HomeMy WebLinkAbout012405PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
January 24, 2005
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the January 24, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erica
Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 10, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. CP Monroe introduced staff member Erica
Strohmeier, Zoning Technician, who will be in the staff rotation covering
Planning Commission meetings from now on. She also noted that there was
a sign up sheet for those who may be observing tonight's meeting as a part of
applying for the Planning Commission. In addition there is a packet in a
binder for candidates to use to follow along with the meeting.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 821 COWAN ROAD, ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES, AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (GREG WARD, ONESTOP DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; KONSTANTINOS DOKOS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Can the disabled accessible parking spaces share the "dismount" area or does each space require a 5 foot
loading area?
• Restudy the notion of two driveways with one-way access and egress; can an 18 foot driveway be
provided the length of the site for two way access so that the parking can be better laid out and the
parking variance eliminated; need to make the access to the parking work can it be done with expansion
of the joint access easement?
• Can two parking spaces be added on site to eliminate the parking variance?
• Does the newly adopted specific plan have a different on-site parking requirement for this use?
• On building design: the detail on the two towers is not consistent, they should match, prefer the
northeast and north-west faces to the others because they are better articulated, should be addressed;
• Provide rational for the side setback variance, and the conditional use permits for first floor remodel and
second floor addition to an existing warehouse/office building, applicant did not provide with submittal;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
2
• How much landscaping would be lost inorder to reduce the number of compact parking spaces and
reduce or eliminate the variance request;
• Revise the articulation at the corners of the structure to reduce or eliminate the side setback variance, do
something different from what is shown;
• At the front of the building on Cowan, add arches, articulation and window detail to increase the human
scale and create a base piece for the building;
• There is no clear way to access the front of the building from the disabled accessible parking spaces at
the rear, is there a building code requirement which has not been met?
• Traffic Engineer should comment on any changes to parking proposed.
Commissioners commented: Feel that the direction given regarding parking may seem contradictory,
applicant needs to study and present the alternatives, including the impact on landscaping; it was noted that
this use is a great idea and consistent with the newly adopted Bayfront plan; discussed putting disabled
parking on the public street, staff noted that the requirement is that disable accessible parking be on the site
it serves; parking allocation needs to be considered in the light of whether all the employees will ever be
there at the same time; not encouraging building to be reduced to meet on-site parking, but they are
intensifying the use significantly without adding any parking, like to see parking provided to code since they
are increasing the use; support adding landscaping within parking areas as promoted in the specific plan as
long as it does not unduly restrict parking and access.
Chair Osterling moved to set this item on the action calendar when the long list of questions have been
answered, the Planning Department has had time to review the responses, and there is space on an agenda.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Motion was approved on a 6-0 voice vote. This action is not
appealable. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
2A. 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR A BASEMENT AND FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION AND NEW BASEMENT (JIM KEIGHRAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (104 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
2B. 2101 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATTHEW MEFFORD, WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; DEAN AND URSULA WILLIAMS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
2D. 1812 C MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ART CLASSES (NANCY CALL TORRES, APPLICANT; WJ BRITTON, INC. PROPERTY
OWNER) (10 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
C. Keighran noted that she would abstain from voting on items 2a, 1600 Willow Avenue because the
applicant is a relative and 2b, 2101 Adeline Drive, because she lives within 500 feet. C. Brownrigg
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
3
noted that he would abstain from voting on item 2b, 2101 Adeline Drive, because he lives within 500
feet.
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Annette Doherty, property owner of item 2c, 1613 Mc Donald Way, asked that her project
be removed so that she could discuss one of the conditions with the commission.
Chair Osterling set item 2c, 1613 McDonald Way, as the first action item on the regular action calendar.
C. Bojués moved to approve items 2a, 1600 Willow Avenue, 2b, 2101 Adeline Drive and 2d,1812 C
Magnolia Avenue. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion. Items 2a, 1600 Willow Avenue and 2b, 2101 Adeline
Drive passed on a 4-0-2 (Cers Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining) voice vote; and item 2d, 1812 C
Magnolia Avenue passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:30 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2C. 1613 MCDONALD WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES,
STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PATRICK AND ANNETTE DOHERTY,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe presented the staff report including the 10 conditions of approval proposed. Ten conditions
were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Annette Doherty, property owner , noted that she has spent the
last two weeks researching windows, and would request that the requirement for true divided lights in
condition one be changed to "simulated divided light windows with permanently fixed, three dimensional
grids permanently attached on the inside (wood) and out side (simulated material)". She noted that these
windows are a single plate of glass in a wooden frame with a three dimensional, divided light like grid
attached on the inside and outside. These simulated paned windows are substantially cheaper and have a
much reduced chance that the seals on the glass will fail. Commissioner asked if these windows had the
divided lights placed between the two pieces of glass? No, the grid is on the outside of the glass on both the
inside and outside, the grid is fixed and cannot be removed. The difference in price is substantial, true
divided light windows for this project would range from $73,000 to $89,000 and the simulated divided lights
with exterior fixed grid would range in price from $43,000 to $55,000. Unfortunately her budget will not
allow for true divided lights. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: the "simulated divided lights as described will provide the more traditional look
which the design guidelines promote, they will have depth and will look inside and out like "true divided
lights", individually paned windows. Could staff put some thought into a "term of art" to use in the future so
that simulated divided light windows as described can be included when true divided light windows are
proposed, directed and/or required.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
4
C. Bojués moved to approve the project with an amendment to condition one which would require simulated
divided light windows with permanently fixed, three dimensional grids permanently attached on the inside
(wood) and out side (simulated material) of each window in the pattern shown on the plans with the
following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped January 12, 2005, sheets A1, A3 and A5 and date stamped December 15, sheets
A2, A4, A6-A7 and boundary and topographic survey and that all windows shall be simulated divided light
windows with permanently fixed, three dimensional grids permanently attached on the inside (wood) and
out side (simulated material) of each window in the pattern as shown on the plans and that any changes to
the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2)that any changes to
the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in
the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,
etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that
all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s
November 11, 2004 memo, the City Engineer’s, Recycling Specialist's and Fire Marshal's December 6, 2004
memos and the NPDES Coordinator’s December 8, 2004 memo shall be met; 8) 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; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) 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. Keighran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the amended condition
regarding simulated divided light windows with three dimensional grids on the inside and out. The motion
passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m.
3. 2112 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ORLANDO AND MINERVA BUENA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (51
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Auran stated that he would abstain from participating in this item because he lives within 500 feet of the
subject property. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers.
Reference staff report January 24, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
the criteria for evaluating action and staff comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
5
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, applicant and designer, spoke in favor of the
project and thanked staff for all their help. Applicant stated that the setbacks on both sides of the house are
greater than the requirement; the house was moved forward to create a larger backyard; the house was
reduced in size to decrease the lot coverage and floor area ratio calculations; double French doors were
placed at the back of the nook in replacement of the side door by the driveway. Commission asked why was
the first floor plate height not changed? The homeowner felt that the increased plate height made the rooms
look larger and the proposed plate height is 1.5 feet below maximum allowed. Commission questioned the
material and detail of the window trim. It’s proposed as 4” trim board with stucco over it. Commission
asked will windows be true divided light? Windows will be simulated divided light. Other commission
comments included:
• decreased plate height on the second story looks good;
• would prefer wood trim over stucco trim, stucco trim is generally discouraged by the Commission;
• windows on both stories of house should be more consistent which may take a different window
configuration and heavier mullions in the center of the windows; and
• the window trim, sill and dentil packages should be wood pieces, the trim on existing house is what
the design guidelines encourage.
Applicant is ok with changing stucco trim to wood trim and is satisfied with adding heavier vertical mullions
on the center of the windows and creating more consistency in the pattern of all the windows. There were
no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 12, 2005,
sheets P1 through P4, L1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; and that all windows shall be simulated
divided light windows with permanently fixed, three dimensional grids attached on the inside (wood) and
outside (simulated material) of each window in the pattern as modified by the Commission in condition 2,
and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this
permit; 2) that the vertical and horizontal proportion of all window panes shall be consistent throughout the
entire house and all window trims shall be wood without a stucco cover; 3) that all the provisions of the
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. report (dated September 21, 2004) concerning the protection of the two
Coast Live Oak trees (both 16” in diameter) in the City easement at the rear of the lot, including the special
provisions for the construction of the detached garage shall be incorporated into the design and plans
submitted to the building department and shall be adhered to during the construction of the garage; 4) that
the two Coast Live Oak trees (both 16” in diameter) in the City easement at the rear of the lot shall be
trimmed prior to demolition of existing detached garage; 5) that construction of the proposed detached
garage in the rear left corner of the lot shall be supervised by a licensed arborist in order to protect the two
Coast Live Oak trees (both 16” in diameter); 6) 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; 7) that prior to
scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide
architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown
on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or
contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note
compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light
wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
6
9) 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; 10) 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; 11) that prior to scheduling the foundation
inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 12) 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; 13) 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; 14) 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; 15) 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;
16) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's December 15, 2003,
memos shall be met; 17) 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; 18) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance
1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 19) 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.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1 (C. Auran
abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
C. Auran took his seat on the dias.
4. 1453 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(MICHAEL CAFFERKEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PETER SANO, ARCHITECT) (63
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report January 24, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. CA Anderson stated that one of the neighbors was concerned with the sewer
lateral, a Public Works Inspector checked it out and with this remodel each house will have its own sewer
lateral. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Michael Cafferkey, applicant and property owner, feels that all
conditions of the Commission and the design review consultant have been met and is happy with the result.
Commission asked the applicant if they feel that they’ve met all of the design reviewer’s final comments
with the shed roof on the living room. Yes, used hipped sides and placed the shed roof because felt it fit
better and addressed neighbors better. Commission asked what kind of glazing will be used on the four
windows on side elevation? Obscure glass will be used in second floor bathroom by stairwell.
Neighbor commented: Dianna Mason, 1451 Balboa, neighbor on left side of house, spoke against the
project. What does it mean that roof pitch was lowered 20” overall? C. Brownrigg explained that the roof
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
7
was reduced 20” off its highest point. She doesn’t see how a 20” reduction to overall height creates any
difference on the living side of her house. If the porch was made deeper is it larger than on original plans?
Are there any openings or windows in the entryway of the porch? A first floor side window right after the
porch will be directly across from a window on her house; feels they are being pushed by the system and
being restricted on the little space that they own; wondering why more consideration isn’t given to those
people that are affected by the project; their second story master bedroom will feel to them like living in a
row house because of its proximity to the new addition. Lastly, the neighbor thought there were some
disturbing views expressed by the Commissioners at an earlier time with respect to views and monster
homes in Burlingame. Applicant responded to questions noting that closets on the second floor were pushed
back to allow more light on the neighboring property, that the front porch was stepped back in towards the
house, the front porch was left open to let light in for the neighbor and that the side first floor window right
after the porch will be located directly across from a neighboring window. There were no further comments
and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran noted project is a significant improvement from original project; floor area ratio, lot coverage
and height have been decreased; roof was changed to allow more light and openness to the neighbor next
door; this lot and neighbors lot are much narrower and smaller then other lots in Burlingame; proposed style
is craftsman and is nice for Burlingame; windows facing onto each other is a common situation and can be
alleviated with shades or curtains; and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following
conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped January 10, 2005, sheets 1 thru 11, and L-1, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building
elevations and landscape plan; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second
floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the
Chief Building Official, Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, and the City Engineers’ September 20, 2004
memos shall be met; 4) 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; 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; 6) 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; 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 applicant
shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance; and that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of
the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff;
and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on Motion: regarding comments from Commission about views and monster houses cannot
imagine any of the Commissioners being so passé concerning development and the design guidelines;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
8
commission has tried best to mitigate effects on neighbors with regards to roof pitch, windows and more;
feel the project is a well improvement and is a testimony to how great the design review process works; this
area has restrictions because of the narrowness and general lot sizes; the commission has a great deal of
empathy towards the situation of the neighbors.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-1 (C. Brownrigg
dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m.
5. 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (LINCOLN LUE,
ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; MARK AND AMY LIEW, PROPERTY OWNERS) (42 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report January 24, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments and also noted that the proposed addition is at the rear of the house and that the
installed story poles reflect its new roof ridge. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Lincoln Lue, applicant and architect, was delighted to work with
the design reviewer and feels that the building is much improved from those meetings. Applicant then
passed out photos of the installed story poles. Commissioner noted: after visiting the neighboring site at 3
Rio Court, the story poles can only be seen at the edge of the rear yard at 3 Rio Court because there is a lot
of vegetation on these lots. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 11,
2005, sheets A1 through A5, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor
area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of
the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect,
engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under
penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to 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. 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 conditions of the City
Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's June 7, 2004, memos shall be met; 8) that the project
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9) 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. Bojués.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
9
Comment on motion: very pleased to hear that they came up with good ideas and solutions through the
design review process, just another good example of how design review works.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION (ANDREW AND PATTY JORDAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;
GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission stated that the plans appear
incomplete, they had a hard time figuring out the elevations and roof heights and that those and other
dimensions and information need to be added to the plans.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Patty Jordan, applicant and property owner, represented the
project. Applicant noted that they feel their design will be keeping in unison with the neighborhood and that
they are open to any suggestions made by the Planning Commission.
Commission asked applicant: What are you planning on doing with the house after the addition is complete?
Applicant is planning to retire in the house. There is concern with the overall style of the house and the
project needs to be simplified because it does not fit in with the consistent traditional understated houses on
the block.
Neighbors Commented: Dave Tillman, 2533 Hayward Drive, Steve Cammon, 2538 Hayward Drive and
Kristen Jacobson, 2541 Hayward Drive. Lives in an Eichler-style house in the neighborhood and agrees
with what the applicant is trying to do; supports the project; feels the neighborhood is old-looking and
needs to be re-done with more creativity; addition will help with property values. Is excited that people are
putting money into the neighborhood and does not want to see a project stopped because of its different
style. Is new to the neighborhood and wants to make sure that all future notification cards are sent to her at
her current address; has concerns with how the view from and the light onto her property will be affected; is
afraid that the trees planted along the back side may fill in and affect existing view and light; likes to hear
that the applicant is flexible. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission noted: it is an attractive addition, not inclined to see project go to a design reviewer, design is a
good start but could make the project blend better with the existing environment, appreciates the applicants
willingness to work with them, but feels that a design reviewer would help to incorporate the applicant’s
needs into the design of the existing neighborhood. Commission comments included:
• concerned with the Spanish style as proposed not fitting in with the ranch style houses which pre-
dominate this immediate area;
• some walls could have more detail and windows;
• story poles should be installed for neighbor and commission inspection to outline the additions;
• understands that the house needs an update but the front as shown is too grandiose by comparison to
the rest of the area;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
10
• more information and detail needs to be provided on the plans regarding roofing material, windows,
window trim, blank walls, plate height and building height;
• architect needs to attend the Planning Commission design review and review meetings and needs to
be more familiar with the City’s Design Guidelines, the lack of information on the plans causes a
lack of confidence in the design and architect;
• changes need to be made to the placement of the windows;
• applicant needs to sit down with design reviewer and architect to design a house that truly fits the
applicants needs.
C. Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Chair
Osterling.
Comment on motion: okay with modified Spanish look, architect could have made changes without going to
design reviewer, concern with second floor element and uphill neighbor because a high premium is placed
on distant views in Burlingame. Beautification Commission is looking into guidelines for planting trees in
view corridors, when return could staff identify status of Beautification Commissions work and ideas which
might apply here; before next meeting with design reviewer architect should listen to tapes from tonight’s
meeting.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to direct this project to a design reviewer. The motion
passed on a 5-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and
not appealable. This item concluded at 9:03 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of January 18, 2005.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 18, 2005, noting that since the Council
would interview the incumbents as well, the application time for the Planning Commission has been
extended to 5:00 p.m. February 22, 2005. Commission asked if it was possible for the City Council to hold
the joint meeting with the Planning Commission earlier so it would not conflict with vacation schedules.
Discussion on January 24, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting
CA noted that the Commissioners gave two clear directions at tonight's meeting. First that the term "true
divided light windows" may also include "simulated divided light windows which have fixed, three
dimensional grids permanently attached to the window frame on both the inside and outside of the glass ".
Second on item 6 Commission strongly advised that the architects or designers of projects should attend the
design review study meeting, and not leave the discussion to the property owner or applicant.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005
11
S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2005\minutes.01.24.05.doc