HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.09.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, September 9, 2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the September 9, 2002, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Sean
O’Rourke; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang
III. MINUTES Staff noted three editing changes to the minutes of the August 26, 2002
meeting page 3, line 3 constructed instead of construction; line 11, …romex
of a kind which was a material not used…, and line 27, 1991-93. The
minutes were approved as amended.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
No study items for review.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE
ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT,
A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION
TO ADOPT.
Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
1a. 2012 DAVIS DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE
STORY ADDITION (LISA STRIEBING, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART
ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
1b. 1819 MONTECITO WAY - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND
HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (BINEY SAGOO, RYS
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND NARMADABEN PATEL,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
1c. 1419 COLUMBUS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND MICHELLE SMITH, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
2
1d. 1471 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND UPDATE FOR MINOR CHANGES (KENNETH AND VANESSA
KAMMULLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PHILLIP R. DIXON, ARCHITECT/NESTOR C.
REGINO, DESIGN ADVOCACY, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
KEYLON
1e. 1832 & 1860 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO
AN APPROVAL FOR A FRONT SETBACK AND TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPING VARIANCES,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN THE M-1
DISTRICT AND FOR VEHICLE PARKING IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR AN INCREASE OF
OFFICE SPACE [GARCIA/WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, C/O PACIFIC BELL, APPLICANTS; AMVALL
INC. (1832 ROLLINS ROAD) AND ART MICHAEL (1860 ROLLINS ROAD), PROPERTY OWNERS;
GARCIA/WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT] (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE KEYLON
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 by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2. 750 WALNUT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ASI
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FITALI RUSLI AND JAJE DU, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
Reference staff report, 9.09.02, with attachments. ZT O’Rourke presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Thomas Woo, representing the project, spoke noting that they
tried to address the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding the suggestions made at the last meeting.
Commissioner noted that the front porch recedes back, would like to see the front porch moved forward.
Applicant stated that they were concerned with guests coming over and wanted to make sure they had a
place to park. Commissioner noted that the entry does not seem quite balanced, recommend that applicant
look at changing front entry; excellent job of adding trees and shrubs along left side elevation, concerned
that going to become a jungle, recommend removing the shrubs along left side. Applicant stated that they
would make that change. Commissioner asked if light fixtures have been added to the rear since the last
review, concerned about high wattage bulbs affecting neighbors; applicant stated that they added light
fixtures at the rear so that the owners could watch the children in the rear yard at night, the lot is big and
light should not affect neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling noted the new changes are nice, need some work at the front entry, lights at rear are a concern.
Made a motion to approve the project with changes to the front entry. The motion died from lack of a
second.
C. Auran made motion to place this project on the consent calendar with changes to the front entry to make
it equally proportional. There was no second.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
3
Comment on motion: This is an enormous house, should come back as an action item, situation at front entry
needs redesign to add balance, landscape changes and provide code compliant exterior lighting.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions had been
made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote to place this on the regular action calendar at a time when the
revisions had been made. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 7:28 p.m.
3. 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
A SECOND STORY DORMER ADDITION (RICK SOSS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
Reference staff report, 9.09.02, with attachments. ZT O’Rourke presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Rick Soss, the property owner, was available to answer
questions. Commissioner asked if there was room for any more dormers, would Commission see applicant
again. Applicant noted that he would not be proposing any other dormers, does not want any more windows
on the south elevation because its too hot. Commissioner asked if applicant has spoken to the neighbor at
114 Bloomfield. Applicant noted that he had spoken to the neighbor and the neighbor was in support and in
the audience. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 27,
2002, sheets 1 - 5, with three dormers on the second floor and that any changes to the footprint or floor area
of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) and attic area, moving
or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s, City Engineer’s and Recycling
Specialist’s September 3, 2002, memos shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements
of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m.
4. 1509 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(DENIZ SALON, APPLICANT AND OWNER; MATTHEW BOLLAK, DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report, 9.09.02, with attachments. ZT O’Rourke presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Matthew Bollak, 1505 Cypress Avenue, San Mateo, architect for
the project spoke stating that he originally worked on the project a few years ago. Now, there is a new
owner, Deniz Salon, who he has worked with in the past. In designing the project, the architect stated that
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
4
he studied the craftsman design and worked to implement these characteristics into the new design. The
new proposal includes adding another bedroom, eliminating the basement, changing the location of the
stairs, extending the right side of the building, adding triangular braces, and a small balcony in front.
Commissioner asked how the shingles were going to be finished? Applicant stated that the shingles would
be natural color. Commissioner asked would the slate tiles be real. Applicant stated that they would be real
slate tiles. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran noted that the Commission struggled with this project in the past, the new design is very nice,
moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 30, 2002, Sheets A.1
through A.4, and date stamped November 29, 2001, Sheet L1; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer
and Chief Building Official memos dated October 22, 2001 and November 15, 2001 shall be met; and the
Recycling Specialist's memo dated August 26, 2002, shall be met; 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 all the windows on
the approved plans, shown as true divided light windows, shall be installed as true divided lights with wood
trim; 5) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance
recently approved by the City Council; and 6) 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 Chair Keighran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m.
5. 1405 EL CAMINO REAL – ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN (ROMAN KNOP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER; MICHAEL CALLAN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report, 9.09.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions, four of which were new, were suggested for consideration. CP
Monroe noted that this item came to the commission because of demolition work resulted in the removal of
a number of trees along the north property line which the approved plans showed to be retained. Of the
three trees left, two are of protected size. Commissioners asked: what was the parking variance for which
was granted in January 2001. CP noted the variance was for number of maneuvers for the guest parking
space at the rear of the driveway. Would root proof material be used for the drain on the north side. CP
noted it would be preferred. Letter at desks from Dr. Hunt, property owner of 1411 El Camino Real asks
how the conditions addressing maintenance will be enforced. CP commented that the on going conditions
for maintenance of vegetation and sprinkler systems are generally included in the CC and R’s and become
the responsibility of the owners in the condominium project. Commissioner asked owner suggests lowering
the grade on the north side of the lot in the side yard, there is a retaining wall at that location, looks like
removing the soil will create a lot of problems, don’t know if the approach makes since. Staff referred the
question to the applicant during the public hearing. There were no further questions by the commissioners
of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Janet Fogerty, attorney for Mr. Knop; Frank Gonzales, architect,
951 Old County Road, Belmont, Michael Callan, landscape architect spoke. She noted that Mr. Knop wants
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
5
to work with the city; he is not happy that the trees were removed; he proposed to excavate the side yard and
bring the property to the same grade as the property next door, this will remove the space needed for the
retaining wall and allow the root balls of the trees to grow below the “planter box” created by the retaining
wall and the wall of the garage; wants to proceed with construction before it begins to rain. Have seen the
neighbor’s letter; willing to work with neighbor and the City Arborist to place trees so that they create a
screen and survive. Would ask Commission to consider amending the plan to lower the grade rather than
relocate the utilities so that there would have to be fixed pipes under the driveway which would be hard to
repair; CC and R’s could put homeowners under the obligation to maintain the vegetation, irrigation and site
improvements. Concerned that the neighbor is asking Mr. Knop to replace his driveway, the roots were cut
at property line. Tree removal may have been best in the end since the City Arborist now does not think the
trees would have survived construction. Architect noted that the proposal is to lower the grade in the side
yard so that it matches the neighboring property, install the utility lines immediately adjacent to the building
at the lower grade, enclosed in a box if the city requires it. The difference in side setback measurement
between the architectural site plan and landscape plan can be explained by the fact that the distance was
measured from the foundation on the architect’s plan and from the location of the new wall on the landscape
plans. The difference was one foot.
Commissioners asked architect: what utilities would be placed on the north side, the fire line and the storm
drain. Staff noted that the building department would require any pipes attached to the wall of the building
to be enclosed in a box. Could these lines be placed on the other side of the building; yes, at a greater cost;
does public works agree about pipe location, Senior Engineer Chang noted that Public Works allows PCV
pipe above grade at single family houses, not multiple family. How did it happen that the demolition
contractor removed trees that the plans showed were to be kept? Demolition contractor was a sub, when
picked up demolition permit did not get a set of plans so when establish point of excavation had no idea the
trees to be retained; no way to save in five feet with an 8 foot retaining wall with water proofing and two
feet for utilities, trees were in the area to be excavated. Did you see the plans before demolition? Mr. Knop
noted he had seen the plans before but did not realize that the trees would not survive, it would save him
money to have kept the trees; he forgot during demolition that the trees were to remain. Demo permit said
nothing about keeping the trees? No. Attorney Fogerty noted that the issue is where do we go now, the City
Arborist said the trees would not survive, want to get better trees and not damage the neighbor’s property.
Landscape architect commented willing to work with City Arborist and with the species recommended, can
plant once the construction is done and the utilities in place, will work with neighbor and arborist in
placement. Do utility lines have to go in that location? Don’t know, some could be relocated, lowering the
grade will benefit the roots as will getting new plant material and good irrigation. Commissioner noted that
this is not a “blame game” important to note that the Planning Commission takes seriously adherence to
plans, if they are unworkable you come back to the Commission for review. Commission has faced a
number of builders who feel that they can do it their own way, it does not work. If you excavate the side
will it drop the whole building? No, just lower adjacent dirt. CA advised that it would be necessary to
submit revised plans to show the changes to the project caused by lowering the grade on the site. There
were no more questions for the applicant and his representatives.
Colleen Dougharty, attorney for Gary Hunt, property owner at 1411 El Camino Real; Gary Hunt, one of the
property owners at 1411 El Camino Real; Batina Houston, resident manager at 1411 El Camino Real; Anna
Kapa, Real Estate Agent for Mr. Knop; Jack Satro, part owner of 1411 El Camino Real spoke. Have
submitted a letter and photos documenting issues that have arisen with the construction, removal of the trees
prevented the people next door from finding a solution to issues raised by modifying the design of the
building, now lost privacy, view screen, subject to dirt, increase in noise. Two issues of concern want the
vegetative screen which was there before restored and want to know how to protect the property at 1411 El
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
6
Camino Real from the construction of the new building. Concerned there are no plans to lower grade; no
comments from the arborist on the lowered grade, concerned with effects on drainage on their property. In
letter made several suggestions want arborist to be present on site daily throughout construction and require
maintenance to be permanent; have the stumps removed without impact on the next door driveway; if trucks
go on the neighbor’s property how will the driveway be protected; post a bond for maintenance of
vegetation and irrigation system; power wash building at 1411 El Camino because of dust and dirt; how will
pipes above grade affect the neighbor next door. Know that delay is costly to developer but want to review
plans and have staff review before Planning Commission acts. Submitted pictures showing root damage
along driveway on 1411 El Camino Real. Live on that side of the building, has had a big impact on the
quality of life; left notes for the contractor that the trees were not to be removed, called the city, he removed
the trees after the building was removed, city stopped before all were gone. Effect of removal is that
apartment is hotter, loss of privacy and view, dust and dirt (no site wetting during demolition), noise from El
Camino more obvious. Heard Mr. Knop tell the demolition man to take the trees down. Mr. Knop was not
on the site during the excavation he was in the East Bay on another project. She was the contact and no one
called her at her office in Redwood City to ask about the tree removal. Amenable to the removal of the
retaining wall, providing that there is no problem with the revised grading, concerned about drainage.
Attorney Fogerty asked that the public hearing be left open to submit a letter later to the Commission.
Concerned that lowering the grade on the north side of the building will make it more difficult to provide a
vegetative screen of the same height as the one removed.
Applicant responded: property owner next door wants trees on my property to shield his property and wants
him to pay for his driveway repair too, driveway was poorly built originally; under the impression that trees
were to be removed and gave order to remove them; concerned about the amount of time it will take to
resolve this; neighbors have no trees on their site and want him to provide them; would like to complete
excavation, grade side and prepare site then resolve the issue of landscape design; lower grade would be
achieved by a lower retaining wall, the front of the building would not change and roots of trees could then
extend below retaining wall. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner discussion: How deep would a sprinkler line be required to be buried; in the street three
feet, on private property 18 inches, but should be confirmed by the Fire Marshall; two lines were shown in
the side yard, drain and fire sprinkler; would like to see new plans that show: retaining walls, regarding,
issues with neighbors should be addressed, including working together.
Chair Keighran noted that there are to many unknown issues, cannot speculate about what happened, would
like to see this item continued to address the items suggested by Mrs. Dourghty in her letter and revised
plans including front elevations, changes to proposed grading on sides, cross section to show difference in
grade existing and after lowered; revisions to retaining walls, utilities and irrigation systems, trees with
height at maturity (included on cross section), best management practices for NPDES should be included so
will move to continue this item until a revised submittal has been prepared including these and other items
mentioned and checked by staff. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on the motion: agree that revised plans should include irrigation, utilities, trees, changes
proposed to grading, revisions to the retaining walls, and the developer should work with the neighbor;
conditions proposed by Mrs. Dougharty letter should be considered; encourage Mrs. Fogarty to submit a
revised letter with the plans; issue is not blame, the applicant is accountable to the city for compliance with
the approved plans, now we need to be sensitive to every aspect of the project as it goes forward; applicant
needs to provide information on how the trees will be maintained in the future and who will be responsible;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
7
will the whole building be lowered as a result of grading in the side yard; will the slope on the driveway
change, might be good to lower the whole building, less impact on the neighbor’s; want plans to show the
building as it will be built.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until revised plans with requested
information have been prepared, submitted, checked by staff and noticed for another public hearing. The
motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
6. 819-849 & 863 MITTEN ROAD – ZONED O-M- APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (CLAIRE WILDE, SIGN CLASSICS, APPLICANT; ALEXANDRIA REAL
ESTATE EQUITIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report, 9.09.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Claire Wilde, Sign Classics, was present to answer questions.
She noted that the applicants are eager to put in the new signs and they are currently upgrading the signage
at all their properties. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chair Keighran noted that is unusual to see an applicant come in with a reduction in signage, noting that in
this case the new sign area complied with the current sign code area and moved to approve the application,
by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 26, 2002, (site plan and elevations 8½" x 11");
including an illuminated 24'-5" x 1'-10" wall sign and an illuminated two-sided 8" x 4'-0" shingle sign (per
side) and there shall be no window or other signage on the site; 2) that any increase in the number, type, or
area of the signs on the sites, shall require an amendment to the master sign program; and 3) that the project
shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California Building and Fire
Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:13 p.m.
7. UPDATE RULES OF CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES
Reference staff report, 9.09.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report. Commissioner asked
what is the difference between an administrative application and an administrative hearing. CA Anderson
stated that they were basically the same thing. It all falls under the Brown Act. There are different levels of
noticing required.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués moved to recommend the proposed changes to the Planning Commission’s rules of procedure
to City Council, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to City Council. The motion passed on
a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
8
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
ONE ATTACHED GARAGE AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLINGS, (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Chair Keighran noted that she lives within 500 feet of the proposed project site so recused herself from this
deliberation. She stepped down from the podium. Vice-Chair Bojués took the gavel. CP Monroe briefly
presented the project description. She noted that the previous proposal to build three houses on the three
emerged lots has been withdrawn. The applicant now proposes to build two houses on the two emerged lots
at the south end. With this proposal the third lot will be left vacant and used for construction staging.
Commissioner asked if this review should be considered to be an environmental scoping session as well.
Staff noted that if there were any issues with the negative declaration based on this proposal this would be
the time to bring them up. There were no further questions of staff.
Vice Chair Bojués opened the public comment Mark Hudak, attorney representing the developer Otto
Miller; and James Chu, designer; represented the project. With previous application problem with the way
the house on Lot 11 fit, the project was sent to a design reviewer who had a lot of good ideas, decided to
withdraw and resubmit for three lots, two houses and a vacant lot; the revisions to the structures reflect the
input from the meeting with the design reviewer, no variances are required although a special permit for an
attached garage is requested for the lot with the redwood trees, garage will break the façade with a single
story element, reduce the FAR by 400 SF, and increase the useable rear yard; the third lot is vacant since
there was a lot of concern expressed by neighbors about the impact of construction activity on the neighbors
and the redwood trees, using the vacant lot will eliminate these concerns; for the environmental review staff
is correct the development of all three lots should be addressed. The house on Lot 9 with the attached
garage will also have a stucco exterior like more of the houses on the block. The house on Lot 10 will be a
craftsman shingle, same design but added a stone base to the columns at the front porch, oval windows over
the entry doors and on side elevation. Commission asked what are plans for third lot after construction of
the two houses. Will be developed in the normal way of an infill lot any place in the city. Is attached garage
placed to respect the redwoods? Yes. What will the garage door be? Sectional. Have you considered two
houses on these lots? If develop as two houses the FAR of each of the houses will be greater, they would be
pretty big 4,000 SF each. Considered smaller houses on two lots? No, these are three legal lots and they are
all developable.
Public comment from neighbors: Box Boxer, 1510 Drake; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Janey Oaksley, 1512
Drake; David Taylor, 1566 Drake: original houses were too big, now two that are the same size and one
vacant lot, issue is on street parking reduction, not addressed; should deny request for re-emerging three
parcels pending historical evaluation of the use of the lot; don’t know what is going on the third lot; object
to the subdivision look, concerned with the traffic not only during construction but after when the houses are
occupied; do not have much confidence in the protection of the redwood trees; consider dividing the site into
two lots would fit the neighborhood better; could put bigger house on bigger lot, would make same profit
and give less problem to the neighbors; these houses need more off street parking, and need to reduce the
impact of curbs on on-street parking; concerned about “accidental” removal of redwoods given hearing just
sat through, not want replaced; negative declaration should ask for full time arborist to be sure trees are
protected during construction; two houses on three lots is just a game, could have a surveyor redivide the
lots into two; the house on the southern most lot appears to encroach on the lot to the south; object to garage
attached at front of house should be moved back to make a longer driveway for parking; submitted photos
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
9
taken after July 23, 2002 when a warning sign was placed on the creek after a sewage spill; be responsible
for health and safety of Burlingame residents and allow no development until the sewer line in the street is
replaced. There were no further public comments and the public comment was closed.
Commission comment: intrigued by the notion of attaching the garage, reduces the size of the house, houses
next to Lot 11 all have attached garages, Lot 10 should have an attached garage too; nice job on Lot 9;
significant concern about the compatibility of these houses with the neighborhood seek data, information,
statistics from the applicant comparing these structures to existing homes in the neighborhood including
size, height, number of bedrooms, lot coverage, these concerns have not been addressed asked for this
information before; design reviewer in his memo on previous project asks these same questions about the
neighborhood pattern, size bulk; this information is needed for the environmental review as well. There are
a number of craftsmen style homes in the area (Columbus, Bernal) they fit the design review guidelines and
are tasteful, this presentation is tasteful; am also concerned about how these houses compare to houses up
and down the block; these are an improvement over what saw before; both houses greater or the same as
average front setback on the block; drawing does not show the perspective of the large setbacks; good idea
to use Lot 11 for construction staging; when time to develop Lot 11 will have to be reviewed by the
Commission; cannot see three big houses on those lots, will vote no; just because a project does not require
a variance does not mean we suspend judgment as planners, decisions are precedents for the community as a
whole, encourage to rethink 2 houses on these three lots or a modest house on the third. Need to be sure size
fits the pattern of the neighborhood; concern weekly inspection by arborist not frequent enough and
requirement for developer to be responsible for redwood maintenance for three years not long enough; ask
CA to clarify rights of owner regarding three lots. CA noted based on California subdivision law the
applicant has three standard lots based on a past accepted subdivision map, city has the right to review what
he puts on the lots so that it is consistent with current regulations, but not have the power to take away three
lots, this was a decision made previously and is consistent with the existing lots in the neighborhood. Does
the applicant have the option of dividing the site into two lots? Yes.
Commission discussion continued: what are the options for action tonight; CA asked if the application was
complete; for the scoping of the environmental document want the data on the existing development on the
block; should compare this to other cul-de-sacs.
C. Keele moved to refer this application to a design reviewer. The motion died for lack of a second.
Commission discussion on the motion: before decide to send to a design reviewer need the information on
the existing built environment in the neighborhood; may find other big houses, need to better define what is
appropriate on this block, then send it to the design reviewer.
Vice Chair Bojués moved to continue the review of this item until the information requested on the
neighborhood is provided to staff and commission, this should include:
• size, height, number of bedrooms, lot coverage, of all the houses on both sides of the street on this
block;
• the neighborhood pattern of attached and detached garages, two story and one-story buildings, and
bulk for the same area.
The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Vice Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the applicant has
submitted the information on the character and pattern of existing development on the block requested by
the planning commissioners necessary for both the environmental document and for design review. The
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
10
motion passed 6-0-1 (Chair Keighran abstaining) on a voice vote. There is no appeal for this action. The
item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
9. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT;
EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH, PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR.,
INC., DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
ZT O’Rourke briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if the applicant, Otto Miller,
should be listed as property owner or if Eugene Supanich was still the property owner. ZT O’Rourke noted
that Eugene Supanich is still the property owner, but he has given Otto Miller permission to submit plans for
development of the creekside lot.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, was present to answer questions
regarding the project. He stated that the Commission’s job here tonight was to address the completeness of
the application, chief concern is the creek, applicant has worked with LTI Engineering and the Public Works
Department to insure that the development meets city creek requirements. Noted that James Chu, designer,
was available to answer questions about the design of the house and Michael Callan was also available to
answer any landscape questions. James Chu, designer, noted that the house was designed to preserve the
creek, the house to be built on a piers foundation to maintain the existing stone wall, and an erosion control
plan will be provided. Commissioner asked how does the proposed house interact in a design sense with the
existing house. Designer stated that they had been doing Tudor and French designs, thought they would try
something different, providing curved and rounded elements, trying to make the design compatible with the
creek setting, the existing house has a tile roof.
Commissioner asked if there is an opportunity to provide a planter along the driveway side by the powder
room/library to help break up the wall. Designer noted that it is possible to add a planter along that side.
Commissioner noted that the front porch should be deeper, would encroach into front setback, but would be
okay with that; might be nice to match the existing porch of the adjacent house, does applicant have any
desire to retain the existing house. Mr. Hudak noted that he was not sure what the applicant was proposing
with the adjacent lots, he is in the process of leasing the existing house to someone.
Public comment continued: Commissioner noted that if the house stays or goes, Commission needs more
information; how do houses correspond, concerned with mass and bulk of house; is it possible to lower plate
heights; would be nice to open the house to the creek, need stronger connection to creek, possible bigger
windows, French doors, there are a couple details that can be added upon; beautiful setting, great
opportunity to add French doors at dining room; connected to ground, size of house is huge, don’t see
consistency with adjacent house, there is opportunity for the site. Commissioner asked for verification on
whether all 3 lots were under the ownership of Eugene Supanich; is applicant under contract to purchase
properties, when will it close. Mr. Hudak noted that he was not sure of the contractual obligation of the
applicant, but would make sure that that information is provided to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting.
Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo; Sally Downing, 1801 Bernal; Dan Griffins, 1030 Cabrillo; Vitus Vishon, 1704
Sanchez; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; spoke regarding the project. Was concerned with how the house will fit
in the neighborhood, in his mind the current house is a landmark property, he lives in a large 3,500 SF house
on the corner, has seen others build retangular houses in the past on similar developments, wants to know
what is going to happen to existing house, concerned with creek and Redwood trees, would like to see a plan
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
11
to protect trees and creek, concerned that garage at rear of house down long driveway will not be used,
would like to see more character added to the house; noted that there is a long, narrow driveway proposed,
massive house on short street, should reduce massiveness, what to do with other 2 lots, should look at whole
block, should hold off till other proposal, would like to know what the other plans for the 2 lots will be;
noted that there seems to be a lot of information missing, proposed house is at the maximum FAR and only
half of the lot is buildable; should protect landscape elements; existing house should have historical
designation; the proposed house eliminates the backyard of existing house, existing house is probably the
most significant house in whole Easton Addition, proposal should be studied more; would support more
study on this project, historically significant house. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this project is as significant as 1537 Drake Avenue. Commissioner asked for
clarification on lot emergence. CP Monroe noted that currently there is 1 lot, with the removal of the
swimming pool a 12,000 SF lot will emerge which meets the lot size requirements; the existing house will
sit on two 6,000 SF lots. CA Anderson noted that the applicant would require a conditional use permit to re-
emerge the two lots upon demolition of the existing house. With respect to design, house feels big, should
have more backyard; house too big, what will happen on adjacent lots.
Chair Keighran made a motion to continue this project when more information has been submitted regarding
the future of the existing lots. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on motion: compatibility how does the proposed house fit in the neighborhood, can house be
reduced; Commissioner asked why environmental scoping wasn’t required, impacts as significant as 1537
Drake Avenue. CP Monroe noted that staff could prepare a negative declaration if Commission wanted,
would need to address issues, also tree protection requirements are included in conditions. CA Anderson
noted that Commission could focus on block patterns, what’s block going to look like at maximum build-
out. Commissioner noted that they need to know what the current plans are for the adjacent lot, affects
overall planning, are soils studied. Donald Chang, Senior Engineer, noted that Public Works Department
requires a soils report. Commission concerned about affects development will have on creek, is the soil
stable enough to develop on with piers, what will the on-site affects be; should look at other double lots,
what potential and how have they been developed – (1000 Bernal, 1008 Bernal); what types and sizes of
houses on these lots; Commissioner noted that if the applicant stipulates that the house will stay, then would
consider a larger house on adjacent lot; must assume everyone acts in good faith.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to continue this item when more information has been
prepared and the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning
Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
10. 1751 ESCALANTE WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHEN YU MA, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; MIMI SIEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
ZT O’Rourke briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked staff about the measurement of
uncovered parking space to the inner edge of the sidewalk. CP Monroe stated that existing uncovered
parking space dimension is allowed included in the area between the property line and the inner edge of the
sidewalk. There were no other questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 9, 2002
12
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Chen Yu Ma, P.O. Box 6365, San Mateo, stated that he was
representing the project. Noted the most houses on the block are similar to the project house, trying to
match the existing conditions of neighborhood. Commissioner noted that design is minimal, concerned with
roof over bay window, is there a way to add gable roof above bay, addition is fine to neighborhood, bay
window not does flow right. CP Monroe noted that there was mix between divided light and clear windows.
Applicant stated that when the owner bought the house there was a mix of windows, is flexible about new
windows, would consider divided light or clear windows. Commissioner noted that applicant should keep
all the windowsills at the same height. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked.
• Add gable roof over bay window;
• Keep windows consistent; and
• Keep all the windowsills at the same height.
This motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Comment on motion: Typically, Commission requires the installation of story poles for any hillside area
construction permit. Since there are no neighbors in the rear and views don’t seem to be affected by
addition, there was no request in this case to put-up story poles.
Chair Keighran 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 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of September 3, 2002.
- CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 3, 2002. She also handed out
a letter received that day from the Safeway Corporation. The Commissioners noted that they would
discuss the letter at their next meeting.
- FYI - changes to an approved DSR at 1615 Willow Avenue
Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
APPROVEDMINUTES SEPTEMBER 9. 2002