HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.14.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
August 14, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the August 14, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:04 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; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 24, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed with Cers. Vistica, Cauchi abstaining
because they were not at the meeting; and C. Osterling abstained from all but
item 4b 1535 Vancouver, because he was present for only one item to insure
a quorum.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Ave., commented on the FYI item, 110 Clarendon
Road; C. Deal recused himself and left the chambers because he has a
business relationship with the applicant; he also noted that he would have to
recuse himself from the first study item 1400 Broadway because he lives
within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dias and left the
chambers. Ms. Giorni noted that the Commission approved this application
with a condition that the garage door be replaced with one that is more
consistent with the design of the house, the applicant writes in her letter that
she wants a door which she can afford, claiming the hardship for not
complying to be her budget constraints; applicant owns the house next door
and is a participant in a local condominium project, bought this house as a
lot, believe this to be a spec house; since there is a record of developing
property, to say the door will be upgraded in a number of years is inadequate,
think that this item should be brought back to the agenda for public review.
From the floor concluded at 7:10 p.m.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1400 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE
SEATING AREA OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (CONNIE MORRIS, BROADWAY
GRILL, INC., APPLICANT; ERIC HOLM, CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; NICK KOROS/TSTN
PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal remained out of the chambers because he lives within in 500 feet of the project site. C. Terrones
also recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant.
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
2
How did they gain 28 seats while adding only 75 SF of floor area?
Could staff check how the fire department calculates occupancy for restaurants?
Can the second floor seating area be used as a private function room?
This item was set with unanimous agreement of the seated commissioners for the consent calendar when all
the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:17
p.m.
Cers. Deal and Terrones returned to the chambers and took their seats on the dais.
Chair Brownrigg asked, so the public would be aware, when the full commission was seated, if all
commissioners had had an opportunity to visit all the sites on tonight's agenda. All commissioners indicated
that they had made site visits to all the project sites on this agenda.
2. 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED IB – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR TEMPORARY TENT PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING TENT
STRUCTURE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PARK AND FLY PROGRAM AT
AN EXISTING HOTEL (HYATT REGENCY SFO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT
PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
Does the parking count given include the parking area which is now under the tent?
Has the hotel had any problems with inadequate parking; and, if so, how have they addressed them?
How permanent was the tent structure intended to be when it was installed, seems to be surrounded
by a number of permanent structures e.g. ADA access ramp, arbor?
Has the tent material (exterior covering) been replaced since the tent was originally approved, if so
how often, what is the life expectancy of the exterior skin, and what is its current condition?
For the park and fly – if a car stays more than ten days, how are parking fees handled?
This item with unanimous agreement was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been
submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Commissioners asked to remove items 3b 127 Loma Vista Drive, 3c 860 Fairfield Road,
and 3d 1520 Arc Way. There were no requests from the audience to remove items from the consent
calendar.
3a. 1320 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (RICHARD TERRONES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RICHARD TERRONES AND
CAROL YASUDA-TERRONES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
3e. 1731 ADRIAN ROAD #11, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR GROUP INSTRUCTION (TRAINING FACILITY) (TODD PAWLOWSKI,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
3
VIRGIN AMERICA, APPLICANT; GEORGE S. AVANESSIAN, ARCHITECT; ROBERT J.
MANTEGANI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Chair Brownrigg asked for a motion on the remaining items on the consent calendar, 3a 1320 Carmelita
Avenue and 3e 1731 Adrian Road #11.
C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar items 3a 1320 Carmelita Avenue and 3e 1731 Adrian
Road #11, based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioners comments and the findings in the staff
reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by
C. Osterling. C. Terrones noted that he would abstain from the vote on item 3a 1320 Carmelita because of a
business and personal relationship. C. Cauchi also abstained from the total action. Chair Brownrigg called
for a voice vote on the motion to approve item 3a 1320 Carmelita Avenue and it passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Cauchi and Terrones abstaining) voice vote. The motion on item 3e 1731 Adrian Road #11 passed on a 6-0-
1 (C. Cauchi abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3b. 127 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (LUIS ROBLES,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JAIME GOMEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from July 10, 2006 P.C. Meeting)
CP Monroe presented the staff report. Eleven conditions were proposed. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Luis Robles, designer, represented the project and noted that he
would take questions. Plans appear to lack some detail, all items typically seen on plans. To facilitate the
review Chair Brownrigg asked for a list of the items lacking on the plans:
belly band dimension;
size of fascia over the front door;
stair material;
material used on the rear deck;
material used on the rear porch;
size of the stucco mold;
size and material to be used on the water table band;
clarify material on the front columns, all stucco or not;
lack of large scale plant material which would rise to the height of the first floor plate and balance
with existing trees, could be a vine on the house or large shrubs;
look at staircase, as shown will not fit space, do not want it revised in such a way that it affects the
front porch;
skirt of the roof on the east and south elevations show brackets but are not structurally supported,
will this detail work?
There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling made a motion to continue this item so that the changes can be made and put this item on the
consent calendar when the changes detailed by the Commission have been incorporated into the plans and
checked by the planning staff. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
4
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the consent calendar when all
the changes identified by the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the plans. The motion
passed on a 7-0 voice vote. There is no appeal to this action. The item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
3c. 860 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN AND LAURA HUFF-DOX, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Plr Hurin presented the project. Eleven conditions were proposed for the project. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Roberts, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo,
represented the project. Commissioners noted should check the direction of the staircase to the second floor;
feel that the articulation added to the north elevation is inadequate, need to increase integration into the
design of this component; roof line is one plane over a long first and second story wall, need to adjust
window heights and break roof edge like the one in the middle; like landscape additions with plants chosen
will create a 30 foot green wall, will be attractive and cover up “bump out” on the wall. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Terrones moved to approve the application with the roof line broken similar to the center bay. CA
suggested that the item be moved to the consent calendar so that the Commission could review the changes
and insure that they fit the way they expect.
C. Terrones moved to bring this item back on the consent calendar when the north side elevation issue has
been addressed and the plans corrected for the staircase. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Comment on the motion: think with the proposed landscaping given its large scale the bumps on the north
elevation will be covered up, would favor approving project as it is, the Laurel will extend up to the second
floor; agree that the change in the roof line as suggested should be made, would like to see some effort made
to address façade; could consider, if motion passes, a fireplace with a chimney in the upstairs family room
would break the roof line as well.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue this item to the consent calendar when
the changes have been made to the north elevation and plans and they have been checked by staff. The
motion failed 3-4 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Osterling, Vistica dissenting) on a roll call vote.
C. Osterling made a motion to approve this project as submitted by resolution 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 July 21, 2006, sheets 1 through 5, and date stamped June 28, 2006, Sheet 6,
Sections and Garage Plans; 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 the conditions of the Chief Building
Official's June 16, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's June 16, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's June 14, 2006,
memo, Recycling Specialist's June 21, 2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's June 19, 2006, memos, shall
be met; 3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with
all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that any changes to the size or
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
5
envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a
dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project
architect, 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 scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and
provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,
etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that
all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the project shall
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; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) 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. Auran.
Comment on the motion: was not here at the last meeting, is it appropriate for me to vote? CA noted that he
item was on for study previously so that C. Cauchi could vote on it tonight; could the addition of an eave
over the bump out on the north wall be added? Staff noted that there was no agreement on the detail of this
addition.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the project as submitted with revised
landscape plans and 'bump out' on the north wall, including the 11 conditions in the staff report. The motion
passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Deal and Terrones dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
3d. 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) (112 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin presented the staff report. Sixteen conditions were included in the staff report. He noted that a
letter from the neighbor at 816 Walnut Avenue was at the commissioners desks this evening.
Commissioners asked: neighbor letter questions location of the shared fence, the plans show the fence 7
feet away when the fence is one foot inboard of the property line, is this an issue for the commission; how is
such a dispute resolved? CA noted that a licensed land surveyor would establish the lot line and setback
before a building permit will be issued, if the dispute continues, the Superior Court would need to resolve it.
It is to the benefit of both property owners to resolve this issue because if the house is built at the wrong
location it would be nonconforming. Is a site survey required? CA noted it would be when the foundation
is set, not necessarily at planning submittal. Commissioner noted that a survey is included in the plans. CA
noted that surveys can be disputed. There were no further questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
6
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo,
represented the project. He noted that he designed the house based on the survey, the applicant does not
propose to relocate the fence and does not intend to move on plans so will not affect the neighbor, side
setback is taken from property line shown on survey. Commission expressed concern about the garage on
the Arc Way frontage being out of scale with the residential uses on that side of the street, acknowledged
larger scale across street and on El Camino, can the plate height of the garage be dropped from 9 feet to 8'-
1" there is a 15 % slope on the driveway and it rises 3 feet, this is a full 2 car garage with a lot of mass; think
the garage location is not an optimal site solution separated to increase floor area, an attached garage would
do three things for this project: increase the daylight for the neighbor, allow the garage to be shifted an
additional one foot from the neighbor, and would reduce the scale of the building, garage should be
integrated into the house, would not affect living space, no cost, cannot support as it is, solution should not
be driven by the code but by what best for the lot and that constitutes a hardship; concerned about the
driveway up in front on Walnut, paved front yard is out of character on this residential street, would like to
see the front apron reduced and greened up like front yards in Burlingame; like the pass through the rear
yard into the driveway area, breaks up the planes on the rear elevation; opposed this project before because
of the paving up to the front door, not see hardship, rather typical to have two street frontages, like the
separation and treatment at the rear with the detached garage, the driveway slope diagram scale makes the
driveway look steeper than it really is; concerned about the detail on the front porch, looks awkward to have
the 6x6 posts down to stone halfway up the column, house has a lot of mass and these columns are too
spindly for the mass, need a whole column; cannot see dropping the plate on the garage 6 inches, it would
still be 15 feet above adjacent grade, need to think about another solution for the garage, a dormer might
reduce the scale, a gable may hide the roof from the rear yard; concerned about the driveway profile, is there
radius at the top to provide clearance for an suburban?
Additional public comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, seems backward not to require a survey at
planning submittal, if error found later, have to come back to commission. CA noted that the burden is on
the applicant/property owner, surveys are expensive so it is hard to ask for before they know they have a
project. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: not agree that Arc Way is residential, almost commercial in scale, El Camino is
noisy and there is a predominance of residential condominiums, have no problem with layout of this project
including the paved front apron, Walnut is narrow at this point, there is no place to park, this paving would
add off-street parking, the 22 foot width of street with parking on both sides leaves two 8 foot lanes which is
a hardship on the other residents in the area; agree that paving at front desirable but not necessary to drive
up to the front door, landscaping should be increased in the front to enhance the entry; do not know where
the apron ends at the front if reduce size and add landscaping, would make front look better, like the house,
paving at front only problem; opposed at study because of front yard paving, live where there is little on-
street parking, neighbors not allowed to pave their front yards to provide parking, can get 5 cars on this site,
OK to have one space accessed from Walnut and reduce paving, porch columns should be changed, garage
is OK; can support paving for one space in front yard, the hedge will visually cover the area, but whole area
should not be paved, Arc Way is residential, if look down the street it is finely scaled residential use, a full
size double car garage rising 12 feet over the sidewalk will increase the mass on the street; can reduce the
mass on Arc Way by moving the garage back and attaching it to the house, would enhance the rear elevation
not create a separate mass.
C. Deal noted that if the garage were connected to the house the project would require a variance for floor
area, do not see the hardship on this lot to justify an FAR variance, so the garage should be left where it is,
detached off Arc Way, conditions should be added to reduce the plate height of the garage to 8'-1", to reduce
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
7
the parking area in the front yard off Walnut to provide for one car and some turning area so paving would
extend to the point on the plans where the “o” is in the word “apron” with the remainder of the paved area at
the front to be removed and landscaped, a revision to the columns so that they work with the mass of the
structure better , and that the pitch of the garage roof be changed from 5.5/12 to 4.5/12; and moved by
resolution with the following amended conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 21, sheets 1 and 3-6, and date
stamped June 12, 2006, sheets 2 and 7, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,
footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the plate height of
the garage shall be reduced to 8'-1" above adjacent grade, that the paved parking area in the front yard off
Walnut shall be reduced to the point where the 'o' appears in the word 'apron' on the submitted plans in order
to provide for parking for one car with some turning area with the remainder of the paved area on the
Walnut Avenue frontage to be removed and replaced with landscaping, that the columns shall be redesigned
so that they work better with the mass of the structure, and that the pitch of the roof of the garage be
changed to a maximum of 4.5/12; 2) that a tree protection plan, completed by a licensed professional, shall
submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3) that the conditions of
the Chief Building Official's May 7, 2006, memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Recycling
Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's May 8, 2006 memos shall be met; 4) that demolition for removal of
the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has
been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District; 5) 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;
6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners
and set the building footprint; 7) 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; 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 scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed
surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department; 10) that prior to 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; 11) 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; 12) 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; 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 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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 16) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water
conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape
and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
8
Comment on the motion. Proposed parking at the front will only work if a hammer head is provided, paving
should be cut off where the letter “o” is in the word apron on the plans, the maker and second to the motion
accepted the amendment to the conditions. Think that there is a hardship on this lot, it is a standards size
with street frontages on both ends, cannot push the detached garage to the rear because of the sidewalk and
another street, so there is merit for a floor area variance, then could eliminate the peak on the garage roof
and reduce mass, cannot support this as now proposed; if garage integrated into the house would create a
variance, do not see the justification for the additional 400 SF, okay to separate the garage; the 5’ walkway
between structures makes the massing worse, point of FAR is to reduce the mass and bulk, the 5’ gap and
peaked roof on the garage do the opposite. Noted that the roof peak of the garage could be reduced by
changing the pitch from 5.5/12 to 4.5/12, maker and second to the motion agreed to add a condition to
change the pitch of the garage roof. Would like to see changes as an FYI so can tell out the project will turn
out.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
passed 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
4. 1824 BARROILHET AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PAUL AND
MIHAELA HOWIE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER)
(37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report August 14, 2006 with attachments. CP Monroe 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 Robertson, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo,
represented the project. Noted pleased with the end result of work with design reviewer, but applicant is
opposed to the brick water table and on the front of the structure supporting the stairs, chimney will stay
brick, the design reviewer felt that the brick was an important feature to the design; applicant would like the
entire house to be stucco with no wainscoting. Commissioner noted that plans show gutters but no down
spouts would be a nice feature on the front of the house, architect noted left off but will add; Commissioner
noted that problem with the drawings on the location of the columns should be set in behind the front railing
on all plans; commissioner noted think need brick to off set the height of this structure, height is more than
usually allow and house is set on a rise, like cornice, brick one key element which ties it all together, cannot
landscape in front because it is all paved; Commissioners noted that if the chimney cap is really that wide at
the top it will look awkward, should be trimmed down; top of chimney is brick, could step in the top couple
of courses would increase shadow; there is area in front of front stairs where a planter could be installed to
add landscaping, could be narrow, 2' deep sufficient, house lacks landscaping; when visited site noted that
there is a lot of plaster on this site-retaining walls, garden walls, if the skirt is plaster need to tie together in
another way, acceptable to keep brick on the rest of the house and remove on the front stoop area.
Comment from the floor: Mihaela Howie, property owner; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Hugh Tuck,
live across street. Applicant noted having the entire structure stucco would look clean and elegant, submitted
pictures of existing gray pavers in a pattern that would conflict with brick, tried to meet design reviewer half
way, kept the line but the brick does not look good. Commissioner asked about adding divided lights on the
upper story, would provide a better feel; architect noted that the owner does not like any grids in windows,
so does not want at all. Commissioner noted aware pavers in the front yard provide a lot of parking but, as
noted in previous item, paved front yards are not consistent with the neighborhood pattern in Burlingame,
the house is up and massive, there is nothing to break the mass, like to see landscaping, providing lots of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
9
parking is not an issue. Applicant noted that lot is 52 feet wide, and way laid out barely room at the front
between the wall and the stairs to park, cannot maneuver unless very good driver, now have minimum
distance to get from street; there is no place for more landscaping, there is a planter to the left and additional
planter parallel to the right side of the front fence, have added as much landscaping as can. This proposal is
a change from the original, brick water table common on colonial; trying to make the front of the building
and pavers a major feature, brick should be included and should be weathered, not new, to add “age”; can
the chimney be lowered, if reduced and narrowed it would become a focal point of the taller house;
unfortunate about the parking apron if not change wrought iron rail and front wall, the wrought iron fence at
the front of the lot should be made solid so the hardscape is not visible from the street; overall pretty well
designed. Live across the street, no predominant architectural style in this corner of Burlingame, personally
not like brick, cars passing by at 40 m.p.h. will not see the brick, different design on this lot will not affect
property values in the neighborhood. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing
was closed.
Commission comment: Commission recently approved a Colonial with stucco, think should keep the water
table, stucco is okay, concerned about eliminating the grids at the front, they are a necessary element for the
style, should at least use double hung with a center dividing bar.
C. Terrones noted think that it is critical to have some base element, there is a mish mash of windows, no
grids is all right but should have some consistency, single pane OK, design has come a long way, move to
approve with a stucco water table and support structure for the front stairs and a 2 foot by 12 foot curb
surrounded with a raised planter box at the base of the support structure for the stairs, leave windows as they
are shown on the plans, narrow the overhang at the top of the chimney and reduce the width of the chimney
at the top, and show the columns at the front porch property located on the floor plan, by resolution with the
following conditions in the staff report as amended: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 18, 2006, sheets 1 through 8, with a stucco water
table instead of brick including the front of the support structure for the stairs at the front of the house, and a
two foot deep by twelve foot long curbed or at grade planter shall be installed at the base of the support
structure for the stairs and planted with shrubs or vines to cover the stair support structure, the overhang at
the top of the chimney shall be narrowed and the width of the top of the chimney shall be narrowed, and the
columns at the front porch shall be properly located on the floor plan; 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's April 17,
2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 19, 2006 memo, the City Arborist's April 12, 2006 memo, the
Recycling Specialist's May 3, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 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 basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect,
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 scheduling
the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification
of that height to the Building Department; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will
inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
10
project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts,
plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the
portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved
in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or
exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,
the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: planter box can be above grade, standing on the pavers if the applicant wishes and
should cover about half to two-thirds of the width of the stair at the front 2 feet deep by 12 feet long, enough
for shrubs or vines to grow to cover stucco wall, it is not necessary for a car to turn around in the front yard;
the water table is an effective means to reduce the mass of the building; if cover the front, the water table
may not make much difference; stucco would work if add planter box at grade in front of stair structure,
agree about windows, two upper windows should have grids, not necessary at bays; if planter at grade the
owner can park over the dirt, if 2 feet tall will not hit the wall. Commission asked the maker and second of
the motion if they would include conditions for the following:
require a 2 foot by 12 foot planter with curb or at grade at the base of the support structure for the
stairs;
leave the windows as they are shown on the plans;
narrow the overhang at the top of the chimney, reduce the width at the top;
show the columns at the front porch on the floor plan, properly located.
The maker and second of the motion agreed to the amended conditions of approval and incorporated them
into the motion.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the proposed project at 1824 Barroilhet
Avenue with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
5. 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT
FOR CHANGES TO THE ROOF CONFIGURATION OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE (TOM
AND JEAN MARIE BUCKLEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES,
DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
C. Deal recused himself from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped
down from the dais and left the council chambers.
Reference staff report August 14, 2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the flat roof
was to be retained under the proposed peaked roof, why were there skylights in the pitched roof? Staff
suggested that the applicant might want to respond to this question. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tom and Jean Buckley, property owners 113 Costa Rica
Avenue, represented the project. She noted that what she has wanted since they built the house 13 years ago
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
11
was a peaked roof to complete the Tudor style, tried in 1997 and failed, are back today. Commissioner
asked why there are skylights in the new sloped roof if flat roof to remain below. Applicant noted that there
are 5' by 5' and 2'x2' skylights in the flat roof, want the skylights in the new roof to get light down into the
skylights they are keeping in the flat roof. Commissioners asked where exactly are the skylights located, did
the flat roof leak and also noted that there are solar panels on the roof, would they remain? One new
skylight is located over the existing skylight over the stairwell, divided into three new skylights to get
adequate light into the existing skylights below, when first built had a big problem with the flat roof leaking,
solar panels will be flipped on the roof so not conflict with new roof. CA noted that solar panels are not
subject to design review. Commissioner noted that proposed new skylights are proposed to be tinted,
require that because of night glow, in this case over existing skylights in such a way that night glow will not
be an issue, so may not want to tint the new skylights to maximize the light down into the existing skylights
on the flat roof. There were no more comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve this application by resolution to add a new roof to complete the roof to a
peak consistent with the Tudor style of the existing house on the basis that it would improve the appearance
of this house and therefore be a benefit to the other houses in the neighborhood 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 July 20, 2006, sheets 1, 4 and 8, 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 28, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's April 3,
2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's March 29, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 3, 2006
memo shall be met; 3) that the existing roof beams for the flat roof shall be retained and the new peaked
roof shall be installed over the existing roof structure; any changes to the attic configuration which results in
habitable floor area shall require an amendment to this permit; 4) that demolition or removal of the existing
structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued
and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot
the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6) that all
air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed
on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and
approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the 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; 8) that the
applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was
seconded by C. Cauchi.
Comment on the motion: support request, concerned why applicant wants to do since they have lived with
house as it is for 13 years, saw house needs to be finished to the peak, troubled with the 35'-10" height since
the house is massive, almost 3,700 SF, if a new house Commission would require them to reduce the mass
but we are beyond that now, cannot reduce the second floor; agree if this were a new project would treat
differently, reduce mass to keep lower, concerned about the way the current project got to where it is; allow
height over 30 feet to enhance architectural style, this does not do that since the slope on the new roof does
not match that of the existing roof.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
12
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 9:20 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias.
6. 2112 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A
NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ORLANDO
BUENA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (51
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He stepped down from the
dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report August 14, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
There were no questions of Staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Orlando Buena, applicant and property owner, represented the
project. He noted that over the past few months he has worked with the design review consultant and staff
to address the Commission's concerns. Commission asked if the property owner worked with the architect
to revise the plans; applicant noted yes. Commission noted that the design reviewer comments that the
quality of the materials is very significant, however stucco is the dominant material on the house. The house
is barren of architectural detail, it is possible to augment it with more details. The applicant noted that the
design reviewer decided that the project as proposed is acceptable. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission noted that the plans still do not accurately reflect what is being built and had the following
comments:
removing the dentils is significant to the design of the house, details are critical architectural feature
to this house, dentils need to be added even if window head trim is up to the underside of the eave;
could consider other proposing another architectural feature to add architectural character if the
dentils are not feasible;
applicant noted reason for removal of dentils was the result of the Commission asking the plate
height to be lowered, not true, other modifications could have been made by the architect;
plans submitted are misleading, not representative of what is being built, revised plans must
accurately reflect what is being built;
transom window above front door still shown on plans but has been removed in field, chimney cap
has been changed but not reflected on plans, front entry design where the address is located looks
flat on plans but as built the entry edge is folded in, folded entry reduces the welcoming feeling of
the porch, too many changes not shown on the plans; frustrating the that plans are misleading;
do not know if applicant engaged the architect enough to decide if additional detail could be added;
design details are critical to this house, need to add some feature even if up under the eave;
additional landscaping could help the front of the house; and
the architect should be present at the next meeting this project is heard, need to respond to questions
about adding details.
C. Vistica moved for a denial without prejudice with direction including need to replace dentils or some
equivalent architectural detail proposed by the project architect who should be present at the next review,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
13
correct the detail on the plans and on the building, provide an accurate representation on the plans of what
was actually built and address Commission comments. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Comment on the motion: might be advantageous for the applicant to install a mock-up of the dentil or other
architectural feature on the site before next review, could consider a dental soffit under the eaves, dental
molding applies to the eaves on the first and second floors.
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 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstain) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m.
C. Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias.
7. 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 August 14, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a parking
variance for covered parking space dimension is required since the length was increased to 20'-0"; staff
noted that the applicant can verify that the proposed dimension is 20'-0", if so a parking variance would not
be required. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Fran Knifsend, property owner, and John Stewart, designer,
1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the project; confirmed that the size of the garage has been
increased to 20'-0" clear interior dimension; the owners settled on a Craftsman design; submitted signed
petitions of neighbors in support of the project; at the study meeting the Commission noted that the
Dogwood tree in the rear yard near the Acacia will not do well together and asked if the Acacia tree can be
removed and the Dogwood tree replaced with another tree from the Street Tree list, the neighbor would like
to keep the Acacia tree, one option is to not plant a Dogwood tree next to the Acacia; submitted a letter from
contractor noting that keeping the existing foundation, floor structure and walls will save the owners
$20,000 in costs; the existing garage roof will be rebuilt so that the ridge is centered, the garage will contain
stucco siding; the stone veneer will be continued at the same height around the entire house; rafters will be
32 inches on center throughout the house; downspouts will be round with a half-round gutter. Commission
asked why water table was changed to stone veneer; architect noted that the stone is more irregular than
brick, is more consistent with the proposed style, chimney will also contain stone veneer and will be gas
vented. Commission noted that the revised design is handsome and consistent throughout. Commission
asked what is the size of the columns proposed at the front; architect noted that the double columns will be
12” x 12”. Commission asked the architect to clarify the size of the driveway pavers and if it will be a
contrasting color; architect noted that the driveway pavers will be 8” x 12” with contrasting colors.
Commission noted that the proposed citrus trees along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete
patio at the rear of the house will be messy at maturity, not a good landscape screen, evergreen large scale
shrubs would work better, such as Bay Laurel; architect agreed. Commission noted a concern with the 4x
knee brace and noted that a 6x knee brace would look better. Commission commented that the 2x corner
trim is too small and suggested that a 4x corner trim be used; architect noted that a 2” x 4” trim will be used.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
14
Sigrid Geiger, 1237 Cabrillo Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Noted that she would
like to keep the Acacia tree because it blocks the view of a telephone pole, cannot move the telephone pole,
there are large trees behind the lots which provide nice screening for rear yards, the property owners are
good neighbors, asked that the Commission approve the project and let them build the house they have
wanted for a long time; current design is more charming than the previously proposed, worked hard to
address the Commissions' concerns, the final design does not resemble the existing house but it does give a
sense of home, this is a good addition to the neighborhood; in a letter dated April 5, 2006, the architect notes
that in other cities variances are not required for existing nonconforming conditions, however they serve a
good purpose in Burlingame, do not cause problems that other cities have. There were no further comments
and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the architect worked with existing house to create a good design and 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 July 24, 2006, sheets A1 through
A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey; and that any changes to building materials including casement
windows throughout, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to
this permit; that 6”x wood knee braces and 2”x4” corner trim shall be used; that the citrus trees along the left
side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house shall be replaced with large scale
evergreen shrubs, such as Bay Laurel; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006,
memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006, memo, Recycling
Specialist's April 24,2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 3) that
demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur
until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope
of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect,
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 scheduling
the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification
of that height to the Building Department; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will
inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the
project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts,
plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the
portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved
in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or
exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,
the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
15
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1420 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; SARAH GOLDBERG, PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. The Commission asked staff to verify if there was a
remodel or addition to the house in recent years. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse, designer, 405 Bayswater Avenue, represented
the project. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project:
concerned how the dormer roof engages with the existing hip roof, looks very close, verify that the
dormer roof can be built as shown on the plans;
show downspouts on all building elevations, clarify type of downspouts proposed;
proposed cased columns supporting the second floor on the rear elevation are inappropriate, as
proposed they are heading toward a Tudor design, the columns look spindly, should consider a
different design to be more in keeping with the style of the existing house, a stucco column with
wood trim might work better;
concerned with the way the gutters are shown on the plans, they will project beyond the roof line but
not shown this way on the plans, in reality it will look different, revise plans to accurately show how
the gutters will look in relation to the roofline and downspouts; and
front yard lacks landscaping, would like to see a landscape plan with larger scale trees and shrubs in
the front yard, the existing landscaping in the rear is adequate
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the identified revisions
have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have
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 10:07 p.m.
9. 2725 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES WONG,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RICKY KWAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission requested that staff provide development
data, meeting minutes and photographs of a large two-story house previously approved and built on
Castenada Drive. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Wong, architect, 207 Northwood Drive, South San
Francisco, represented the project. Commission asked if the architect is familiar with and has read the view
ordinance; architect noted he has read the view ordinance. Commission asked if the current property owner
intends to live in the house; architect noted that currently the house is being rented but the owner intends to
live in the house after the addition/remodel is complete. Commission asked the applicant to clarify the use
of the second floor space between bedroom #4 and the stairway, it is approximately 250 SF; architect noted
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
16
that this space would be used to house a TV and seating or as a sitting area. Concerned with the number of
bedrooms proposed (6), the Commission asked how large is the family; architect noted that there are two or
three children in the family and that two grandmothers intend to live with the family. Commission asked
what type roofing material is proposed; architect noted that a composition shingle roof is proposed.
Commission noted that the existing roof has a 4:12 roof pitch and that the roof above the addition is 5:12,
why are they different? Architect noted that different roof pitch is necessary to increase to slope at the rear
of the house. Commission commented that generally like to see massing for additions set back on the lot, in
this case the addition is set back 60 feet, not sure if it is appropriate; architect noted that with the long garage
element at the front of the house, the addition was planned over the main portion of the house.
Roseann Pelzner, 2728 Trousdale Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, have lived across the
street since 1988, Trousdale Drive has a beautiful flow and symmetry to the street, all houses between
Highway 280 and Sebastian Drive are there because of the views, houses located below Sebastian Drive are
single-story ranch style; in 1989 the house adjacent to the subject property proposed a second story addition,
the Council Chambers was full of neighbors concerned with view blockage; concerned with parking and the
number of additional vehicles at this site for the number of bedrooms proposed, see up to nine vehicles
possible with this many bedrooms; do not see why addition cannot be added only on the ground floor, have
seen recent addition at the front, sides and rear of the house; suggest concerned neighbor speak to other
neighbors about the proposed size of this house. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project:
very concerned with the size of the house, proposed house is 2½ times the size of the existing house,
not in character with the neighborhood, size is not consistent with the size of houses in the
neighborhood, rooms are very large; this is too much for the street;
proposed design is out of character with the neighborhood;
design and massing seems appropriate, entrance is handle well, but overall house is too big;
chimney stack is very large and out of scale, needs to be reduced in size;
proposed vinyl siding and faux molding are typically not materials used in Burlingame, do not want
to see these materials used;
in order for a person sleeping in bedroom #4 to use the bathroom, one must walk through bedroom
#3, access to bathroom #3 is awkward and should be addressed;
must install story poles, story pole plan must be submitted along with the survey to verify they were
installed at the correct locations and heights;
concerned that the FAR math is driving the design, this is a deep, upsloping lot however the
buildable area is towards the front of the lot at the street; in this case the size of house should be
based on the buildable area of the lot;
clearly see two issues with this project, consistency with the neighborhood and view blockage, both
need to be addressed;
ask staff to provide a description in the next staff report of how the lot slopes on this property and
what the building area is, will help to evaluate the project in relation to the lot;
concerned that that size of the house is based on a 19,000 SF lot, but house is located on a much
smaller buildable area;
provide dimension from front property line to the fence behind the house;
provide a site section of the lot from front to rear; and
plans note that the plate height will be increased by 1'-0", do not think this can be done structurally,
verify with engineer.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
17
C. Deal noted that the proposed house is very large, will need a lot of design work done to be an approvable
project, should start over with the design and size, and made a motion to send this project to a design
reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: the Commission provided comments on architectural details, want to make sure
that the architect and property owner clearly understand that addressing the details is not enough, this
project requires a major redesign to address concerns with size, compatibility and view blockage. Since a
major redesign is required, it may be unfair to send this project to a design review consultant and required
story poles for a project which may likely be denied, could cause additional unnecessary delay, could
consider setting this project for action so that it can be denied. CA Anderson noted that the applicant has
different options, could decide to go or not to go to a design reviewer, could withdraw the project, could
come back to action as proposed or could substantially redesign the project and come back to a design
review study meeting. Commission suggested that the property owner read the residential design guidelines
to get a better understanding of appropriate design, mass and bulk of houses.
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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m.
10. 2828 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHOI PHAM,
PHAN ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LOUIS LARRAZABAL, PROPERTY OWNER)
(51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description, noted that letter from William Chen, 2832 Mariposa
Drive, was received after preparation of the staff report, letter states concerns with view blockage from
proposed second story addition. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Luis Larrazabal, applicant and property owner, represented
the project, noted that he has two children and would like to move his parents in with him, has lived in house
for six months. Commission asked if there has been recent work done to the front porch; applicant noted
that the existing 4” x 4” columns were replaced with larger 4” x 8” columns and that the porch slab was
extended one foot. Commission asked applicant to clarify the accessory structure at the rear of the lot;
applicant noted that he began building a tree house for his son, size is 6' x 18' but after discussing the size
with Planning staff will reduce it to 100 SF.
Jeffrey Bernstein, 2836 Mariposa Drive, spoke. Have several concerns with the proposed project, have two
children going to a private university, proposed addition will decrease the value of his house; for 20 years
have been able to look out their windows with a view, now will loose view from bedroom, bathroom and
living room; proposed addition is out of character with the neighborhood, will not look like any other house
on the block, there are only one or two other two-story houses in the neighborhood, opposed other second
story proposals in the past; concerned neighbors were here to speak tonight but left because it is so late in
the evening, do not really know what the steps are to oppose this project, but will do everything possible to
oppose this project including hiring legal aid. The applicant noted that the property at 2836 Mariposa Drive
is two houses above, roof height of subject property is lower than the roof of the adjacent house and is set
back 2 feet further, proposed addition will not block this neighbor's view. Commission noted that story
poles will be required which will demonstrate any impacts on views. There were no other comments from
the floor and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
18
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project:
proposed design lacks character, all four elevations need embellishment;
there is a lot of stucco proposed on the left side elevation, could use additional windows to break up
the wall and add character;
proposed addition is not integrated into the existing structure, visually appears to be an addition,
concerned with the amount of blank walls proposed, project lacks fenestration, there is no clear
theme in the design;
there is a lack of architectural detail, lack of detail relates to mass and bulk, detailing needs to be
addressed;
4:11 roof pitch shown on plans, roof pitch should be translated to x:12, please correct plans;
4” x 4” posts for second floor deck are too small, need to make them more substantial;
concerned with potential view blockage by proposed addition;
no fenestration proposed on the second story wall facing the street, window can be added in the
master bathroom or elsewhere along this wall;
must install story poles, story pole plan must be submitted along with the survey to verify they were
installed at the correct locations and heights;
noted two other houses in the neighborhood which appeared to have additions at 2804 and 2849
Mariposa Drive, these additions were done well and were integrated into the roofline so that it does
not appear to be an addition;
concerned with very long cricket at the ridge, will be a big maintenance problem, forces addition
onto house; and
design reviewer should consider a single story alternative.
C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. Story poles
must be installed after the project has been redesigned to the address the concerns stated. In addition, access
to adjacent houses should be provided to the Commission after the story poles are installed so that the
Commission can evaluate view impacts. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Comment on the motion: want to caution the applicant that this is going to be a difficult project to design
because of potential view impacts, a redesign may be proposed but if it blocks views the project will most
likely not be approved; want to clarify that the view ordinance is strict, addresses view blockage from inside
habitable areas of houses in the area. CA Anderson noted that views from patio/deck areas are less
important in consideration for view impacts since in the past it has been determined that these are not
habitable areas.
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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports for review.
I X. PLANNER REPORTS
- City Council regular meeting of July 5, 2006 – cancelled.
- FYI: 110 Clarendon Road - changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006
19
C. Deal recused himself from this item because he has a business relationship with the applicant and left
the dais and chambers.
Commissioners noted that the reduced landscape plan was hard to read and the descriptive information
about the shrubs and trees needed to be clarified and even corrected and that the garage door change
requires more review. The applicants should bring this item back on the Commission's action calendar
for review, unless they wish to comply with the direction of the original approval.
- FYI: 1609 Monte Corvino Way - changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
Commission had no comments on the proposed changes.
- FYI: 1548 Newlands Avenue - changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
Commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed changes noting that the window changes on the
front elevation were not consistent with the approved proportions and that there were a sufficient
number of changes proposed that cumulatively they should be reviewed at a public hearing. It was
recommended on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica abstaining) voice vote that this item be placed on the Commission's
action calendar for review.
- FYI: Status Report on Peninsula Hospital Construction Hours.
Commission acknowledged the complaint log submitted by the Hospital and the desk item e-mail
clarifying two dust complaints made in the month of July.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\unapproved 08.14.06.doc