will be implemented through the Building permit. Commissioner noted that a condition
should be added that this site should be maintained in a 'neat and tidy' condition throughout construction and
that all landscaping should be maintained during construction. There were no further comments from the
floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, including an additional condition that the site
shall be maintained in a neat and tidy condition throughout construction and that all existing landscaping
shall be maintained through out construction and with the following conditions in the staff report: (1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 1,
2006, sheets T-1 through A-7, L1.0, and with the driveway paving material correction added to page A-0 on
June 14, 2006; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and
amendment to this permit; and that the site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy condition throughout
construction and that all existing landscaping shall be maintained through out construction; (2) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Official’s April 28, 2006 memo, the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's, and
NPDES Coordinator’s May 1, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2006 memo shall be met;
3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of
the 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; 5)
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; 6) 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; and all windows shall be
simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 7) 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; 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 to the
Building Department; 9) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate
the property corners and set the building footprint; 10) 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; 11) 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;
12) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation
Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
application; 13) 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; 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City
of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 15) that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
6
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the added condition
that the site and existing landscaping be maintained throughout construction. The motion passed on a
voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15
p.m.
C. Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat.
6. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANTIAL
CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHRAFI
AND DEBBIE KAUFMAN, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS, FRANK
KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report June 26, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Frank Knifsend, property owner, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue
represented the project. Lived here 7 years, family growing, incorporated most of the good suggestions
from the study review. Commissioner noted that there is a Dogwood in the rear yard near an Acacia at the
rear, these two will not do well together, can the Acacia be removed and a more substantial tree from the
Street Tree list be put in the place of the Dogwood? Acacia is in the easement, believe planted by the
neighbor, will ask if can remove and will plant another tree in my yard. Why are you working within the
existing foundation of the house, removing most of the walls and under pinning the foundation, might be
better, more conforming to zoning code and cheaper to begin with a new house; will talk to a contractor,
wife likes first floor layout reason did not begin from scratch. Only reason given for variances is cost, cost
is not a hardship on the property, hardship must be a physical condition on the lot. Feel that the exceptions
to the code are small, 2 inches, 4 inches and a substantial reduction in the amount of the existing house
which encroaches into the front setback a foot. Previous comments made at study are not adequately
addressed including the relationship of the first floor to the second floor at the front, lack of detailing on the
front porch which will result in not being able to build the porch as shown and a return to the Commission
with an FYI, poor detail on the gable ends, so may not turn out as shown, on the rear elevation the windows
at the bay on the second floor are not resolved; right side elevation upper balcony with bay window does not
work, it is not integrated into the façade; wainscoting around the house is not an even height, not sure what
is going on below, it is okay on the front but too small on the sides; lack of detailing will result in it being
built differently so will have to be changed in the field and will result in an FYI. Commission noted not so
concerned about the variances as I am about the detailing, the wainscoting on the left side is broken at the
utility door, should continue around to the rear, and if it is on the side needs to be full height, will reduce the
apparent height of the building if it is the same height all around. Have same concerns about design detail
and bay window on right side, also need better gable end, on front elevation the gutter return on the left does
not balance with the right side. Architect noted that this maybe because of the visual projection of the bay
window on the side elevation. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner comments: not able to support the number of variances requested because the design is not
resolved, the work to address the comments at study was not well integrated into the design; agree a jumble
of components, perhaps responded too fast; variances requested are understated, 2 inches on the side, front
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
7
is OK because encroachment is reduced substantially, concerned about the garage created from the shed in
the rear, design of this building is not related to the house at all, feel a denial is appropriate.
C. Vistica, noting that it would be cheaper to begin again on this design, moved for a denial without
prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: Applicant has heard comments, should listen to tapes, denial without prejudice
gives him the most options in terms of time and design; clarify not as concerned about the variances,
generally minimal, and would support if had a design that would stand up to the objectives of the design
guidelines; can this item be referred to design review? CP noted that it cannot be referred to design review
now, but if denied without prejudice a resubmittal would be treated as a new project and can be referred to
design review, a denial without prejudice leaves the amount of change for resubmittal up to the applicant, no
additional fees are charged by the city although the applicant would be required to pay for the design review
process if it is required. Need to give the applicant direction:
combination of lack of design and number of variances makes the project unapprovable;
cannot support motion because do not believe have given appropriate guidance;
difficult to develop dynamic design because confined by existing nonconforming conditions, with
new building could loosen up and make a better design possible; and
plans lack detail, no definition of the window type, want sizing of corbels, outriggers, dimensions
missing in many places, cannot tell room sizes etc.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny this application without prejudice with the
direction to redesign as noted. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
7. 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TINA CHENG,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (66
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal recused himself because he has a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from
the dias and left the chambers.
Reference staff report June 26, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tina Chen property owner represented the project. She
summarized the change they had made to the plans since the study session. Commission asked what surface
material was proposed for the driveway, stamped concrete would be OK since there is not much hard surface
proposed for this site. It was noted that the project would benefit from a more artistic garage door
conveying a more elegant appearance stylistically supporting the design of the house; also the second floor
balcony at the rear is rather large, in this case it might work since it is at the center of the lot, but generally
discourage such large balconies because of impacts on the neighbor's privacy. Applicant noted they were
willing to reduce the size of the balcony.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Like to note a typo on the data chart, FAR .49, does the trellis cantilever
from the wall? Yes. Counted the Spanish houses in this area, there are a lot but most of them are one story;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
8
this design is OK but the rear is more pedestrian friendly than the front, will invite entertainment in the rear
yard; good house, but too big. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was
closed.
C. Vistica noted that little bungalows predominate in this area, this project will stand out, but they have kept
the tree, reduced the garage from three to two cars, this is a much better project so move approval 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 June 13, 2006, sheets 1 through 5, G-1, F-1 and L1 and dated
April 25, 2006, Boundary and Topographic Survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s
March 31, 2006 memo, the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator’s April 3, 2006
memos and the Recycling Specialist's April 5, 2006 memo shall be met; that the property owner should
prepare a full landscape plan and submit it to the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a
building permit; (3) that the garage door shall be replaced with a new garage door which incorporates
windows and conveys a more elegant design consistent with the design of the house to be reviewed as an
FYI by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building permit; (4) that the site shall be
maintained in a neat and tidy state before and during construction and that all current landscaping shall be
maintained until it is replaced; (5) that the property owner shall prepare a full landscape plan and submit it
to the Planning Commission FYI before issuance of a building permit; (6) 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; (7) 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; (8) 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; (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; all windows shall be simulated true divided
light windows with three dimensional wood mullions and shall contain a stucco-mould trim; (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 prior to scheduling the roof
deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that
height to the Building Department; (12) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed
surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (13) 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; 14) 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; (15) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time
of permit application; (16) 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; (17) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
9
1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (18) 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. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: could leave the selection of a better garage door to the applicant; agree with the
design reviewer that the landscape plan needs to be improved, currently does not define where the materials
begin and end; should add a condition to keep the site neat and tidy during construction and to maintain the
existing landscaping during the construction process; number of current conditions from public works and
NPDES address maintenance of the site during construction, seems it will be difficult to enforce the site
maintenance as a planning condition. Need to clarify amendments to the conditions of approval:
that the property owner should prepare a full landscape plan and submit it to the Planning
Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit;
that the garage door shall be replaced with a new garage door which incorporates windows and
conveys a more elegant design consistent with the design of the house to be reviewed as an FYI by
the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building permit; and
that the site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy state before and during construction and that all
current landscaping shall be maintained until it is replaced.
The maker and second of the motion to approve accepted the additional conditions to the motion.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with three additional conditions
addressing submittal of a full landscape plan, maintaining the site and site landscaping during construction,
and replacing the garage door with one that better matches the proposed design and supports the quality of
the new construction. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 ( C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat.
X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1520 ARC WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
LOCATION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE
FRONT SETBACK FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TOM AND LIZ O’CONNOR,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (115 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked staff to clarify the separation
requirement between the house and detached garage. Plr noted that 4'-0" is the minimum required
separation between structures, measured eave to eave. In this case, the distance was measured from the
garage eave to the house wall since there is no eave at the first floor portion of the house. There were no
further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, designer, represented the project, noted that
there is a three-story apartment building across the street on Arc Way, to minimize the impact decided to
reorient the front of the house Walnut Avenue, also will give it a more single family residential feel;
adjacent neighbor at 1524 Arc Way has its rear yard abutting the right side property line of the subject
property, neighbor requested that the new house be set back as much as possible to reduce the impact on
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
10
their rear yard, accomplished that by designing a u-shaped house with a center courtyard; the new garage
will be in approximately the same location as the existing garage; the amoeba-shaped parking area at the
front of the lot will be good for guests and will help to take cars off the street on Walnut Avenue. Designer
submitted several letters from neighbors in support of the project at 1524 Arc Way and 819 Walnut Avenue.
Commission asked if the designer considered attaching the garage, would be functionally better and create a
greater separation form the neighbor to the south, as proposed now it reads as though the house is attached.
Designer noted that the owner wanted more square footage and an attached garage would require reducing
the size of the house, don't want to do that. Commissioner added that variance might be warranted inasmuch
as there is a clear hardship, namely the house fronts on two streets at front and rear. Attaching the garage
without penalizing the interior space (FAR) might result in a better design along the rear street frontage.
Jim Keighran, 1600 Willow Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Noted that the designer has
done a good job with the design, the neighbors are delighted with the proposed house, the owner designed
the house to accommodate the neighbors' concerns, don't think it is appropriate to penalize the owner by
reducing the square footage with an attached garage; this is a beautiful house, concerned about parking in
the front setback but will take cars off the street, there is going to be a lot of paving on this lot, keeping the
hedge along Walnut Avenue at its existing height will help to screen the cars parked in the front yard. There
were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
The Commission noted that overall the design works well and had the following comments:
concerned with the stone veneer water table at the front of the house changing to a stucco water table
along the side and rear of the building, need to choose one material for the entire house, a rustic
stucco would work well in this case, could use stone veneer for the chimney;
concerned that the front porch posts and bases are too small, should use 6 x 6 posts with larger
bases;
concerned with the landscaping at the front, Manzanita and Rhododendron planted next to each will
not do well;
lavender proposed in the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk may get too tall, suggest pavers
or a different ground cover;
street tree shown as a Walnut tree is actually a Locust tree, concerned that the street trees and on-site
trees may not survive during construction, would like to add a condition requiring a tree protection
plan, must be completed by a licensed professional and submitted and approved by the City Arborist
prior to issuance of a building permit;
concerned with contemporary rake on some gable ends, gable ends should have a traditional
craftsman style overhang;
concerned with interior spaces, spaces appear to be narrow and small, closet doors are very narrow,
area between kitchen counter and island is narrow, designer should check all interior spaces to be
sure dimensions will work;
double-check all windows sizes and locations to be sure they will work;
detached garage is appropriate, breezeway between house and garage is a nice feature, proposed
fence between the house and garage provides a nice integration between the two structures;
concerned with the scale and impact of the detached garage on Arc Way, suggest lowering the plate
height to 8 feet, adding decorative dormers, having two single-wide garage doors or a garage door
that gives the appearance of two single doors, etc.;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
11
should consider stepping down the house at the rear (bedroom #5, bathroom #4 and mudroom),
would add interest in the hallway and reduce the height of the stucco water table at the rear by a few
steps;
parking variance for parking in the front setback and special permit for garage location are
appropriate given the two different street frontages on this lot, will help to alleviate the parking
problems on both streets; and
not in support of driveway and parking in front setback off Walnut Avenue, front yard should be
landscaped.
C. Vistica 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. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Deal dissenting). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m.
9. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MIKE MA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIMI SIEN,
PROPERTY OWNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Michael Ma, architect, represented the project and noted that
the remodel and addition is necessary because the interior connections are poor and overall the house is in
poor condition.
Leanne Legos, 3070 Hillside Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Would like to know when
construction will begin, have been living with two houses under construction to rear for over a year; would
like to make sure oak tree on property is protected during construction; would like to know if retaining wall
shown on plans is existing or new; this is an expensive area in Burlingame, high quality materials should be
used.
Commissioner noted that the existing oak tree is far enough away from the proposed addition so that it will
not need tree protection during construction. Architect noted that the retaining wall is existing and that there
are no changes proposed to it. Commission commented:
concerned with the proposed front entrance, it is out of character with the design of the house and
does not look like it belongs, front porch needs to be better integrated into the front façade, there are
many good examples in the neighborhood to follow;
concerned with the window treatment at the rear of the house, it is not consistent with the rest of the
house; arched head windows with gable above is not appropriate with this style, these windows and
roof configuration above the windows need to be redesigned to be consistent with the rest of the
house;
clearly indicate type of windows and window trim proposed, show and note on revised plans;
strongly suggest using wood or wood clad windows, adds character to the house, vinyl windows lack
detail and thickness;
clarify which windows are to remain, windows to be replaced and all new windows;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
12
roof above the new stairway along the left side of the house (south elevation) needs to be better
integrated into the existing roof;
attached garage at the front of the house is a prominent feature, should consider upgrading the
garage doors to add curb appeal; and
story poles are not required for this project since the addition is not that tall at the rear of the house.
There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed.
C. Osterling 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. Terrones.
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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m.
VII. STUDY ITEMS (CONT.)
4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ZONING CONSISTENCY – BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
– PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
CP Monroe noted that state law requires that the General Plan and its Specific Plan components be
consistent with any zoning created to implement the plan. Over the past two years the Planning Commission
has prepared and the City Council has adopted, 5 new zoning districts to implement the Bayfront Specific
Plan, adopted in 2004. During the course of preparing these zoning districts, a number of edits and
corrections to the Specific Plan were noted. These were all identified with the adoption of each of the
zoning districts, and found to be consistent with the mitigated negative declaration adopted as a part of the
plan. Therefore, the last step in implementing the Bayfront Specific Plan is to adopt the amendments to the
Bayfront Specific Plan in order to achieve consistency.
Corrections and clarifications include that hotels in the Inner Bayshore area are limited to the Bayshore
Overlay area; building design guidelines set the maximum development density based on FAR; that the
height limit in the interior of the Inner Bayshore area is based on the 35 foot review line while in the
Bayshore overlay area the height limits reflect the standards for the Shoreline area across the street. In the
Shoreline area the clarifications are based on the fact that retail development including commercial
recreation can locate in any of the identified retail nodes and that the design guidelines for view corridors,
landscaping, gateway, and height are suggestive, not requirements. In the Anza Area there was wording
added to address issues such as underused land, clarify subarea diagrams, and insuring that landscaping and
building design guidelines are suggestive, not requirements. In the Anza Point subarea most of the changes
are based on the fact that the subarea was divided into two zoning districts, and the text was written as if the
area was a unit. The text and land uses were separated to distinguish between the land use potential for the
already developed South Anza Point (Beach and Lang Roads) and the North Anza Point area which is
currently vacant land. Design guidelines were amended to clarify the importance of compliance with the
community wind standard and the fact that the guidelines are suggestive, not requirements.
Commissioner asked if these changes incorporate flexibility in developing the commercial nodes in the
Shoreline area and about the location and potential of the Morrell Avenue bicycle connection.
Commissioners noted that they felt that these proposed amendments were complete and consistent with the
adopted zoning and mitigated negative declarations and should come back to the commission without
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006
13
change for action. Staff noted that action would include a public hearing and recommendation to City
Council.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of June 19, 2006.
CP Monroe noted that council adopted the FY 2006-2007 budget and discussed placing a bond measure
for storm drainage and community facility improvements on the November ballot. She noted that there
would be a presentation to the commission about the scope of the measure at the July 10, 2006 meeting.
- FYI: 535 Almer Road – changes to previously approved residential condominium project.
Commission noted that there were a number of changes to this project; however after reviewing changes
in the field felt that they did not work against the originally approved design. Commission did note that
the stand pipes look terrible, asked staff to see if there is a way to avoid this prominent location in the
future; also asked if there was some way that the applicant could place landscaping or other screening
around these.
- Commission comments regarding 3121 Margarita, 1464 Vancouver and 2301 Hillside Drive.
Commission thanked staff for following up on these inquires. Understood the implementation of 3121
Margarita and 1464 Vancouver. However, the heavy balustrade on Hillside Drive is not necessary as a
safety railing, looks over blown and should be removed. Staff noted that the balustrade is like a fence
and since it was 42" tall would be allowed in the side yard; will work with the City Attorney to see how
this can be addressed in the future. Commissioners also noted that the approved plans had the exposed
concrete side of the stairs and landings covered in brick, these stairs and landings are clearly concrete
and no brick was added to the sides. The brick veneer should be added to the side before the final
inspection is completed.
- 2006/2007 Planning Commission Subcommittee Assignments.
Chair Brownrigg reviewed the committee assignments for FY 2006-2007. He noted that the work of
several of last year's subcommittee's has been completed, so is creating several new subcommittees for
this year. Each committee has an appointed chair, who will be asked to report periodically to the
Commission about the progress and deliberations of the subcommittee. The subcommittees for FY
2006-2007are: North End: Auran, Brownrigg, Vistica; Sign Code: Cauchi, Osterling, Terrones;
Affordable Housing: Auran, Brownrigg, Vistica; Permit and Process Review: Auran, Cauchi, Deal;
Downtown: Auran, Vistica, Deal; Neighborhood Consistency: Brownrigg, Osterling, Terrones.
- Discussion of Summer Schedules.
CP asked for possible vacation schedules to be sure that there would be a quorum at all meetings during
the summer months. It appeared that there will be no problem.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
V:\MINUTES\Minutes Template.doc