HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.08.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday August 25, 2003
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the August 25, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Osterling
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber;
Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 28, 2003 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.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 8 BELVEDERE COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND LOWER FLOOR DECK
ADDITIONS (MICHAEL KOUVARIS, WILLIAM WOOD ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; LAHORI RAM, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioner asked if the land northeast of the subject
property belongs to Hoover School, looks like it on aerial photo. CP Monroe stated that it is part of Hoover
School. Commissioner asked if noticing for action meeting includes Hillsborough residences, CP Monroe
confirmed that Hillsborough residences are notified if within the 300 foot radius.
Commissioners asked:
• What counts as floor area in this project, can the applicant provide a diagram to clarify areas that are
counted as FAR;
• What is the hardship on the property for the variance;
• Site is already over on FAR, has the applicant considered reducing FAR of deck from current
configuration to offset new FAR;
• Need access to the site, can it be arranged so the Commissioners get into backyard.
CP Monroe noted that staff would ask the applicant to provide a window of times so that access to the rear
of the site would be available.
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 7:17 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
2
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests.
2. 1261 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGR. INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CRAIG SUHL, PROPERTY OWNER) (44
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
C. Auran 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 t he staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 39 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (SOFIA MAKRIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CARLOS RENON
DOMINGUEZ, DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report August 25, 2003, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Carlos Dominguez, 40 Humbolt Court, Pacifica, designer,
represented the project. He noted that they were trying to do something that would work because they did
not get it right the first time. Commissioner noted that he assumed that the addition would match all the
details on the existing house, window trim, eaves etc. because this was not noted on the plans. The designer
agreed that that was their intention to match the detail on the original house.. There were no further
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve the project by resolution with a modification to the conditions that all the
exterior detail of the addition would match the existing exterior of the house and the following conditions:
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
August 12,2003, Sheets A1 and A2, site plan, floor plans, and building elevations; with an FAR not to
exceed 2,940 SF and that all the exterior details on the addition will match the existing exterior details of the
existing house; 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, and any increase in the floor area ratio
shall be subject to a variance; 3) 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; 4) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s, Recycling
Specialist’s and the City Engineer’s May 5, 2003 memos shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof
deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
3
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; and 8) 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. Kieghran.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the addition with the amended condition that
the materials and their use on the exterior of the addition match those on the existing house. The motion
passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23
p.m.
4. 1033 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report August 25, 2003, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from
the commission.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect, and Charles Schembri, 904 Brownfield
Road, property owner, represented the project. Showed examples of synthetic river rock and other stone
material, indicated that they preferred the more horizontal weather edge material because there was more
variation in color; suggested that this material be applied below the bay window on the front of the house
and shingles remain on the chimney. Talked to the neighbors and they supported not replacing the shingles
with stone or simulated stone.
Commissioners asked: is the reason for not putting the stone on the chimney aesthetic? Yes. If just place the
weather edge more horizontal material below the bay window it will look lost, out of place, lonely,
especially since the material at the front door is brick. Applicant noted could use brick below the bay to
reflect the material at the front door, prefer not to have stone on chimney will make it stand out rather than
blend with the structure. Is there a structural reason for not installing river rock? With the real stone you
must build a ledge to place it on, it is heavy and there is a seismic issue, there are no similar problems with
the synthetic material since it is a veneer glued to the frame. Is the proper framing for river rock shown on
the original plans? Yes. Why are you now submitting without the stone? Once we saw the building up
changed our opinion, with the stone the chimney would visually dominate the structure, it blended better
with shingles. There were no other questions from the commissioner and no comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: Prefer the house with the shingles on the front and chimney, the rock is too
bold, do feel the need for developers follow approved plans, if they want to change the plans as they build
they need to come to the Planning Commission first; the Commission spends a lot of time working on plans,
this action places us in an awkward position. Five commissioners noted that they preferred this design with
the stone base on the front and chimney noting that the veneer adds distinction to the structure and makes it
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
4
more compatible with its creek side setting.
C. Brownrigg moved by resolution to direct and approve revisions to the proposed plans to add synthetic
horizontal weather edge veneer on the base of the bay window and on the chimney. The action included all
the previous conditions on the project as amended by this action as follows: 1) that the project shall be built
as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 12, 2002, Sheets A1-3, and
A5-6, C-1 and L-1, site plan, floor plans, and landscape plan; and Sheet A4, elevations, date stamped August
13, 2003; with the approved change to replace the real river rock with horizontal weather edge veneer to be
placed on the base of the bay window at the front of the house and on the chimney, to cover the rear
elevation with wood shingles; to replace the vertical siding on all of the gable ends behind the trusses with
wood shingles; 2) that the tree protection and mitigation measures for construction impacts on existing trees,
as set forth in the arborist report dated July 11, 2002 shall be adhered to during construction; the installation
of the tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a
building permit; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or
envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the
structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch,
shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Chief
Building Official’s memos dated June 10, 2002 shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation
inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 6) that prior to
under floor 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; 7) 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; 8) that
prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall
provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built
as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property
owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 9) that prior to final inspection,
Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials,
window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building
plans; 10) that all sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated
with field markers or fencing and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas are protected from
construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching; 11) that
fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site as a barrier to
prevent erosion and construction runoff into the stream or public right-of-way; 12) that all construction
materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or
sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential
pollutants into stormwater; 13) that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off,
promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; and 14) 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. Vistica.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote to approve the motion to replace real river rock with horizontal weather
edge veneer only on the base of the bay window at the front and on the chimney. The motion passed on a 5-
1-0-1 (C. Keighran dissenting, C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 7:35 p.m.
5. 1240 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRRY WINGES, AIA, WINGES ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
5
AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND CORINNE PITRE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report August 25, 2003, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from
Commission.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Pitre, 1240 Cortez Avenue spoke. A letter of support
circulated by a neighbor signed by every resident on the 1200 block of Cortez has been submitted. All have
seen the plans, none objected. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Keighran noted concern that this project is very close to the maximum FAR so staff should check
building plans closely, however the applicant has done a nice job addressing the Commission’s concerns, the
details blend nicely and the addition fits into the existing house so move approval by resolution with the
following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the pla ns submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped August 14, 2003, Sheets T1, A-0 through A-5 and L-1, site plan, floor plans,
building elevations and landscape plan; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any
changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or
floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) 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
City Engineer’s and Fire Marshal’s memos dated May 28, 2003 and the Recycling Specialist’s memo dated
June 2, 2003 shall be met; and 8) 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.
Auran.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve this first and second story addition project.
The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 7:40 p.m.
6. 16 DAVIS COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (DANIEL BIERMANN, DESIGN STUDIO, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; A.H. JUROW, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA
LEWIT
C. Keele noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project site so would recuse himself from this item. He
stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report August 25, 2003, with
attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were
suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
6
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Dan Biermann, designer, and Andy Jurow, property owner,
represented the project. Commission asked if there was anyone living in this building now since there was
an unmade bed, food and clothing in the building when made site inspection. No, building currently used as
pool house, kitchen will be removed as a part of this project and replaced with a bar area. How often does
the owner hold parties using this structure? Lived in house 20 years, have 6 children, would like to watch
TV, have exercise equipment, parties which rarely have over 30-40 people in attendance, it’s a large lot,
neighbors come to the parties, do not complain. There were no further comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that it might appear that this is a very large structure, but the mass is located at the rear of
this large lot backing up to the school property, all uses on the site, including this project, are within the
FAR allowed and the accessory structure will not be used as a dwelling unit, so move approval by resolution
with the following conditions: 1) that the accessory structure shall be built as shown on the plans submitted
to the Planning Department and date stamped June 20, 2003; with 1,422 SF of floor area, including 196 SF
of ceiling space over 12-feet in height and 112 SF of covered porch areas; and shall be used only for family
recreation and entertainment purposes; 2) that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen (a stove),
shall never include and indoor shower, and shall never be rented or converted to a second dwelling unit; 3)
that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s and the City Engineer's June 23, 2003, memos
shall be met; and 4) 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. Auran.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the request for remodeling the accessory
structure and removing the kitchen. The motion passed on a 6-0-1-1 (C. Keele abstained; C. Osterling
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
C. Keele resumed his seat on the dais.
7. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran noted that they live within 500 feet of this project site s o would recuse
themselves from this item. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report
August 25, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Twenty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: are there other options for
setting back this garage; CP noted that if there were two single doors one could be setback at 20 feet and the
second at 25 feet, however if a single double door is used, it must be setback 25 feet from the front property
line. What was the FAR for the new house at 1544 Bernal; the FAR was .51 or 3,522 SF. This project now
complies with the 7 foot side setback requirement ; yes. The second floor balcony rail is set back only 20’-
6” but staff report notes the second floor setback to be 26 feet? The second floor setback is measured to the
face of the second floor wall. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Denise Balestrieri, 424 Costa Rica, San Mateo, James Chu,
designer, spoke. Noted this house is being built for her personal use, need the bedrooms since have children
and work from home, staff report noted that 85% of site is buildable, however did not address limitations
created by the Oak tree on site which reduces useable area on the site to 36%; creek and trees areas asset to
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
7
site, want to work with, note that the 2.5 to 3.5 foot variance for the garage is not for the house but the
garage; neighbors support with letters; they all have garages with less setback than now required. Asked for
FAR of other creek side lots have information on 1021 Balboa, FAR 4, 400 SF, and 1032 Cabrillo, FAR
4.589; this proposed house is much smaller. There were no further comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Keele noted that he supports this application, did a good job in accommodating the garage location and
addressed the trees and creek which also reduce the buildable area on the lot, move approval by resolution
with the conditions in the staff report. Seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on the motion: Cannot support because this is a new house and the setback requirement can be
met easily; we are keepers of the code need to find a hardship on the property for a variance and do not see
one.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The vote was 2-2-2-1 (Cers. Auran and
Vistica dissenting; Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining; C. Osterling absent). CP Monroe noted that a
tie vote was no action and is interpreted as a denial. Did the commission wish to consider a second motion.
C. Vistica moved to deny the application without prejudice which would give the applicant the opportunity
to return, without a front setback variance by adjusting the interior of the house. The motion was seconded
by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: how easily can the variance be made to go away; on the right side the furnace and
hot water heater could be located under the stairs as is common, the closet in the den could be removed not
required in a bedroom, the bedroom could be made smaller.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny the project without prejudice on the basis that
the front setback variance was not necessary. The commissioners voted 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Brownrigg and
Keighran abstaining; C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10
p.m.
Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran resumed their seats on the dais.
8. 1311 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TENANT IMPROVEMENT (THE GYMBOREE CORP., TIM WERT,
APPLICANT; MCCALL DESIGN GROUP, ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER)
(32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report August 25, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if
they were to consider signage tonight? Staff noted no; signage will be applied for a t a later date.
Commissioner asked why this item did not come before them as a study item. CP Monroe explained that the
space is only 1 foot over the width requirement for commercial design review, and less than 50% of the
facade is proposed to be changed. This meeting could serve as a study meeting if the Commission wishes.
There were no other questions from the Commission.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Tim Wert, Gymboree Corporation, project applicant, passed
forward sample materials board for the Planning Commission review. Commission asked what material was
proposed where the dotted area around the storefront is shown on sheet 5.1. The applicant stated that the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
8
area shown will be plaster columns, and directed the Commission to the sampl e on the board provided.
Commission asked what the dark circular area is on the elevations, the applicant noted that it is frosted glass
and that the dark area was just a depiction of the frosted glass used by the architect. Commission asked
where the proposed sign would be located, applicant stated that the sign will be above the door in the
recessed portion of the building. Is the column squared or rounded, elevation drawings show an arch
towards the top, but overhead view looks like it is a square. Commission stated that is would be helpful to
have a color rendering of the proposed façade changes to see how it will fit in on the block and how it
relates to the adjacent buildings. Will this cause scheduling problems for the applicant if the project is not
approved. The applicant responded that it could be a problem since Jannie and Jack, another Gymboree
store, is moving into the existing location on Burlingame Avenue, and they were hoping to be open by
Thanksgiving and the delay may cause the construction schedule to slip. There were no further comments
and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to continue this item and place it on the next available consent calendar when the
applicant provides a color rending of the proposed façade changes and show how the new “look” fits the
existing facades on the streetscape. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Commission discussion: worked on the committee for commercial design review, this is what we are
looking for in commercial tenant spaces, this is a low building with a large opening, they are bringing the
store to the street, using neutral colors; design is intriguing, pedestrian friendly, but want to make sure
Commission understands how the façade will look and how it will relate to adjacent buildings, show door
sizes and people sizes, rendering will help; applicant should understand that an item can be pulled off of the
consent calendar for a public hearing if there are concerns.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the next available consent
calendar when the applicant provides a color rendering showing how the proposed changes will look and
relate to adjacent structures. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). This item concluded at
8:35 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A LOWER FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW DECK AT THE
REAR OF THE HOUSE (JOHNNY DAROSA, DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; LARRY AND GRACE NGAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Johnny Darosa, Darosa Associates, 475 El Camino Real, Suite
308, Millbrae, project designer, and Larry and Grace Ngai, property owners, were available to answer
questions. Commission asked to explain why the need for a 1,048 SF deck, quite excessive. The designer
explained that the deck covers the second floor, they were avoiding a flat roof. Commission asked if the
story poles were in place; yes they are in place and will remain there until project is decided on. Usually
the story poles are put up after the study meeting but wanted to put them up before the study meeting to give
the neighbors and idea of how the addition will look. The railings are represented by orange netting. The
trees on the site are retained for privacy, if they are cut down the property owners will be able to see
everything below them.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
9
Diane Johnson, 2668 Martinez Drive, and Miriam Maldanado, 1 Toledo Court, expressed concern with the
project. Diane Johnson read a letter into record from June Bitter, 2673 Martinez Drive, statin g that the
proposed project at 2669 Martinez Drive blocks some of her views of wooded areas of Burlingame and she
objects to the size of the deck on top of the addition. She suggested extending the deck 8 -10 inches and
requested a garden plan showing existing and new plants and trees. Irregularities on the drawings were
noted on the line between the properties and the adjacent property setback. Did not see any of the Planning
Commissioners come out to the site to see the story poles or see the impact on June Bitter’s property.
Would like Commission to look at the story poles from June Bitter’s window, liquid amber is 50 feet tall and
blocks the view, can’t see through the trees, blocks the view of the hospital. Suggested that the applicant
use Plexiglas at the deck railing to avoid view obstruction. Owners didn’t think of their neighbors, this is
the first time they have been present at a Planning Commission meeting. Do not understand trees, original
proposal called for the removal of the Eucalyptus trees at the rear of the property because they were
diseased, but now they are keeping them. Seems like when they were interfering with the addition they
were going to remove them, now that the addition doesn’t extend back as far they are proposing to keep the
trees. Doesn’t seem right. The property owners do not trim the trees, the trees block the neighbors view.
Did not see story poles yet, but anything on the back of the house will block views from master bedroom.
The proposed deck is huge.
Commissioner noted that landscape plan shows the installation of a 36” box size, coastal live oak tree, won’t
this tree block views. Applicant explained that he talked with the arborists and they discussed removing the
Eucalyptus trees at a latter date, so replacing a live oak now would be a good idea. Commission suggested
planting large scale shrubs instead, won’t block the view. The property owners explained that they are not
comfortable with dealing with the public and have two very young children so that is why they have not
attended Planning Commission meetings in the past. They have tried to accommodate the neighbors by
putting up story poles, continuing meetings at the request of the neighbors due to their health reasons. They
left a message for June Bitter but didn’t hear back from her, so they put the plans in the mail box. Also
talked with the son of the property owners on the other side, and they seemed to have no objection to the
project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Commissioners explained that before study items they drive by and then when the
project goes to action they actually visit the site, and if requested, any adjacent neighbors Particularly since
story poles are usually not installed until after study. Commission requested staff collect the names and
numbers of neighbors that would like the Planning Commissioners to come by, and to provide a window of
time that would work for them, weekend before meeting. Recognize that this is a different design. Views
are important, but it is also important to be able to expand your house for your family. Project to close to
the right design. This project is a question of view blockage, but no reason for design review. Privacy is not
a concern of the Planning Commission, we live in close proximity to our neighbors in Burlingame, every
time a second story goes up you see into someone’s backyard. This project is a lot better than the previous
ones. Commission needs to take a look at the view obstruction from adjacent properties.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Keele.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and
not appealable. This item concluded at 9:03 p.m.
10. 3024 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
10
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA,
DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ARTON CHAU, PROPERTY OWNER)
(40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Johnny Darosa, Darosa Associates, 475 El Camino Real, Suite
308, Millbrae, project designer, was available for questions. He explained that the owners wanted to keep
the design simple using a skinny line design, idea was to keep house simple. Stephen Hsu, 3016 Rivera
Drive, stated that he likes the fact that there are no windows on the right side. Concerned with loss of light
and shadowing due to this project and the proposed oak tree, how much light will be lost on the left side.
Will the story poles show the shadowing of the addition. Were planning on installing skylights but may
not be worth it if light will be lost. Elevation on page 6 is different than page 1. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project:
• Concern with rear elevation, grandiose with a lot of windows; is not in keeping with the style of the
rest of the house;
• Very high front elevation, also grandiose, needs more articulation;
• Addition doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood;
• Right elevation is a blank wall; second floor addition needs more articulation;
• Continuing the pillar base to the top makes it look big, need to soften;
• Need to put up story poles before action meeting;
• House is rancher-horizontal style, but entry is vertical, should better match the house;
• Second story roof on right looks hacked off;
• Call out on plans what construction materials are and that they will match existing materials;
• Plans call out an oak tree to be planted in the front, talk with the neighbors at 3016 Rivera to see if
they want an oak tree;
• Consider adding windows in the library to break up the blank wall; and
• City arborists should look at removal of trees on this slope to verify soil stability, also look at impact
of new trees and future view blockage.
C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: addition is located in the right position, centered on building; ultimately sending this
project to design review will save time; stylistic concerns with adding to a ranch style; also need to have
design reviewer have a preliminary look at minimizing view blockage.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to design reviewer with the comments
made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m.
11. 1341 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION ( RENE ARIAS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CESAR
SIFUENTES, DESIGNER) (82 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
11
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Rene Arias, property owner, was available to answer questions.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project:
• Rear single story portion is articulated, but second story above is a big, plain stucco piece;
• Windows are not comfortably spaced; windows on east elevation looked squeezed in;
• Second story front elevation is heavy, need more windows, lower plate, makes front porch look
small; out of proportion;
• Addition does not blend in well with the existing style; need to blend second floor, it is a square box,
not a lot of articulation;
• Addition is tower compared to humble character of existing structure; second floor is overwhelming
• Can you match existing wood siding instead of using stucco, siding breaks down scale; and
• Try to use the nice craftsman bungalow features that are found on the existing house, brick, siding,
garage door detailing.
Chair Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: modest addition to a modest house, ridge line is low, project is under maximum FAR
and lot coverage, concerned with the cost and time sending project through design review; project is modest
but doesn’t fit in with the existing house, do not see the existing charm carried through to the second story
addition, project will benefit from design review process.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review. The motion passed on a
voice vote 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m.
12. 2414 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY WITH A DETACHED GARAGE
(KIERAN WOODS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND
ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked for clarification on floor area
calculation for basement. Plr. Barber explained that the basement qualifies as a true basement because not
more than 2 feet of the height of the basement is above grade. The code allows up to a 700 SF exemption
for basements, the proposed basement is only 479 SF, none of which was counted toward the overall FAR
calculation for this project.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, project applicant and
designer, 398 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, was available to answer questions. Ken Vezeau, 2418 Hale
Drive, neighbor. The project applicant stated that the basement is modest, but even if it was counted toward
the floor area the proposal would still be 300 SF under the maximum allowed. Difficult lot to build on,
small lot with a small house. Met with the neighbor on the left at 2418 Hale Drive, he had three issues with
the project. Two of the three issues have been resolved, but they did not agree on the last issue. The first
issue, rebuilding the left side fence to match the neighbor’s fence design; the second issue is trimming a tree
located on the property line between 2414 and 2418 Hale Drive. The applicant/property owner have agreed
to both of these requests. The third issue is the location of the fireplace, which is adjacent to the neighbor’s
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
12
bedroom. The neighbor has requested that the fireplace be relocated so the vent is away from their bedroom.
The applicant has offered to use different type of fireplace, i.e., gas fireplace, but the neighbor does not
want it vented directly into the side yard. The applicant suggested using a fake chimney to vent it out the
top. Will let the Commission decide on this issue. Commission asked if the distance separation required for
a gas vent fireplace is different than wood burning, and what kind of residue results from a gas fireplace.
The applicant stated that there is no separation difference and that the gas vent has much less emission than
a traditional wood burning fireplace. The neighbor expressed concern with the proposed chimney, it is
opposite bedroom, concerned with smoke coming directly into the bedroom. Applicant has proposed a gas
fireplace, not what we would like but could live with it if vents at the top. Would like to see it moved, other
two issues have been addressed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project:
• A lot of hardscape covers this lot, suggest revising plans to a one car garage and increasing
landscape areas; two car garage leaves a very small yard; one car garage will give more open space;
• Look at using the existing windows in the new house, or recreating them in the new house;
• Consider using pavers instead of concrete, allows water to percolate back into soil, would like to see
existing grade on all elevations because this is a steep lot with a 13’ difference from front to rear;
and
• House has two fireplaces, one in the family room and one in the living room, can applicant remove
one fireplace or at least change the living room to a gas fireplace that vents at the top.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revision
have been made and staff has plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: commend this house, admire that it is not maxed out; nice job alleviating mass, there
are benefits of having a basement; effect on neighbors is minimal.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been
revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:53 p.m.
13. 1247 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; ROBERT AND PAULETTE SUDANO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, JD &Associates, 1228 Paloma Avenue, project
applicant and designer, and Bob and Paulette Sudano, property owners, were available to answer any
questions. The Sudano’s stated that they have been Burlingame residence for 22 years, they are asking for a
variance as a result of existing conditions. They explained that they can park a car or a truck in the existing
garage. Applicant pointed out that the parking variance is for an area 5” x 1’ less than required. The
existing setback is 3’3”, doing a 9” jog will not be attractive, so they want to carry the wall forward with the
existing setback. The house is a split level, with 7’7” from the concrete, the addition will actually be set
down 3’ lower than a normal second floor. The special permit for declining height envelope is required in
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
13
order to follow the existing wall. Submitted two 8 ½ X 11 sheets with changes to the proposed plan,
including adding a window on the south elevation, second floor, on each side of the French doors in the
master bedroom and the elimination of one window on the east elevation. Window proposed for removal on
east elevation in the bathroom would be replaced with a 3’ x 4’ window. There were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission asked for the following revision;
• need to clarify window revisions.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions
are made. This motion was seconded by C. Visitica who suggested that a condition be added to the approval
stating that if the house is ever demolished the variance goes away. The maker of the motion agreed to the
suggested condition.
Comment on motion: in this case the requested variances are following the existing patterns on the site ;
project is keeping with the existing architecture.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the plans
are revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:04 p.m.
14. 1355 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHILIP ANASOVICH, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MR. AND MRS. STEVE MCLAUGHLIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Philip Anasovich, Blunk Demattei Associates, project applicant
and architect, 1555 Bayshore Highway, was available to answer questions. There were no comments from
the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project:
• 9’-3” plate height on second floor is too large, makes wall look tall, reduce plate height to 8’.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested
revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Cers. Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of August 4, 2003
CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting noting that they upheld the Planning Commission’s
approval the food establishment at 1230 Broadway and the applicant added a rear entrance to give
access to the parking lot behind. The city responded to the Jefferson-Martin PGandE Transmission
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
14
Project Draft EIR supporting the Partial Underground Alternative; and the city is responding to the
Draft EIR for the auxiliary lane project on US 101, the issue is the placement of sound walls.
Commissioners asked that they be kept informed about the progress and compliance for the three lot
development on Drake. CP Monroe noted that there is a staff member assigned to this task to
checking compliance, it is very complicated. Commissioners and concerned neighbors should refer
to the Planning Department staff.
- Review of City response to Grand Jury report on Bicycle Safety in San Mateo County
CP Monroe noted that the city had received a letter from the Grand Jury asking about bicycle
planning in the city. The city’s response was noted. Staff is suggesting that Council consider
appointing a standing commission to serve also as the city’s bicycle committee, and amending
the circulation element of the General Plan to include a bicycle element.
- Review of Fall Work Schedule for Planning Commission and Subcommittees
CP Monroe noted that there are a number of advanced planning projects on the Commission’s
docket this Fall. The key issue for the commission is scheduling the work. The Commission gave
the following direction by work program:
▪ Bayfront Specific Area Plan Update – Study and Action
The Commission directed that staff hold a study meeting, to include the housing
discussion paper, on September 18, 2003, from 6:30 to 9:30 at City Hall. Following
this meeting they will determine if additional study is needed. If it is they will set the
next meeting. These study meetings will be on week-day evenings.
▪ North End/Rollins Road Specific Area Plan
Staff noted that the preliminary draft of this plan will probably be available in
October. The fourth workshop will be scheduled after the Preliminary Draft is
released. Commission suggested that the workshop be scheduled in November.
They would determine at that time when the Commission study meeting(s) would
occur.
▪ Safeway Project
CP Monroe noted that, although the consultant worked on all the technical work they
could, the data was delayed from Safeway so the additional response to comments
will not be available until mid-October. It is possible that there may be some follow
up work for the Commission on the EIR. Commission directed that this be scheduled
for a regular meeting if their review is required.
▪ Neighborhood Consistency /Design Review Subcommittee
This subcommittee will meet on September 30, 2003, to discuss regulations for
emerging legal lots. Subsequent action will be determined at that time.
▪ Housing Element Implementation Subcommittee
After their last meeting the Subcommittee had two items as priority for their FY
2003-2004 work program. One was to review the provisions of the Second Unit
Amenity Program in light of our experience and the other was to modernize the
regulations for the R-3 and R-4 multiple family zoning regulations. Since the North
End/Rollins Road SAP implementation will require a close look at the R-3 and R-4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003
15
district regulations staff suggested that this activity be differed until the zoning
implementation phase of the North End plan. The immediate priority for the
Subcommittee is the review of the Second Unit Amnesty Program requirements. The
subcommittee members agreed to try to meet at the end of the day or in the evening
on a Wednesday in September. Staff will contact them to pick a date. Staff will
prepare a short paper on the progress and issues which have arisen since the city
implemented this program.
▪ Planning for Bicycle Circulation
The Planning Commission suggested that the development of the Bicycle element to
be amended to the Circulation Element of the General Plan be developed by a
Subcommittee of Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission and the Planning
Commission. Michael Brownrigg agreed to represent the Planning Commission on
this Subcommittee. The proposed plan would come the Planning Commission for
study and action. This activity should probably be delayed until all the seats on the
Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission have been filled in November. The
Planning Commission felt that the Traffic Safety and parking Commission would be
the proper implementing commission for the bicycle element.
- FYI – 815 Acacia Drive –review of approved design review project
Commission reviewed this request and had no additional comment. Applicant had shown on the
plans the adjustments to side yard fence and French doors relocated to the rear requested by the
Planning Commission.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Auran, Secretary
APPROVEDMINUTES08.25