HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.10.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 28, 2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the October 28, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 15, 2002 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. 535 ALMER ROAD – ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, FOUR-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM (MANOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GLUSH
DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioner Brownrigg arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioners asked for the following items to be addressed:
• Project includes two more parking spaces than the 10 required, since those do not need to comply
with city dimensions, can the columns be redesigned or shaped to eliminate the parking variance for
the remaining 2 parking spaces;
• there needs to be more detail on the elevation to explain the materials and detail on the building
including trim, windows, etc.;
• plans show retention of both the Black Acacia and Oak, would prefer the Acacia be removed to
improve the environment for the Oak tree which should be retained, protected and maintained;
• would like the shrubs on the left side changed to a species which will grow to a height of 15 feet to
20 feet, if not taller;
• would like a front elevation which shows how the building will look when the landscaping is five
years old;
• The slope on the driveway should be made to conform to the 15% maximum allowed without
review; and
• Since height is an issue, would like to see reduced-sized plans for the previous application.
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 7:15 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
2
2. 4 MARIPOSA COURT – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HEDGE EXCEPTION FOR A 12’ HEDGE
(GRACE AND ROBERT DUMMEL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERIKA LEWIT
Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. He noted a letter at the Commissioner’s desks from
Grace Dummel, 4 Mariposa Court, received after the packet was delivered.
Commissioners asked staff to clarify the request. Staff noted that this is not a view obstruction or traffic
sight line issue but a fence/hedge height issue, the maximum height of a fence or hedge on property line is 7
feet, the applicant is requesting 12 feet. There were no further questions from the Commission.
Chair Keighran set this item for the action calendar when there was space on the agenda. This item
concluded at 7:17 p.m.
3. 1838 EL CAMINO REAL, #180 – ZONED C-1- APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
REAL ESTATE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION USES (MARY J. WONG, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked for information on the following:
• Is this an accurate projection of employees on site, there appears to be a jump from 4 to 11; the
number of employees (6) and clients on site at one time does not seem to increase in 5 years, is this
accurate;
• Application says 11 employees maximum, but there are 15 desks shown, why;
• Would like the conditions of approval to include a review in two years, as was required on the
previous action.
Chair Keighran set this item for the action calendar when the information requested has been submitted and
reviewed by staff. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
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.
4A. 1615 WILLOW AVENUE- ZONED R-1– APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR PERMIT EXTENSION ON AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN REAR 40%
OF LOT (JERRY WINGES, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EDWARD AND ANN PHILIPS,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
3
4B. 900 MORRELL AVENUE – ZONED – R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN,
DESIGN STUDIO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KENNETH AND ANDREANNA VIERRA, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
4C. 1381 HILLSIDE CIRCLE – ZONED – R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELLEN HARTOG,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KURT AND JULIA DEGROSZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) (40 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
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.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
5. 543 CORBITT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES/STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; DANIEL & LAURA BERTERRETCHE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O'ROURKE/CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Stewart, designer and Dan Berterretche, property owner,
were present to answer questions. Commission asked if the roofing material on the bay window off the
kitchen (wood shake) and the bay window at the front of the house will match. The applicant noted that a
wood shake roof is proposed at the front bay window. Commission asked that wood shake be used on all
roofs. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the applicant has done a good job responding to the Commission's concerns and moved
to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 12, 2002, sheets A1 – A6 plus
the amended plans sheets A-1 – A-6 date stamped September 18, 2002 (sheet A4 date stamped October 18,
2002) showing the changes to the roof, the new bay window, the re-designed window on the second floor at
the front, the changes to the rear transom window and moving the kitchen window, and that any changes to
the footprint or floor area of the building during construction or following this construction shall require an
amendment to this permit; 2) that the roofing material on all portions of the roof, including the bay
windows, shall be wood shake; 3) 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; 4) that the conditions of the
Fire Marshal’s, Recycling Specialist’s and Chief Building Official’s memos dated September 23, 2002 and
the Recycling Specialist’s and City Engineer’s memos dated June 17, 2002 shall be met; 5) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
4
permit; 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the
project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the
architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect
and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; and 9) 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. Brownrigg.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m.
6. 1109 PALM DRIVE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DALE MEYER,
DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND CHRISTINE
FRUDENBERG, OWNERS) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, noted that he worked with the design
review consultant to address the Commission's concerns and was available to answer questions.
Commission asked the architect to explain the rectangular shapes shown on the wall of the North Elevation.
The architect noted that the rectangles indicate faux windows, the design reviewer suggested that they would
add visual interest and fill the blank wall, the Fire Station next door has similar treatment on their wall, did
not make sense to add real windows on this wall since the Fire Station is five feet away. Commission noted
that faux windows are not typical in residential areas and asked the architect if he would be opposed to
removing the false windows. Architect was not opposed to removing the faux windows. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués noted that the architect had addressed the Commission's concerns expressed at study and moved
to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 27, 2002, sheets
P1 through P6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and that the faux or false windows on the North
Elevation shall be eliminated; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second
floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,
etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that
all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
5
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 City Engineer, Chief
Building Official and Recycling Specialist’s July 29, 2002 memos shall be met; and 8) 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. Osterling.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
7. 1336 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (DAVID JOHNSON, ALL SEASONS
REMODELING, APPLICANT; DONALD WALLACE, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
C. Auran recused himself from the discussion on this item and stepped down from the dias since he lives
within 500' of the project. Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions of staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dave Johnson, applicant, and Donald Wallace, property owner,
were present to answer questions. The applicant noted that there is a discrepancy in the dimensions shown
on the plans. The patio shelter proposed is 11'x13' (143 SF), not 13'x13' (169 SF) as shown on the plans.
Commission asked what is the proposed height, pointed out that the structure cannot exceed a 9'-0" plate
height without a conditional use permit. The applicant noted that the height is proposed to be 8'-8", not to
exceed 9'-0". Commission asked what will the addition look like? The applicant provided a brochure
showing what the patio shelter will look like, noted that the exterior will be painted aluminum, the structure
is made from a high-density insulated foam clad with aluminum, the structure will not have curved
windows. Commission asked the applicant if these plans were discussed with the neighbor directly behind;
no. Commission asked if heat and electricity is proposed in the patio shelter. Applicant noted that no heat is
proposed, only electricity. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this is an improvement over what is there now, proposed addition is located deep in
the lot and away from property lines, fulfills applicant's need, concerned that the proposed plans are for a
"typical" structure and not for the structure planned for this site, would like to see a condition with the
dimensions described in detail, conditions should spell out slope on roof, provide dimensions of low point
and high point, suggest placing this project on the consent calendar once the additional dimensions have
been provided on the plans.
C. Bojués moved to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: requested that a condition be added that the patio shelter is a separate enclosed
structure with no heating and that it shall never be made into habitable area. Before future action, the
applicant should submit revised plans showing the following:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
6
• plans need to reflect what is proposed specifically at this site, not just a "typical" structure;
• applicant needs to verify the dimensions of the footprint proposed and include exact dimensions on
plans;
• provide slope of roof on proposed patio shelter; and
• provide exact height dimensions at low and height points of roof.
Chair Keighran called for a roll voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the
plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
C. Auran resumed his seat on the dais.
8. 1562 CYPRESS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STORAGE SHED WITH A NEW DETACHED PATIO
SHELTER/LANAI (LILLIAN VASEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SERGIO GALDAMEZ,
DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the
height, width and length dimensions of the existing partially built structure were available. Staff responded
no, but that the applicant may be able to provide that information. Commissioner noted that he was not able
to get onto the site, but thanked the applicant for making an effort to arrange site visits for the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Lillian Vasey, property owner, and Sergio Galdamez, designer,
were present to answer questions. Commission asked what is the width, length and height of the partially
built structure? Designer noted that currently, the partially built structure is 10'-6" tall, 7'-6" wide and 30'-0"
long. The plate height is approximately 10'-0", will need to reduce the plate height so that the new roof does
not exceed 10'-6" and shorten the structure to 24'-0". There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: was not able to get onto the site prior to this meeting, but was able to see the
structure before the last meeting, is in support of the project given the changes made and the number of
exceptions reduced, like the use of a lanai. Commission noted that the existing partially built structure
seems larger than shown on the plans, a lot taller than proposed now, is very close to the neighbors at the
rear. Planner Hurin noted that based on the proposed plans, the length and height of the existing, partially
built structure, will have to be modified. Agree that the structure is large, but if the applicant follows the
plans it will be an improvement, roof tile will be consistent with the existing roofing on cottage.
C. Bojués 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 and date stamped September 5,
2002, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that the patio shelter/lanai shall not exceed 180 SF in area (7'-6"W x 24'-0'D)
and shall not exceed an overall height of 10'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a
maximum plate height of 8'-0" measure from adjacent grade; 2) that the patio shelter/lanai shall have a
stucco finish (painted gray) and shall contain blue ceramic tile for roofing; 3) that the accessory structure
shall only be used as a patio shelter/lanai and shall never be used for any kind of storage, accessory living,
or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional utility services and/or a
toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that the property owner shall provide a survey
of the existing portion of the accessory structure and the property line, and it shall be accepted by the City
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
7
Engineer before any building permits are issued; if any part of the partly completed structure is found to be
across the property line it shall be removed; 5) that the accessory structure shall have three walls with the
opening facing the rear yard; an amendment to this permit shall be required if the accessory structure is to be
enclosed on all four sides; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire
Marshal's September 10, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist’s September 9, 2002, memo shall be met;
and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, 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 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
9. 1532 CYPRESS AVENUE – ZONED – R-1- APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION (JOHN RICHARDSON, APPLICANT; KRISJON SWANBERG, ARCHITECT; ANN
HARRINGTON, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Anne Harrington, property owner, noted that the Commission at
their meeting in February, 2002, suggested that the windows on the front elevation be modified but didn't
modify them at that time. Now that construction has commenced she realizes that the windows should have
be changed. Commission noted that this is a visual improvement from the sidewalk and that the changes are
appreciated. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 28,
2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the changes that the trellis
over the driveway shall be removed, the two support members at the front of the trellis which support the
gate may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7
feet on or within 2 feet of the property line; and amended plans sheet A.1, dated stamped October 17, 2002
showing the addition of two bay windows at the front and the reconfiguration of the front porch; 2) that the
inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east (front) elevation shall be shifter to the left,
away from the door and closer to the outside windows, so that the left side of the elevations is more
symmetrical with the right side of that floor’s elevation; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, and
changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of City
Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist’s July 16, 2001 memos shall be met; and 5) 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. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:11 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
8
10. 1655 SEBASTIAN DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR
RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING SYNAGOGUE, AND TEMPORARY PERMIT FOR MODULAR
BUILDINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION (MITCH REITMAN, PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ALEX SEEFELDT, HERMAN & COLIVER ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the
staff report indicates that construction may extend three months beyond October of 2003, it would be safer
to change the date in condition #3 for the removal of the temporary structures to January 1, 2004; can
discuss with the applicant. Commission asked if there were any comments from the Recycling Specialist;
CP noted that the size of the proposed project is not large to require compliance with the recycling
ordinance. Commissioner visited the site and noted that traffic can get hectic and that construction traffic
will not help, asked if the applicant had a plan to address construction employee parking and deliveries to
the site. CP noted that the applicant could address this concern.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Robert Herman and Alex Seefeldt, architects and applicants,
were present to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant if he expected construction to finish by
October 1, 2003. The applicant noted that he hopes to finish by that date but unforeseen circumstances my
delay construction until January 1, 2004. Commission expressed a concern with construction traffic and
delivery of materials to the site and asked the applicant if there was a plan to mitigate the impact on parking.
The applicant noted that the construction access will be off Arguello Drive into a second parking area
behind the main building, this area is separate from the school and other areas used by children and adults,
the second parking area is underutilized and is currently being used as a service area and for overflow
parking. The applicant noted that construction staging will occur in the courtyard and second parking area.
Commission asked if a construction trailer will be required for construction. The applicant noted that the
contractor may use a container as an office and storage and that the subcontractor may also need a container,
they would be located in the second parking lot. Commission encouraged the applicant to recycle as much
as possible and to follow the NPDES requirements regarding runoff and sediment control. The applicant
noted recycling requirements are already included in the specification for the project. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the project is well designed, that the impact on neighbors is minimal, and moved to
approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project, including
the temporary portable buildings, shall be built and installed as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped September 11, 2002, sheets A1.0 and A1.1 and sheets A0 through
A5, and that the increase in roof height above the existing social hall shall not exceed elevation 129.45' (32'-
8" above average top of curb) as shown on sheet A4; 2) that all construction employee parking shall occur
on-site only in the second parking lot off Arguello Drive and that no parking spaces in the main lot shall be
used for construction employee parking or staging, and that during construction the project site shall
conform to the applicable NPDES and STOPPP requirements; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's
September 16, 2002, memo and the Recycling Specialist’s September 17, 2002, memo shall be met; 4) that
the two portable buildings shall not be installed before November 1, 2002 and shall be removed one month
after completion of construction or January 1, 2004, whichever comes first; an amendment to this permit
shall be required if the temporary buildings are not removed by January 1, 2004; and 5) that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by
the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
9
Comment on the motion: concerned with construction employee parking, contractors may have one or two
trailers, may take up parking spaces, would like to add a condition that construction employee parking be
on-site only. The maker of the motion and second agreed.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:28 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
11. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA,
DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LARRY AND GRACE NGAI, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Osterling noted that he would recuse himself because he had a business relationship with the
applicant. He stepped down from the dais.
Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. He noted that there were two letters at the
Commissioners desks submitted after the packet had been prepared both from June Bitter, 2673 Martinez
Drive, dated October 22 and 26, 2002. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Johnny DeRosa, Designer, presented the project. With this
revision tried to minimize the addition, most on the lower floor and in the crawl space of the existing
building. Commission asked if they were proposing the change the roofing material. He noted that they
were not.
June Bitter, 2673 Martinez Drive; Janice Johnson, 2668 Martinez Drive, commented. Took a bit to
understand the revised drawings, but the reduction in the roof ridge from the previous proposal is only 2
feet, and this will affect the view from my house; would like to have story poles installed, but the property
line is overgrown with trees which block the view of the poles, so need to wait until the leaves are off the
trees or need to trim the trees so the poles can be seen; concerned since the trees may need to be removed
when the construction takes place. Live across the street have distant views of the hospital, BIS, Marriott
Hotel and planes landing, want to retain, the trees which block view now are deciduous so have view in the
winter, have been there 43 years and all the neighbors are good about trimming trees to pr otect other’s
views; the applicants did not come to her house to see the impact of their project before they submitted it;
this is their third application which will affect views, looks like harassment, feel they have intentionally let
the trees grow.
Commissioners noted that the applicants have reduced the project by 1000 SF, so it is not the same project
that was submitted before; asked about roofing material, if it is to change to tile it would be a view issue,
designer noted that the roofing material is to stay the same shake; asked if any of the landscaping would be
removed, designer noted the eucalyptus trees would be retained, the vegetation on the right side would be
retained, the rest would be cleaned up and/or replaced; has the roof ridge been lowered from the June
application, designer noted that it has been reduced 2.5 feet, this is also a hip and not a gable end which
reduces the height at the end. There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was
closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
10
Commissioners noted the following items:
• Concerned about view impact, the applicant needs to install story poles with orange netting which
will show through the trees, story pole installation should be certified and should be installed at least
10 days before the next action on this item;
• Design is OK, modest;
• Would be helped if roof could be lowered a couple of feet, add a couple of sections to show how the
proposed house fits into the lot;
• Add to the site plan accurate information about the location of the houses on either side, so can
evaluate the best place to add on to this house, reference windows as well as possible;
• Clarify on the elevation what is new and what is existing;
• Provide detail on the trellis proposed for the rear yard, need to know more about the str ucture to
determine if it will be a view obstruction;
• Provide information on proposed roofing materials;
• Recommend that the applicant consider removing the eucalyptus trees that block the view; and
• Provide information on maintenance intended for all trees on site, pruning schedule etc.
Chair Keighran moved to place this item on the action calendar after the story poles have been erected and
confirmed and the questions asked have been addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed and the story poles have been installed and their placement and height
confirmed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining) The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
C. Osterling resumed his seat on the dais.
12. 1313 GROVE AVENUE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALBERT PASTINE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CATHY GLAZE
AND LAURA SIMMONS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if the removal of the porch at the
rear was the thing that reduced the footprint. Staff noted that it was. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Albert Pastine, architect, represented the project. He noted
that the house was of Romantic Revival, English gable style, however the Romantic revival was not
continued to the sides of the structure which were plain; the gable was added to the roof in order to get light
into the stairwell; added windows on the sides to reduce the plain aspect; want to remove the corner
windows at the rear and bungalow porch.
Commissioners asked: why is the gable so high, it was hard to be lower and keep it in the stairwell; nice
blend of original and new, why does the gable at the front not match the others below, tried to repeat the
splay wall at the sides; good project, preserved the front and enhances the large roof behind; was a shed roof
studied, yes shed is a bungalow style, had three gables at the front hard to suggest something else without it
looking added on; did you check the soundness of the chimney, if it does not meet seismic requirements will
need to replace. There were no other questions from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Vistica moved that this item be brought back on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by
Chair Keighran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002
11
Comment on the motion: agree, architect did a good job preserving the character of a charming Burlingame
house, he and his clients are to be commended. Would like to know about the chimney replacement when
the project returns.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote to place this item on the consent calendar on the next agenda with
space. The motion passed by 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of October 21, 2002.
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related items and actions at the Council meeting on October 21,
2002. She reminded the Commissioners of the Special Council Study meeting on October 29, 2002,
regarding the Transportation Authority’s highway and transit plans, near and long term, for Burlingame and
the Housing Implementation Subcommittee meeting on October 30 in the evening.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
UNAPPROVEDMINUTES10.28