HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.07.24
1
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
July 24, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Luzuriaga called the July 24, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Keighran, Vistica and Luzuriaga
Absent: Commissioners Dreiling and Osterling
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry
Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher
MINUTES The minutes of the July 10, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission
were approved as mailed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
1234 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY
FRONTAGE (ALAN FORD, APPLICANT; RUSSELL KEIL/ KEIL-SONOMA CORPORATION, PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report. The commissioners asked: would staff look at the number of blade signs in the
surrounding area, including those on the Banana Republic site; will this proposed sign be illuminated; what will be the
letter size on the proposed blade sign, what will the background color be; the application states that the frame of the
blade sign will be black, will the whole sign be black; concerned about the number of blade signs on Burlingame
Avenue, will this set a trend or precedent, staff provide information on the current status; this site has 15 signs but they
are small, use 32 SF where 60 SF is allowed should be put on the consent calendar; would like to see the color palate
for this sign; concern is not the number or size of signs on this site, it is the growing number of blade signs which
affects the appearance of the Avenue; OK to put on consent, can remove if, after receiving the information on the blade
signs, still feel that there is a problem. Chairman Luzuriaga set this item for the consent calendar at the meeting of
August 14, 2000, providing the Planning Department had the information needed in time.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000
2 2
3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE
NUMBER OF SIGNS ON A PRIMARY FRONTAGE (DEWAYNE METCALF, ZIMMERMAN SIGN COMPANY,
APPLICANT; JOSEPH PUTNAM, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report. The commissioners asked: feel it is appropriate to place this item on consent, this
sign is needed to put the dealer=s name on this business, the whole program is under the maximum square footage
allowed for this site which is unusual for this type of business; have no problem will placing this on the consent
calendar. Extended service hours at the Putnam site on Anita and Peninsula which results in that site being illuminated
longer hours, would staff check if there is a condition of approval on that application which limits hours of illumination
and if the present practice is consistent with that permit. The issue of illumination impacts from the Anita site was
referred to staff for follow up. Chairman Luzuriaga then set the sign application for the consent calendar at the meeting
of August 14, 2000.
The study items were concluded at 7:15 p.m.
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.
Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the audience or any commissioner wished to take any items off the consent
calendar. He noted that he had a written request to remove item 5, 141 Costa Rica Avenue, from the consent calendar.
CE Erbacher noted a correction regarding 1825 El Camino Real, Item No. 4 should be changed from AStanton@ to AEl
Camino Real@.
340 LORTON AVENUE #203, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B- APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING PHYSIOTHERAPY OFFICE (GINA LAROCCA,
APPLICANT; DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER)
1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B- APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AN
EXISTING WALL SIGN (BEVERLY J. FOSTER, APPLICANT; DAY FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER)
1825 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3- APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR
LOT COMBINATION (FRANK VENTURELLI, C&V INVESTMENTS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and
the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and the correction per the City
Engineer, each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote
on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
141 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (LARRY MORSELLO, PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, DESIGNER
AND APPLICANT)
Reference staff report, 7.24.00, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no
questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000
3 3
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer and applicant and Larry Morsello, property
owner were available for questions and comments. The applicant noted that the request complies with all code
requirements, and he reserved the right to comment following testimony. Sue O=Connell, 144 Occidental Avenue
noted that her main concern with the project is her light and privacy, she was unable to attend the last meeting,
properties adjacent to hers have nonconforming structures, this is the final piece of light access. Commissioners noted
that the special permit for height was established to allow extra height when it was a design feature, in this case to
allow for 12/12 pitch on a Tudor style house. The applicant had no further comments.
Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commissioners noted that they had looked at the project, it has met
code requirements, the special permit for height is meant to enhance architecture, house has a good design.
C. Keighran moved to approve the project, 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 2000, sheets A-1 through A-3 date
stamped May 18, 2000, including house sections, landscape plan and topographic survey, and sheet A-4, showing the
window wrought iron, eave and gutter detail, date stamped July 14, 2000; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of
the residence or garage, which would include changing the size or location of windows, or changing the roof height or
pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official=s May 22,2000 memo and
the City Engineer=s May 23, 2000, memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the
California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
On the motion: neighbor has concerns about privacy, commission has had lengthy discussions on this issue, do
consider, especially with large second floor decks and windows, there will always be some windows on a second floor,
cannot guarantee privacy.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers.
Dreiling and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A AND 303/305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2,
SUBAREA A - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE
SEATING AREA IN AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND TO EXPAND THE EXISTING FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT INTO AN ADJACENT BUILDING (FANNY & ALEXANDER, APPLICANT; LORENZ KAO
AND LOUISA ZEE KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference Planning Commission Staff Report 7.24.00 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report.
Commissioners asked staff: will food or beverage be prepared in the expansion seating area, no the bar and kitchen are
nearby in another building; will live music and dancing be prohibited in the expansion area, no; were you able to find
out the seating area of Burlingame Station Brew Pub, no because it is not in Subarea A and was not a part of that
survey, however one large room is used as a pool hall and has no conventional restaurant seating; how many parking
spaces are provided on that site, about six. CA Anderson noted that the take out/delivery activity was not mentioned in
the conditions, CP Monroe noted that Fanny and Alexander had agreed to dropping that activity when the conditional
use permit for a full service restaurant was approved. There were no further questions.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jeff Weinberg, general manager of Fanny and Alexander =s,
represented the project with Carl Hesse, the architect who prepared the plans. Clarified that the additional seating
space would be used for overflow dining and drink and bar service from next door will not be a problem; there is a
need for off-site party locations for corporations, both private and semi-private; when this becomes available the limit
will be how its use fits with providing dinner in the restaurant. Want to amend the application to extend the use of the
expansion area from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., it can still have a 5:00 p.m. opening hour for the banquet room, but would
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000
4 4
like to use the area for live music, dancing or bar until 2:00 a.m., concerned about music and dancing causing a noise
problem and this location would provide a noise buffer. At the Palo Alto location ha ve little problem with crowd
control and security, including regulating the number of guests on site at one time; feel many of the patrons will
already be on Burlingame Avenue and will bar hop to F&A so will not impact the parking problem, the rest will come
after 10 p.m. when the retail businesses are closed and there is more parking available. CA noted that should this be
approved the applicant would have to apply for an amusement permit amendment from the City Council before this
area could be used for dancing and music.
Commissioners asked: will there be live music in the annex or will it be piped in from the main area? will have the
potential for 2 live bands one for jazz at one location and one for dancing at the other. How will you enhance security,
when have live music monitor people entering, have floor staff to keep people in order and be sure that fire exits are
not used to sneak people in, presently plan for 6 people for security, will add more when the area is expanded. How
will you use the expanded area for banquets? expect to use it for small corporate parties, receptions and showers, the
chef=s capacity is limited so would have to be coordinated through him, expect small scale 60-70 people for drinks, 40-
45 for sit down. Which would take precedent the night club or the banquet use? would use for dinner Monday through
Saturday to 10:00 p.m., after 10 p.m. would convert to dance area with music, especially on Friday and Saturday. How
do you calculate that 60-70 percent of your business would come from other restaurants? experience is that a lot of
people would come to the late night dancing from other restaurants and bars in the area, have been polling at the door
as people come in; so the figures are an estimate? yes. You note that 15% of your customers will use the train; is that
realistic? yes based on our experience in Palo Alto which is also close to the train; is it a problem that the last train is at
midnight? customers who are staying late generally find another way home. There were no more comments from the
floor and the public comment was closed.
Commission discussion: been to F&A in Palo Alto, first class operation, have observed all that applicant has noted, a
lot of people bar hop within the Palo Alto area and do not have a parking problem, parking limitations seem to be the
same in Palo Alto as in Burlingame; feel that such a business would infuse energy into the Avenue and extend its daily
life. The security noted is not out of the ordinary for any place with live music and dancing. See differently, lot of
people will come here for night life, more than bar hop, these will probably be younger people, are talking about 500
people nightly and they would have a substantial impact on parking, as well as influencing the street lat e at night,
estimates of customers from within the area and using Caltrain are optimistic, instead see a big parking problem. Only
member of commission here in 1995 when restaurant use originally approved for this ground floor site, was granted
because the building was required to undergo a major reconstruction for seismic safety, so the restaurant was allowed
to expand, move from the basement and add the patio area. The city has limited the number of restaurants in Subarea
A, this request would break that limit and allow the frame shop to become a restaurant. Burlingame Avenue lives on
diversity, and the key is retail, if we allow the restaurants to take over retail will disappear; restaurants are good
revenue generators for property owners but they place a burden on other uses. See this as a separate space, large with
live entertainment, 500 people is a lot of people, think use of train and coming from other places over estimated and
would still impact parking even at 10 p.m. The commission represents all the businesses on the Avenue.
C. Keighran noted troubled by the size of the restaurant; the others existing now are one-third this size or smaller so
this would have a substantial impact, essentially it would be adding another restaurant, we have a limit to maintain
balance and charm. The applicant intends to create a separate environment with this addition, a whole other place to go
to. There is a serious parking problem on Burlingame Avenue, after 10 p.m. probably not too bad, but it begins before
10 p.m. Main concern is the intensity of this restaurant, 3952 SF of seating, Paragon is the closest existing with 1008
SF of seating, people will use this site before 10 p.m. for banquets, it is too much for Burlingame Avenue which has a
major parking problem; last train is a midnight, most of these customers will not want to leave at midnight, for these
reasons and the ones cited by others, move to deny the amendment to the conditional use permit to expand the full
service restaurant use and seating area into 303/305 California Drive and increase the seating area by 117 SF within the
site at 1008 Burlingame Avenue. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000
5 5
Comment on the motion: regarding the size of this proposed restaurant, the average size seating area on the Avenue is
about 629 SF, this project would be almost 6 times larger; this is an intense restaurant use, matter of location and
circumstances, this use would make bad parking worse.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the request to expand the seating area and full
service restaurant use. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Luzuriaga dissenting, Cers. Dreiling, Osterling absent) voice
vote. Appeal procedures were noted. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - ORDINANCE TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO DEVELOPMENT IN
THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONES AND MINOR CORRECTIONS TO THE ZONING CODE.
CP Monroe presented the staff report and summarized the provisions of the proposed new zoning requirements for
design review. Commissioners asked: would different people do commercial design review and how many? yes there
would be different reviewers selected from those doing residential design review and there would be at least two; are
we expected to act tonight, because when the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee met, there were a few changes
to the wording in the criteria discussed and they have not been noted here. CA Anderson noted that commission could
act tonight and between now and this going to council at their second meeting in August you could incorporate
changes as comments. Subcommittee found that it trying to graphically express the criteria helped clarify the intent of
commercial design review, subcommittee will meet again on Saturday at 9 a.m. CA noted t hat there would be one
more commission meeting on August 14 before this goes to Council so commission could discuss the graphic
explanation of the ordinance. Concerned about the use of the word Adiversity@ in criteria 4; someone might propose
something completely unlike anything else there and say that it implements diversity; feel diversity is a goal as
opposed to uniformity of architectural style or everyone having the same awning color with the same style of lettering
as was common in the 1970's, do not want one pattern. Am concerned that these two district C-1 and C-2 now allow
storage facilities what would it take to see that storage facilities were only allowed in M-1 and prohibited in C-1, C-2,
C-3, and C-4, except for car storage in auto row. Storage facilities are all ready prohibited in C-3 and C-4. They are
allowed in M-1. Could prohibit in C-1 and C-2 with amendment to the auto row overlay to allow car storage. CA
noted that this change could be brought to the commission at study on August 14.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Deal moved that the Planning Commission recommend to Council the adoption of the commercial design review
regulations with code corrections as proposed. C. Bojués seconded the motion.
Comment on the motion: staff should work on the wording of criteria 4, the subcommittee should have design
guidelines for commission review and any suggestions to changing the wording for the criteria, and wording for
amending the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts to limit storage facilities; these items should be presented at the commission
meeting of August 14, 2000, for inclusion as suggestions to City Council when this item goes forward.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the amendment to the zoning code to establish
commercial design review to City Council. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Osterling absent) voice vote.
This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
1317 CASTILLO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MICHAEL &
HILDY CHAPLE, PROPERTY OWNERS)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000
6 6
Planner Brooks presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public
comment. Michael Chaple, 1317 Castillo Avenue, applicant, and John Stewart, architect were available for questions
and comments.
Design concerns identified: stairwell window is too large; front facade has wide sweeping elements, on sides it breaks
into smaller elements; on right side one dormer could be a two story element; add eave and texture details; use of
outriggers on east and west elevations, needs to be tightened by adding more details typical of this architectural style;
need landscape plan to show how plants will mature and soften the structure, provide privacy to neighbors; add
landscaping on the edge of the driveway to soften building; show existing landscaping on the site plan including type
and size of trees.
C. Vistica made a motion to refer the item to the consent calendar for action if applicant addresses Commission =s
concerns. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to
refer to the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling and Osterling absent). The Commission=s
action is advisory and not subject to appeal. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m.
2009 RAY DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
WITH DETACHED 2-CAR GARAGE (DENISE LAUGENSEN AND ALEX BEILIN, OWNERS; STEWART AND
ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER).
CP Monroe presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public
comment. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the project. William Jones, 2005 Ray
Drive, also spoke noting he lives in a two story house built in 1945, there are 9 lots on Ray Drive between McDonald
and Deveraux, the remaining are all occupied by elderly people, so lots of change is going to happen here in the next
few years, concerned about the precedent that this structure will set; concerned about living in the shadow of a two
story stucco house which will block his light and have windows looking into his pool and patio; exhaust from the
proposed gas fireplace is directed at his yard; house is for the developer, this is not a family expanding to meet its
needs; neighbor on the other side in a single story house also has concerns about light and privacy. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
During commission discussion the public comment was reopened and the architect requested to be placed on the
calendar in the interest of needing to move on this project. There were no further comments from the floor and public
comment was once again closed.
Design concerns identified: building elevations do not show plate height; design guidelines note the importance of off-
setting the planes in a house, the off-sets on the front of this house are only a foot or two, the setback of each plane
needs to be increased on the front facade; on the east elevation need to add the same kind of detail which you have
added to the west elevation and bring a second floor element down to the ground to reduce mass; need to draw trim at
proper scale; corbel and cantilever treatment needs to be addressed.
C. Keighran moved to place this item on the next available action calendar after completed submittal. The motion was
seconded by C. Bojués. chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place the revised and checked
plans on the next available action calendar. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling and Osterling absent) voice
vote. The Commission=s action is advisory and not subject to appeal. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
1346 DE SOTO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE (JOSEPH AND JENNIFER ADDIEGO,
PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000
7 7
C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would abstain from this item. He stepped
down from the dais. CP Monroe reviewed the staff report. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Jennifer
Addiego, 1346 DeSoto, represented the project.
Design concerns identified: design blends well with the house and three bedrooms does not require a two car garage; if
owner wishes to have a two car garage in the future there is not enough FAR remaining to do so without a variance, a
condition pointing this out should be added for future buyers.
C. Keighran moved to place this application on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place the project on the consent calendar. The motion was
approved 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Dreiling and Osterling absent). The Commission’s action is advisory and
not subject to appeal. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
1532 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE (ROBERT AND
JESSICA FELLOWS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS; JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS,
ARCHITECT)
Planner Brooks presented the staff report. Commissioners asked how the number of bedrooms was determined, staff
noted that both the office and family room had separate entrances off the hall so the house was five bedrooms;
elimination of one of these separate entrances would reduce the number of bedrooms by 1 since one would have access
through another room.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Robert Fellows, 1532 Burlingame Avenue, and Nan Crowley,
architect, 127 N. San Mateo Drive, represented the project. There was no public comment on the project and the public
hearing was closed.
Design concerns identified: could the upstairs rooms be reconfigured and one door eliminated so that one of them is no
longer a bedroom and a parking variance is not required; variances are granted on the basis of hardships having to do
with the physical attributes of the property, encroachment on a pool is not a hardship nor is cost. Applicant responded
he is willing to eliminate door from hall into office so that it will not be considered a bedroom. There are two
windows, one on the second floor front and on the right side elevation that are not in continuity with the rest of the
windows; concerned about the shape of the windows they are out of character with the lower windows, should maintain
shape of windows throughout; the outriggers are a nice detail, they should be shown in correct scale; the stair case on
the first floor is a different size than the one on the second floor; the windows in master bedroom and office should
meet emergency egress requirement; need to show details on the plans, the new should match the existing.
C. Vistica mad a motion to set the item on the next available action calendar, with the corrections made to the plans and
comments addressed, including reducing the project to four bedrooms so there will be no variance required. The
motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to rear the item to the
consent calendar with comments addressed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Dreiling and Osterling
absent). The commission=s action is advisory and is not subject to appeal. The item ended at 9:20 p.m.
1531 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LENGTH OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (SEAN AND ANN
KEIGHRAN, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS; KOTAS/PANTALEONI ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT).
C. Keighran noted that she would abstain from this item since it was her house. She stepped down from the dais. CP
Monroe reviewed the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000
8 8
Sean Keighran, 1531 Vancouver and Jeremy Kotas, the architect, represented the project. There were no other
speakers from the floor.
Design Concerns identified: historically have asked that bathrooms in accessory living areas be small for convenience,
without space for tub or shower, could this be done in the basement area, should be reinforced with a condition;
concerned about the front facade and the visual bulk caused by the 10 foot plates on the first floor, could reduce this by
lowering the first floor plate to 9 feet; the porch on the front is good but feel that the windows on the front are too large,
need to be in better scale with the amount of wall, this size is probably affected by the 10 foot plate on the first floor; is
the molded rake really 15 inches; think the window size on the south side of the building is a better scale; concerned
about the garage, the west elevation shows a plate height of 9 2 feet, the proportion of the building is too tall, because it
is on property line it will affect the adjoining neighbors now and in the future, the plate should be 8'-1"; on the north
elevation of the garage the columns do not go to the ground, if they were extended along with lowering the plate i t
would be improved; another reason the windows on the front look too big is the tight dimension for the shutters against
the columns, needs a small change; like combination of 10 foot and 7 foot plate heights, the sum is the same as the
typically approved 9' and 8' plate heights; basement area clearly is not for sleeping and there should be a condition
included restricting the use; are mechanical and ventilation requirements met (Title 24) in the basement area; explain
the trim around the circular decoration made of molding and placed over a flat piece of siding on the facades, needs to
be beefed up to match the detail on the rest of the house; the garage door look squat, this proportion will be fixed by
lowering the plate line of the structure; the 10 foot plate at the front works and is typical of this style, if reduce the first
floor plate the house will look squat and be less well proportioned; the proportion of the rooms is generous and requires
higher ceilings; would prefer smaller windows; feel special permit for the garage length is all right because of the nice
design.
C. Bojués moved to place this item with revised plans as directed on the consent calendar for action. The motion was
seconded by C. Vistica. It was noted that conditions that the basement not be used for sleeping purposes, the basement
bathroom shall be for convenience and limited to a toilet and sink, and the plate line of the garage shall be a maximum
of 8'-1" should be added. Changing the window size should be up to the applicant. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a
voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar for the next available agenda when the plans are
complete. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Keighran abstaining; Cers. Dreiling, Osterling absent). The
commission=s action is advisory and is not subject to appeal. The item ended at 9:50 p.m.
1349 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RON GROVE,
PROPERTY OWNER).
Planner Brooks presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public
comment. Ron Grove, 1349 Vancouver, and James Chu, designer and applicant represented the project. There were no
other persons responding from the floor.
Design concerns identified: if there is going to be a gutter, it needs to be shown on all elevations; the chimney should
be shown on all elevations; in future should delineate area of requested special permit for height on the site plan; could
the overhangs be increased from 2' to 2'-6", deeper overhang is typical of this style; bay on second story west elevation
should be clad in a different material like the front of the house; free up chimney on the east elevation from water table
and make it a free vertical element, change shape of chimney base; on west elevation there are three elements that
converge at the same spot- upper bay with cantilever overhang, octangular bay and shed dormer- might look awkward
when built, could be simplified.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the next available consent calendar with revisions made per commission
direction. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000
9 9
item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling,
Osterling absent). The commission=s action is advisory and is not subject to appeal. The item ended at 10:15 p.m.
PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of Counter Handout, Design Review Submittal Checklist and Draft Commission Procedure Handout.
CP Monroe reviewed the documents included in the staff report for discussion. On the design review submittal check
list the commissioners asked if the photo-boards were used, they are time consuming and expensive to prepare. Staff
noted that the design reviewers rely on them in working with applicants, they are also referred to at the counter by staff
when clarifying points. The commissioners thought that the following items should be added to the submittal checklist:
all new houses should be required to provide a full landscape plan, if a second story is being added landscaping should
be added to soften the bigness of the addition and should be shown by plant size (no tree less than 24 inch box should
be used), species and location on the site plan, existing foliage and trees along with what applicant is adding should be
shown on the site plan; the site plan requirements should be amended to require a representation (by a line) of the
location of the nearest edge of existing structures on the adjacent properties on each side of the project site.
Commission inquired if staff has examples of plans which they share with applicants.
Commission then reviewed the draft of a procedures handout for people attending the commission meetings.
Commission liked the idea that the commentary followed the agenda format. and felt that this was a needed document
we should begin using right away. Commission then discussed the staff prepared staff reports and what parts of them
they used. The consensus was that the staff comments did not have to repeat the concerns expressed in the relevant
memos from different departments, and when an item was unusual or not a part of the building permit process, it should
be called out in this section. Otherwise the memos could be referenced and included in the attachments. For the design
reviewers comments, since most commissioners read the design reviewers memos, only an identification of the items
which still needed attention and the reviewers conclusion need to be put into the staff report. The group concluded the
meeting by discussing agenda capacity issues. With the restriction of the agenda to 14 items and the current volume of
business, it is not always possible to promise that all items will be set on the next agenda because it may have no
available spaces. The better approach is to direct that items will be placed on the next available agenda. Staff will
return to the commission at the next meeting with a description of how we propose the manage the intake and
processing system to ensure that it is equitable for all applicants, those who have regular projects and those with design
review. Staff is concerned that we have this process in place before we take on the additional projects generated by
commercial design review. This item concluded at 11:04 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Keighran, Secretary
MINUTES7.24