HomeMy WebLinkAbout110804PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
November 8, 2004
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the November 8, 2004, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg (arrived 7:08 p.m.),
Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 25, 2004 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 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, went to the City Council meeting on the
hospital last Monday night and want them to send the project back to the
Planning Commission, there are some core services which will not be in the
new hospital building. On November 4 the hospital district had a meeting,
told them there were reservations from the Planning Commission, about the
skin of the building, lack of core services within the building, there was not
one hospital district representative at the Planning Commission meeting, the
district passed out a newsletter and on page 5 they omit saying that lab is a
cores service and is not located in the new hospital, she asked the Planning
Commission and citizens of Burlingame to go to the district and to the City
Council to express their reservations.
Ray Taylor, 65 California Drive, Burlingame, represents Hertz Rent a Car,
want to open rental site at 65 California Drive, want to know the fees and
concerns of the Planning Commission before proceeding with the
application. CP Monroe noted that usually the auto row area is limed to auto
sales and services, the Planning Commission will need to decide if the use is
appropriate for the area and site. The fees can be calculated by Planning staff
during office hours. There were no further comments from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 919 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
(JEANETTE BARRACO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DIEGO PEREZ, DREAM
BUILDERS, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plnr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
2
Commissioners asked:
• Why is a full bathroom in the accessory structure necessary, can easily be used as a second unit with
a shower in the bathroom;
• Staircase in the driveway should be removed;
• Previous approval required compliance inspection 6 months after the action, why wasn’t this caught;
• Should explore widening driveway to have at least one code complying uncovered parking space on-
site;
• Hard to consider granting with no covered parking on-site, looks like might be able to get down the
driveway if stairs were removed, but addition would prohibit access down driveway, could add a
covered parking space in driveway;
• Concerned with adding on the south side of the building into driveway, will prohibit ever adding
covered parking, too crowded with the duplex on the side, better to added on the north side or
somewhere else on the lot.
Planning Commission asked City Attorney if the project could be denied now. CA Anderson stated that no,
this is a study meeting, denial can only be at the public hearing. CP Monroe noted that at the public hearing
the Commission can grant an exemption to the driveway width and return existing garage to covered parking
or can require, with a variance, that one covered space be added at the front of the house.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m.
2. 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK
LANDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR COMMON OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING
FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER
ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION, PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission asked if the Planning Commission can set
parameters on the low income unit required, it is only one bedroom, concerned with the size, seems like a
token unit that will not be suitable for families locally employed people like teachers. CP Monroe stated
that staff will explore issue. Commission asked staff to clarify statement about parking maneuvers on page
3, may be a typo. Commission asked CP to clarify Public Works review of the driveway and requirements
for driveway slope, but project description does not clarify if Commission review is required. Public Works
comments say 18% driveways slope is allowed, but does not comment on suitability.
Commissioners asked:
• Why is driveway width 17’6”, seems a lot wider than required by code, will be a big dark hole;
• Can applicant identify common open space clearly on site plan, hard to tell what is being counted;
• Seven trees on-site, there are three in the back, but the rest are in planters over the garage, should
look at other options, more location alternatives e.g. should be planted in dirt not planters;
• Variance for landscaping and common open space is generated because of the size of the building,
which is driven by the size of the units, too much packed on this site, the hardship for the variance is
created by the project;
• In order to grant variance must find exceptional circumstances on property, what is the hardship;
• Parking space #4 seems very narrow, does it meet required dimensions;
• Look at option for eliminating variances;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
3
• Understand that the planting area is limited in the front, but can add a larger scale tree at the front to
keep in scale with the building;
• On sheet P8, all elevations have same size windows, room at front appears to be the “great room”,
could use a variety of windows in a room like that, should review and increase the variety of
windows sizes and reduce the uniformity;
• Step back top floor so it will look more like a 3 ½ story building rather than a 4 story building;
• Architect has designed a number of multi-family buildings in this area, would like to know what his
view of this area is for the future, since he is having a big impact on the outcome;
• Applicant shall provide cross section of driveway and show the slopes and run at each sloped
section.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:35 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.
3. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO CONVERT
THE GROUND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL (LORTON LLC,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL KASTROP, THE KASTROP GROUP INC.,
ARCHITECT) (38 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. C. Bojués requested that item #3, 214-216 Lorton Avenue be moved to the regular action
calendar.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO CONVERT
THE GROUND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL (LORTON LLC,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL KASTROP, THE KASTROP GROUP INC.,
ARCHITECT) (38 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report November 8,2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if he
was eligible to vote on this item since he was not at the study meeting. CA Anderson noted that if
Commissioner was not present for a design review study or a regular study item, he does not have to listen
to the tapes, just needs to read the study meeting minutes before participating in the public hearing and
voting on the item. CP Monroe noted that condition 4 states that deliveries to the site shall be limited to the
area of the building along Hatch Lane but should add to the condition an exception for BFI, which would
block the Lane for only a few minutes on regular collection days.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
4
Commission discussion: support project, but think that because of the hotel use on the second floor
condition 4 should be revised to limit the hours of afternoon deliveries to 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. rather
than 11:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m. is too late for those sleeping.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, amended to
shorten the delivery hours in condition 4 from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. and to exempt BFI pickups: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August
6, 2004, Existing and Proposed Site Plans, Lower Floor Plans, Upper Floor Plans, and Building
Elevations, and shall adhere to the color and material sample of the exterior materials of the building as
shown on the materials board date stamped October 27, 2004; any changes to the colors or materials
shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of
building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review; 3) 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; 4) that deliveries to businesses located on this
site shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. daily, except
Sundays and holidays; deliveries to the site shall be limited to the rear of the building on Hatch Lane,
BFI pickups shall be excepted; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 6, 2004 memos, the
Chief Building Official's July 8, 2004 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 6, 2004 memo, and the Recycling
Specialist’s July 12, 2004, memo shall be met; and 6) 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 motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
4. 1147 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATION
OF NEW SIGNS (MARK GRAFF, RHL DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CONOCO
PHILIPS, PROPERTY OWNER) (6 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report November 8, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Mark Graff, RHL Design Group, 3001 Douglas Blvd., #210,
Roseville, applicant commented that he was available to answer any questions for the Planning
Commission. Commission asked Mr. Graff to clarify the location of the pole sign; noted that the new pole
sign will replace the existing 76 ball and will be placed at an angle at the corner of Cadillac Way and
Rollins Road, will be visible from both frontages, and the square footage of one face is counted on each
frontage. Commission noted that sheet A3, #13 shows the canopy sign, but it doesn’t match the canopy
sign shown on sheet A2; explained that sheet A2 shows the food mart sign only, #4 only calls out the new
fascia on the canopy. Commission asked what will happen to the 76 ball; was not sure, noted that 76 is
doing a major brand change, no orange 76 ball and color scheme will also change. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the total
signage along Rollins Road, the primary frontage, shall not exceed 3 signs totaling 108.5 SF, and that the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
5
total signage along Cadillac Way, the secondary frontage, shall not exceed 2 signs totaling 76 SF, with the
total signage on the property limited to 5 signs totaling 184.5 SF, and shall be installed and maintained as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and dated October 12, 2004; 2) that any increase
in the number, sign height, location or area of the signs on the primary or secondary frontages, shall require
an amendment to sign variance; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code
and of the 2001 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Commission comments on motion: Cadillac Way is like a primary frontage for this site with a lot of traffic,
new pole sign is smaller than the existing 76 ball, the visible signage on the site will be reduced, proposal is
under the limit for total square footage allowed on the site; Commissioner asked CA if all four sign variance
findings need to be made for the Planning Commission to grant the variance; CA Anderson stated that yes
all 4 conditions must be met in order to grant variance; having a hard time deciding if all of the variance
conditions are met, especially #1, CA Anderson noted that the total sign area on the site is going from larger
to smaller square footage, and will have a lower visibility than the existing, the purpose of the code is
always to drive toward conformity; other uses surrounding this site are commercial uses.
Chair Osterling 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 7:57 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
5. 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
Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Michael Cafferkey, 1453 Balboa, property owner was
available to answer questions. Noted that he is a native of Burlingame, went to Our Lady of Angels, is
proposing a beautiful home that meets all the City requirements, will add character to the neighborhood.
Commission asked the applicant to clarify the second floor plate height. Mr. Cafferkey stated that the
numbers on the plans are hard to read looks like 9’6”on the second floor, but the second floor plate height
is 8’6”.
Donna Lema-Cerna, 1457 Balboa Avenue, Diana and Raymond Mason, 1451 Balboa Avenue, and Pat
Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, and Tom Niland, 1122 Clovelly Lane, had the following comments:
concerned with sewer line which is shared between her property and the proposed development, called City
Attorney, bought this house in 1975, it flooded with raw sewage and there were legal proceedings, the line
was then brought out to the front, there was a sewer test done when the house at 1453 Balboa Avenue was
purchased and her bathrooms were again flooded with sewage, concerned that the house now has 1bathroom
and no washing machine and was occupied by a single lady, with this project there will be three bathrooms
and a washing machine, much more impact on sewer line. Staff noted that the new development would be
required to install their own sewer lateral. Have lived in home for 33 years, children also attended Our
Lady of Angels, concerned with this project on a substandard lot, there is not even 6 feet between the
houses, most houses in Burlingame are located on 50’ wide lots with driveways and have 13 to 15 feet
between houses, my house was built in 1937 after the applicant's houses which was built in 1921; living
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
6
room, formal dining room and breakfast nook are 21 feet along right side and all get afternoon sun, a second
story addition at 1453 Balboa Avenue will block light, usually new homes have driveway on one side and
the neighbor has a driveway on the other side which creates separation, new porch fill in will block light and
view, the rear addition will shadow breakfast nook, second floor room currently has a view of trees and up
Balboa, but now will have view of new roof and no light, second story at 1453 Balboa will cast shadows,
submitted photos showing sun in upper room windows; see many nice bungalows in Burlingame becoming
big houses, this is unusual lot was three 50 foot wide lots and was divided into 4 lots, this project will dwarf
the two houses on the side, three full bathrooms will be in this small house with ambitions to be big house,
out of balance and scale, needs to be re-worked with smaller bathrooms, won’t fit in; took neighbors
concerns into consideration when designing the project, there are a lot of big houses on this block, this is not
a massive house, tried to add character to house. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public comment was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• There have been considerations made for the neighbors concerns, but need to look at more
concessions, towers over neighbor on left, design reviewer may be able to help with some ideas, ;
• Project is lacking the amount of detail that the Planning Commission usually sees for a new house,
needs more work;
• Troubled by three hanging bays on the right side, looks lop sided, too heavy, consider using
materials to soften right elevations;
• Need to add materials for interest, brick, slate, add landscaping;
• With narrow lot, need to minimize the effect on the neighbors;
• Need landscape plan, try to soften the front and back;
• Front elevation - consider adding another window on second floor instead of vent; too much stucco,
nice roof lines, like the bay;
• Need window detail, would like to see patterns, use divided light windows, looks like stucco trim
proposed around windows, usually see stucco mold;
• Funny roof pitch on section at the rear, doesn’t match, should be blended into larger roof; and
• Stone or brick on chimney veneer looks like it is applied at the same plane, look at how to give it
texture and differentiate from the house.
C. Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: good start to the project, design is o.k. overall more work and detailing.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the
direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and
not appealable. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m.
6. 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
7
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Burlingame, and
Orlando Buena, property owner, were in attendance. Noted that they sited the new house and detached
garage in the same location as the existing structures, talked with the arborist about constructing the garage
on a pier and beam foundation in order to preserve the health of the Coast Live Oaks at the rear of the lot,
they provide good screening and provide a nice backdrop for the backyard, proposal is meeting all of the
code requirements. Commission asked if owner will live in the house or sell the house. Mr. Buena noted
that he has two children, one goes to school in Burlingame, plan to live in this house. Commission asked if
owner knows about the garage proposed on the adjacent property at 2108 Easton Drive. Mr. Buena noted
that he is aware of the project and was at one of the hearings. He planned the layout of the house based on
the assumption that they would be building a garage on the right side property line, so he moved his kitchen
to the opposite side where it would have more light, but this caused the disconnect with the family room.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• Oak trees at rear need to be trimmed before to the demolition and construction of the garage, should
be done under a licensed arborist supervision;
• Still concerned with proximity of garage construction to trees, can garage be moved forward slightly
away from trees;
• Commission asked to clarify eave detail, looks like a hefty end to the roof rafter, 4 x 6;
• Roof shown as slate, applicant should be sure that this can be done structurally, have approved these
before an applicants come back and change material, say it is too expensive, it is an important design
element that should be retained or changed now;
• Plate heights need to be lowered too much mass, now they are 10’ on the first floor and 9’ on the
second floor, should be 9’ on the first floor and 8’ on the second floor;
• Garage doors look forced in and tight can they be made into two separate doors or broken up with a
different look;
• Garage roof is held tight to the building with out eaves, doesn’t really match the house;
• Project is very close to maximum floor area and lot coverage, unusual to be so close on both, need to
scale back on both to fit the neighborhood better;
• Look into reducing family room at the rear and creating more yard space (addressing lot coverage
and FAR), would encroach into the breakfast noon area but will bring the kitchen closer to the
family room.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested
revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on motion: requests made by the Commission are not complicated, the architect is familiar with
the Commission and what they are looking for, will be o.k. to bring back as an action item.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed, reviewed by staff, and there is space on an agenda. The motion passed on a
voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
8:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
8
7. 1546 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WINDOWS AND
SKYLIGHTS IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (EDWARD SUPPLEE, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (57 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, noted that this
project is an addition, restoration and beautification, house is an old classic bungalow that was messed with
over the years, family room addition that has T-111 siding, there were concrete shingles added, there are a
lot of permits requested on this application, however most are the result of correcting existing conditions on
the property, the upper floor already encroaches into the declining height envelope, it is close to meeting the
14 foot exception for declining height envelope measurement, but the City requires that the finished floor be
3 feet above average grade at the perimeter of the house so it does not qualify. The garage was built with
permits, kitchenette is being removed, spiral stairs to second floor being removed, garage did meet 20 foot
depth but the wall at the bathroom is 2' X 6' so the depth is 2” short, the windows within 10 feet of property
line are already there, two windows at the front are being pushed together, eave detail on the garage will
match the house. Commission asked why one side and the rear elevation of the garage is left as cinder
block when the rest is shingled? Can see this block wall from Crescent Drive. Mr. Grange noted the
garage is too close to the property line, would have to go on neighbor’s property to place battens and
shingles on the side. CP Monroe noted that can not request shingles on elevation if they will encroach onto
adjacent property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
Commission discussion: nice job on the design, eliminating a lot of the bad things on this house; suggested
planting a substantially sized tree in the front between the front door and the driveway near the stepping
stones.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the suggested
changes. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 8:44 p.m.
8. 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) (43 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Lincoln Lue, project architect, 1567 33rd Avenue, San
Francisco, noted that this is a small house on a large lot, reasonable addition proposed, only 60% of
allowable FAR proposed, want to expand the living room and family room on the first floor, add sitting
room to master bedroom on second floor, impact to street is minimal, hardly visible from the curb, owner
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
9
can fit two cars in the garage even though it doesn’t meet the City standard for width. Commission noted
that the cricket at the intersection of new and existing roof does not have much of a slope and will be visible
from the neighbors. Architect noted that the roof may need adjustments made to the cricket, could end up
larger during engineering but will not be visible from the street; did not think views would be affected
because of the steep the slope at the rear of the lot; bridging the addition with the existing structure would
create a large roof area and wanted to design the project to be hidden from the street.
Mahmound Tabrizi,5 Rio Court, like neighbor at 3 Rio Court concerned with view blockage caused by the
project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• Why isn’t the wood siding continued up the front elevation on the second floor, the plaster is more
dominant;
• Rear elevation is all plaster, consider adding shutters to the second floor to match the first floor,
neighbor will see big blank wall, sheet A4 has a lot of plaster;
• Concerned with the additions affect on views, need to install story poles;
• Addition looks like a block stuck on the back of the house, there is no melding of the addition with
the existing structure, doesn’t tie in with the existing architecture at all, addition is not integrated
into the existing style;
• Plate heights should be lowered, 10’ at first floor is too large; and
• Concerned with large balcony off of the rear of the second floor impact neighbors, should
considered eliminating.
C. Auran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on motion: it is a challenge to go up on these ranch style homes, should consider installing story
poles before re-designing so architect knows from neighbors if views will be blocked before making
changes to the drawings.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review with the direction given.
The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.
This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of October 18, 2004, and November 1, 2004.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of October 18, 2004, noting that because of
the late hour this item was skipped at that meeting. She then reviewed the Council meeting of
November 1, 2004. She also noted that there was a Council Study Meeting on Wednesday, November
9, 2004, in the Lan Community Room at 6:30 p.m. The purpose was to explore how New Urbanism
concepts could be applied to a site in the Downtown Burlingame area.
- Review Design of Medical Office Building and access to Shopping Center from Trousdale Drive
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2004
10
Following the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 2004, the architects for the hospital
replacement project had tried to apply to the eastern façade of the medical office building the direction
given them by the Commission. They sent a revised elevation which staff brought FYI for comment if
they were on the right track. Commissioners noted that the color of the building as shown on the
diagram was a little light, liked the trees added and the building would fade into the pedestrian
background more if it were darker; commissioners noted that it is very hard to show accurate color on
these electronically rendered drawings, thought the color would be darker in reality because of the
shadows caste by the groves in the precast panels, would like to see a sample; thought that a change to
color of the MOB would also affect the hospital since the two tie together; lightened sunscreens with
horizontal shadow pattern are an improvement; like the parapet shown, windows work OK, it’s a
distinctive building, but addresses the issues; still would like darker, maybe can go with darker
aggregate; seems to be a consensus do not want a very light building, maybe in future coloration on
exhibits can be more representative. Applicant prepared a video of the building from El Camino Real, it
is an interesting tool and a good way to present the design to the City Council, would recommend it.
Noted that a member of the public at tonight's meeting commented on the location of the key services in
the hospital, that is not an issue before the Planning Commission, can the applicant contact her and
explain how you intend the project to work on the service side.
- FYI – Update on Conditional Use Permit for Car Rental and Storage at 1815 Bayshore Highway and 840
Cowan Road
Commission reviewed the submittal which documented that the operation of the car rental and storage
use at 1815 Bayshore Highway and 840 Cowan Road is consistent with the conditions of the use permit
granted. Commission saw no reason to review this further, noting that this fulfilled the review
requirement.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\Minutes Template.doc