HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.02.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
February 26, 2001
Study Meeting - 6:30 P.M.
Regular Meeting – 7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 26, 2001, study meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. All Commissioners were
present with the exception of Cers. Bojués and Keighran.
CP Monroe introduced Steve Porter, City Arborist, noting that he had come at the Commission’s request
to discuss the role of the City Arborist in protecting the City’s trees and in administrating the City’s
reforestation ordinance. He noted that the primary objective is to ensure a reasonable effort from the
resident to consider other alternatives to tree removal in his evaluation he does not take into consideration
aesthetics because different people have different perspectives, cannot grant removal of a tree because
someone doesn’t like the species. Primary considerations include health and condition of existing trees,
if it has a sound structure, and if it is causing property damage. In regards to health, can require an
outside arborist’s report to evaluate removal, health issues included structural defects, multiple trunks and
branches, embedded bark, leaning an uneven trunks. His determinations are based on field observations
only, no testing procedures are done (boring or cutting tree for lab samples). It does consider structural
damage includes damage caused to a foundation, house, roof or accessory structure but not damage to
flatwork, walkways, gutters and leaf clutter.
Commission discussion: Commission asked how excavation for a basement might affect the decision for
a tree removal. Arborist Porter noted that the health of the tree considered replacement requirement is
one-for-one, must be a landscape tree. Commission noted that a 24-inch box size tree is not a appropriate
replacement for a 60’ tall tree. What is the condition of the Eucalyptus tree on Easton Drive between
Vancouver Avenue and El Camino Real, do not want to see them removed. Arborist Porter noted that
they are old trees but appear to be healthy, need to be maintained, are on a 4 year pruning cycle, have
already done a serious crown reduction, have been there for 80-100 years and have a life expectancy of
another 80-100 years.
Is there a tree list for private development; none available at this time only have a street tree list.
Commission expressed a concern about removed trees not being replaced on Easton Drive as on El Camino
Real. Should consider ways to reinforce existing trees along Easton to keep Easton corridor, like the idea
of reforestation before removal. Concerned with arborist’s reports submitted, some reports indicate that
a tree is in decline, problem is that it may be in decline for 80 years, arborist’s reports may not be
conservative enough. Porter noted that arborist’s must be certified and that it is up to the professionals to
decide how much the tree is in decline, an arborist’s report is required if a reason is not given for the
decline. Concerned that a private tree list is not available for private development, also concerned with
the type of trees being replace on El Camino Real, will they eventually create a canopy over El Camino;
Porter noted that he worked with Caltrans to arrive at a list of trees, determination was based on
maintenance, Caltrans has control; do not want to see lollypop trees as replacement trees. Porter noted
that there is no follow-up on the survival of replaced trees, in regards to street trees the type of root is
taken into consideration.
C. Bojués arrived at 7:05 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 26, 2001, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués (7:05) Deal, Dreiling, Osterling, Vistica
and Luzuriaga
Absent: Commissioner Keighran
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
2
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Rubin Huren; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza;
III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 12, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning
Commission were amended as follows: “Joe Bojués, Stanley Vistica,
Acting Secretary”. The minutes were then approved.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2812 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND (BASIL N. MUFARREH, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: is the 875 SF of AC paving
shown on the plans only the new paving, add existing paving area to total number on plans; applicant
should explain why such a large turn-around space is needed, could the paving be reduced and more
landscaping added; this is a drawback from street; should consider more permeable paving surface, turf -
block as an example rather than asphalt; will there be any treatment in the drain to the catch basin such as
a "pillow". There were no further questions and the item was set for action on March 12, 2001, providing
all the information can be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department in time. This item
concluded at 7:15 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.
Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests.
2A. 2621 ADELINE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SECOND FLOOR
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION (AMY HALL, GORDON HALL & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW, PROPERTY OWNERS)
2B. 735 ACACIA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEITH AND
BETH TAYLOR, PROPERTY OWNERS)
C. Bojues 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
3
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAMIN AND
NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL &
COMPANY, ARCHITECT)
Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed
criteria and comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions
of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission continued the item to the March 12, 2001 Planning Commission meeting at the request of
the applicant.
4. 120 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR
AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE
BASEMENT LEVEL, MAIN FLOOR AND A NEW UPPER FLOOR (ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; TRACY AND TROY OTUS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed
criteria and comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked what is the
maximum FAR on this lot, because of the size of the covered porch at the front the covered porch at the
rear of the house should have been included in the FAR calculation total; Commission commented that
the original application proposed a 3200 SF house with an FAR variance for 1402 SF, applicant then
reduced the above ground living area by 300 SF and added it to the basement, FAR variance still required
for 1405 SF, with the covered porch FAR variance should actually be for 1505 SF; a similar situation in
a house on Chapin Avenue is discussed in the staff report. Commission had no further questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, architect, represented the project and noted
that he would be available to answer questions. Commission noted that there is a concern with the amount
of square footage proposed, original plan proposed 3200 SF (not including lower floor or basement area),
current application proposes 3931 SF, got bigger, support the issues, concerned with bulk and calculations
on plans, have to include all of basement in FAR, bulk is increased by fact basement raised 4’ out of
ground, toned down addition by removing 300 SF off the upper floor, now 3635 SF of living space
proposed including the lower level. Architect noted that the intent was to take square footage off the upper
floor and place it in the lower floor, applicant’s first choice was not to have living space in the basement.
Troy and Tracy Otus, property owners, noted that they are doing their best to compromise, like to have
larger common areas, to accommodate families visiting, bedrooms are smaller, didn’t realize basement
would be a problem when purchasing the house, existing house looks big but only contains two bedrooms,
have neighborhood support, this is a unique situation, they are keeping the existing dining room, entry and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
4
bedroom on the main floor, construction is at rear, front of house will not change. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this is an existing house, applicant is attempting to save the existing house, not
replace it, architect attempted to reduce the bulk, is a small house now but with proposed second story
addition will appear large, proposed house is not small, allowing 700 SF more living area than the
maximum FAR allowed on this size lot.
C. Deal 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 February 2, 2001
Sheet 1, and Sheets 3-8, and Sheet 2 date stamped February 15, 2001; 2) that the conditions of the City
Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s December 18, 2000 memos shall be met; 3) that any increase to
the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 basement portion of the area/lower level of the house with a 7’-0" ceiling height shall never be
finished or converted to living area of any type. The unimproved area shall be walled off from the habitable
basement area and shall be accessed through a door no larger than 5’ X 3’ whose design meets all the
requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes for separation between two occupancies, living
and storage; 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. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: worked hard on this project, concerned with granting this large of a variance,
project on Chapin Avenue when from 0.51 FAR to 0.71 FAR, this project is increasing from 0.47 FAR to
0.68 FAR, this is not a normal process, want to make it clear that a FAR variance is very difficult to get
approved, process is here for unique situations like this one.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C.
Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m.
6. 1145 OXFORD ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION ( BRUCE MCLEOD, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CRAIG AND
KRISTIN DONATO, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission asked when does a front setback become a side setback on a lot with a curved corner; staff
noted that there was no standard way of determining that, is determined on a case by case basis.
Commission had no further questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Bruce McLeod, designer, provided an overhead
transparency showing the site plan, how they agreed with staff to measure the front setback and how the
addition is affected by the setback requirement, a line parallel to the radius of the property line was used,
this is a unique lot with an unusually large side and front setback, do not want to encroach into an already
small rear yard, siting of the existing house is a problem. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Commission discussion: don’t see any issues with this project, proposed addition
will not impact the street, hardship exists due to the shape of the lot.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
5
C. Dreiling 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
February 16, 2001, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations; and 2) 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. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a
6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m
7. 1110 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR
DETERMINATION OF USE (KAREN SCHEIKOWITZ, APPLICANT; LOUISA AND LORENZ KAO,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments. City Planner presented the report and
Planning Department comments. Commission had no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jay and Karen Scheikowitz, applicants, noted that the
business has been located on Burlingame Avenue for 2½ years, distressed about they letter they received
from the city requiring this business to vacate the premises, wife was raised in Burlingame, husband has
been a physician in Burlingame for 25 years, city needs to recognize this, received a business license for
retail sales at this location, now told that the business license is actually only a receipt for the business tax
paid, as property owner it is reasonable to assume that one can operate a business after being issued a
business license, in addition landlord approved the lease for the business so they thought busi ness was
legal: business is located in the basement of the building, no display on the front of the building, invested
time and $50,000 into improving the site, have happy clientele, sustained major damage in the basement
of the building from a ruptured city sewer line, located in a building with offices and a psychic reader
above, only use left of previous retail uses is the nail salon, no pedestrian traffic, business plan is to sell
equipment through one-on-one training, there are some semi-private classes with a maximum of 12 clients,
also do some stone massage, equipment is for home use, occupying four suites in this building, difficult
to define this business, applicant feels that business is a personal service, not a health care provider or a
gym, is a boutique spa, maximum number of clients in a class is 12, most often is less than that, Donnelly
Square had more than 20 students per class and played loud music, this business plays new age music and
Mozart, have had no complaints, there are not a large number of people at this site, if Pilates Studio left
there would be four retail business which would generate more customers, hoping that the Commission
can grandfather this use in as a personal service in good faith if not by exact code, classes are incidental
to primary personal service, feels this business has been an asset to the community, applicant submitted
signed petitions in support of the business. Commission expressed a concern with the applicant’s request
to be allowed to locate at another location in Subarea A if the current location cannot be leased in the
future; applicant retracted that request, want to be grandfathered at current location in basement, realize
that the intent of the city is not to have this type of business on the street level between the Gap and Banana
Republic. Applicant noted that personal training always brings in more money.
Commissioner noted that he had visited the site and noticed a person exercising on a machine on their
own; applicant noted that trainers at times work on their own. What percent of the clients are guided by a
personal trainers and are on their own; 99% are guided by a trainer, have 13 trainers, trainers may use the
equipment when not with clients, currently max'd out with class size, only one room will accommodate
12 people at a time. How long do the training sessions last; training sessions are one-half hour and one
hour long, training sessions vary from one-on-one to one-on-three, classes vary in size from 3-12 clients,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
6
two classes are held in the morning and evening Monday – Thursday, Saturday classes are held at 8, 9,
and 10 a.m., will have 3-10 clients in the morning, 8-12 clients in the evening, there are two types of
classes, one on reformers (machines) and other on mats (floor exercises).
Mike Sulpizio, accountant for the business, 911 Toyon Drive, Dina Cernobori, 1127 Capuchino Avenue
#4, Sheri Phoenix, 1229 Floribunda Avenue, Bill Caplan, owner of Topper Jewelers, 1614 Granada Drive,
Nicole Mendez, assistant property manager, 348 Santa Paula, and Patti Weinstein, 2051 Ralston Avenue,
spoke in support of the business. Verified that $50,000 was spent on improvements, applicant is an
employer, will be an unfortunate situation for the employees if the business is not allowed to operate at
this location, has been attending for 6 months, this is a personal service, is very pleased with the service,
also belong to a gym, had a personal trainer there but was not able to address specific needs, Pilates
provides an individualized service, equipment adjusts to her personal frame, this is different than a gym,
Pilates Studio offers one-on-one training, is female-based, provides strengthening by elongating muscles,
different than running on a treadmill, is more like yoga, has been attending for one year, wal ks to this
location, has helped her with neck problems, a good business to have in the neighborhood, concerned with
parking downtown in general but don’t see parking impacted with this use, belong to PrimeTime Athletic
Club which has large classes and lots of equipment, this use does not attract large numbers of people, this
is an excellent tenant, brings in clients to other businesses in the area, don’t see a parking problem, this
use brings her down to the downtown shopping area, parking has always been a problem downtown, area
may be zoned retail but a retail business can’t survive in a basement, Burlingame has two malls, retails
don’t survive there either, small unique shops are disappearing.
Further discussion: commercial application indicates that there will be 100 clients at the site on weekends
after 5 p.m., seems like a lot; applicant notes that she had a difficult time filling out the application form,
100 is a mistake, on an average weekend they see 10 clients within an hour in each of the four ro oms,
suite 105 contains an administrative sales area, suite 106 contains reformers (equipment) with a maximum
of 6 clients, suite 107 is a massage room with a maximum of 5 clients per day, suite 102 is a mat room
(floor exercise) with a maximum of 12 clients which must pre-register, a more reasonable number on
weekdays would be 20-30 clients during the day and 25 clients after 5 p.m., 30 clients on the Saturday,
close at 2 p.m. on Saturday, not open on Sunday, clients are encouraged to buy equipment. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: seems to be a prohibited use, errors are made, asked CA Anderson if this use can
be approved with a sunset clause; CA noted that the use must be defined first, if this use is determined to
be a personal service, then it is a permitted use and can locate anywhere in the C-1 zone, cannot include a
sunset clause on a permitted use, can only include a sunset clause if the use is determined to be a
conditional use as a class associated with retail, another alternative is to amend the zoning code to allow
this use as an conditional use, can act control through a conditional use permit by setting operating hours
outside of retail hours; would like to see staff return with proposals and what the complications would be,
needs to be defined narrowly so that other similar types of businesses could not apply, small use in
basement seems appropriate, asked if a class use is prohibited; yes unless clearly incidental to allowed
use. This is a good use for Burlingame Avenue, would like to make it a conditional use, can a conditional
use permit can have a time limit; yes, can a condition be included so that it comes back for review by the
Commission? Is a personal service limited to a certain floor; can be located on any floor, this use with the
correct number of clients on weekends is significantly different, is different than a gym, compatible with
uses in the area, concerned with defining it as a permitted use because it will allow similar uses, would
like to see this use defined and come back as a conditional use, like the diversity in uses, nothing here to
indicate that this is different than a gym, direct staff to review.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
7
C. Dreiling moved to continue the application for a period of up to six (6) months while staff addresses
how it can be addressed in the code. C. Bojués seconded the motion to continue.
Discussion on the motion: applicant may continue to operate the business, but cannot expand the maker
and second of the motion agreed to the amendment.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue amended to note that this business
may continue at this location but may not expand until this issue is resolved. The motion passed on a 6-0-
1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
5. 341 DWIGHT ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DORON KLEIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NICK
SOLINGER, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission had no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Doron Klein, applicant and designer, noted that he
revised the plans as suggested by the Commission. Commission noted that these revisions are a
disappointment, applicant did not follow the directions given at the last meeting, only added 2 x 6 boards
on the side of the building, why didn’t it go further, suggested breaking up the planes, unpainted cedar
shingle wood siding does not fit into the neighborhood, roof into the patio was not resolved, tall rake at
rear, addressed the eaves, odd looking windows on front elevation do not fit, liked previous trim better,
concerned with flatboard stuck on the sides. Applicant noted that at the last meeting the Commission
suggested revising the windows and adding surface detail to the north facade, tried to put those two ideas
together, windows were organized more clearly, articulated the façade, Commission seemed to agree with
the massing at the last meeting, roof was designed to keep the massing away from the neighbors toward
the center of the house, did not want to cast a shadow on the neighbors, tried to make it more craftsman
style with no blank walls. Commission commented that they expect professionals to use Commission’s
comments to solve problems, can’t just stick elements on a façade to address comments, relative scale on
front elevation is a problem, scale is not consistent between the first and second floors, don’t see
substantial progress, may need to go to design review, this is an unsuccessful response to the comments
and suggestions, just added trim to the second floor, upper and lower floors do not relate well, see trim
only on two facades, this is a good start, need to articulate the second floor, may loose square footage on
the second floor to accomplish this.
Mark Hunter, Hunter Construction, noted that he didn’t want to overshadow the neighbors, when the
Commission suggested proposing a second story for this project the direction only seemed to address the
facade seen from the street, more roof will be seen if a hip roof is used, Commission originally suggested
removing the dormers, now adding more dormers is being suggested the goal is to get going on this project,
Commission noted that they cannot design the house, good designs are submitted all of the time, can’t
give the applicant a list of notes and have him redraw the plans, the first floor has many ins and outs,
second floor only has 6 surfaces, second floor needs to be replicated similar to the first floor with
articulation.
Carol Fanucchi, 305 Dwight Road, noted that she has lived in this house for more than 40 years, this is a
pie-shaped block, this is the first section of block seen when driving towards Trenton Road, if this project
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
8
is approved it has to be more than a shoebox stacked on top of the first floor is cornerstone of block, has
seen the deterioration in the neighborhood with large houses built, will loose view of trees, would prefer
a single story house, needs to fit into the neighborhood if it’s going to be a two-story house, appreciates
the Commission’s comments. There were no other comments from the floor and C. Luzuriaga closed the
public hearing.
C. Luzuriaga moved to refer this application to a design review consultant. C Osterling seconded the
motion.
Commission discussion: second floor space does not reflect what is on the first floor, adding trim does
not work, needs more articulation on second floor similar to the first floor, will require changing the floor
plan (second floor) and may mean less square footage.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer to a design review consultant. The
motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent).. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 9:08 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 2627 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (MARTIN
DREILING, CSS ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TRICIA GODOWSKI,
PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 12, 2001 MEETING)
Monroe briefly presented the project description. C. Dreiling noted that he would abstain from this item
because of a business relationship with the applicant, he stepped down from the dias. Commission asked
that the staff report indicates a total of five bedrooms, but only sees four. Staff noted that the proposed
office off the master bedroom qualifies as a potential bedroom because of the hallway access.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Richard Terrones, CSS Architecture, was present to
answer questions, noted delayed action from last meeting to simplify the application, eliminated the
problem with the egress windows in the basement level, existing windows can be replaced with egress
qualified windows within the same size opening; office is the fifth bedroom, do not agree with staff
determination but will accept and asked for parking variance, will be difficult to use the office as a
bedroom and keep the privacy for the master bedroom, would like to provide the office as an auxiliary
space to the bedroom; side setback variance is to extend an existing nonconforming wall; there is potential
mitigation in the future for the side setback, property owner has applied to transfer 5’ wide strip of property
along left side property line, could take up to one year to complete the transfer, this area houses sewer and
water lines but was never deeded to the City. Commission asked the applicant if there is any way to open
up the wall in the office by more than 50% so that it does not qualify as a bedroom, suggested switching
the location of the office and bathroom; the applicant noted that it was considered but that it would
complicate the floor plan, would make the office too open, and the bathroom would have an odd
configuration and size.
Commissioners noted: the FAR is being decreased with this remodel, there is an inconsistency in the roof
and floor plans, roof plan shows a new projecting bay along the left side of the house. Applicant agreed
and will revise the roof plan so that it reflects the floor plan. There were no other comments from the floor
and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
9
Commission noted that this is an excellent project, the side setback variance is warranted since it is only
a 7’ extension of an existing wall, there will be no openings in the extension; the parking variance is moot
since one has to walk through the master bedroom to get into the office, only see 4 bedrooms, someone
could convert this office into a bedroom in the future, but that would be illegal. C. Deal moved to place
this item on the consent calendar for the meeting of March 12, 2001. The motion was seconded by C.
Bojués.
Comment on motion: should add condition that doors shall never be added in the master bedroom to form
a hall which would create two separate bedrooms. The maker and second of the motion agreed to the
amendment.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to place this item on the March 12,
2001, consent calendar with the suggested conditions. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C.
Dreiling abstaining and C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
The Commission took a break at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
9. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DEAN AND URSULA WILLIAMS, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Daniel Biermann, designer, represented the project and
noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission asked if the applicant had considered
increasing the height of the roof to a peak so that the flat roof could be eliminated. The applicant noted
that he would prefer a peak, would required a special permit to exceed the 30’ height limit by 2’ as outlined
on building elevations. Commission noted that this is a nice design, but does not fit in with the
neighborhood, project will stand out, concerned with compatibility, oval window on second floor looks
awkward. The two pieces over the garage door and entry are awkward, is not different enough, front dining
area and garage compete with each other, they are the same size, garage rafters are lower on the right side,
looks lop-sided. Commission asked if the idea is to build a Tudor style house, there should be a difference
between the first and second floors, 2’ wall height exposed on the side elevations, is not typical of a Tudor
style.
Further comment: if the roof is extended over the porch, taller windows might be added in the dining
room, need to keep human interest of entrances; don’t see too many additions which completely change
the character of the existing house, nothing left of previous style, this is one of the few styles which could
be interjected into a different neighborhood; may want to add dormers along right side elevation to reduce
the sense of height, suggest integrating porch and dining room roof into one element, very difficult to add
to an existing house which does not architecturally support a second story, should consider adding
windows to the 2’ exposed wall, windows can be added in the closets, good job with placement of mass,
suggest increasing the height in the dining room, not asking for the maximum FAR, prefer to see special
permit for height rather than a flat roof. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman
Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the suggestion that the applicant
consider the comments made in order to fine tune the project. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
10
Chairman Luzuriaga 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 (C. Keighran absent). The
Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m.
10. 1701 CARMELITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
AMENDMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (DUC M. TRAN, APPLICANT
AND ARCHITECT; JEFFREY AND MONICA OWENS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if a building permit had been
issued for this project; no, project is currently in the building permit process. City Council approved
project in August, 2000, and an application for a building permit was submitted in January, 2001.
Commission asked CA Anderson if this amendment allows review of the FAR variance; no, the FAR
variance stands, only an amendment to the mass and bulk would allow review of FAR; staff noted that the
proposed dormer does not increase the FAR, lot coverage, or affect height and setback requirements.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Duc Tran, architect, represented the project, noted that
the dormer provides articulation on the west elevation, adds balance to the left side, does not want to have
a post in the middle of the living room so need to cover up beam projecting through roof, dormer does not
affect the neighbors or zoning requirements.
Commissioners discussed: can’t understand why this project is here, beam is only spanning 14’, can be
partially supported and drop into the ceiling, beam could be clipped, adding a dormer is not acceptable,
does not work with this design, there are many other possibilities to solve this problem, can use a double
cantilever to pick up the load, can build truss into roof plane, could use bent steel tubes, problem is with
structural engineer. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the
public hearing.
CA Anderson noted that this request cannot be denied tonight, can direct that it has to come back to an
action calendar or refer the project to a design reviewer.
C. Dreiling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction that a solution be
found that would not require a dormer or beam to extend beyond any roof. This motion was seconded by
C. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The
motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:16 p.m.
11. 1338 COLUMBUS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE GAUL,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND CAROLYN GAUL, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. C. Osterling noted that he lives within a 500’ radius
of the project and would abstain from the item, he stepped down from the dias. There were no questions
of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Mike Gaul, applicant and designer, represented the
project and noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission asked what is the reason
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
11
for demolishing the existing house; applicant noted that the project first began as a remodel, ran into
problems with the basement counting towards the FAR, 6’-7’ ceiling height throughout the existing
basement, finished floor is 3’ above grade at front and 7’ at rear, tried to work within the parameters but
found it difficult to do, easier to start over with a new structure, existing house share a common driveway
with the property to the right, existing porch is 8’ from the side property line, wanted to get away from
having a wide driveway, would have to remove a portion of the existing house to accommodate a
driveway. Commission expressed a concern about the massing, asked if cedar shingles will be stained;
yes, tall wall on left side elevation along driveway needs more variation, windows are too small on this
elevation and do not fit in with the rest of the house: contains two small awkward dormers, windows in
dormers are too big and need to be reduced, need to address scale of dormers on the left side, 2" x 6" fascia
boards need to be drawn to scale; like the porch, relationship between the round columns and the spacing
is off, there is no flow, base of columns need to be more substantial, concerned with the size of the second
floor in relationship to the first floor, too much massing, is a big box with shingles, raked roof at rear
doesn’t seem to match, needs to be integrated better, belly-band will not solve the problem; this property
and adjacent properties lack landscaping Commission also noted a concern with the tall deck at the rear
of the house, when standing on the deck you will be 4’ higher than the surrounding fences, neighboring
deck has similar situation
Further discussion: cedar-shingle house is not typical in with the neighborhood, did not see any others on
this block; structure is boxy and needs articulation, using only one type of window, may not be appropriate,
suggests using paned windows and mullions, glass block is modern, don’t want to see a modern look on
this house, like the front porch, need to look at eave details and the use of corbels, shed roof at rear should
be reduced, 9’ plate heights on both floors; can’t support this application, has too many problems, project
needs a serious evolution, existing house has character, can use the existing basement, proposed house has
massive two-story walls, problems with scale of windows, suggest using true divided light windows, not
a well-designed front porch, gable on front porch has no substance, large gable on front elevation, no
precedent for the shed roof at the rear, very massive as related to the street, looms over neighboring houses,
needs a total redesign, needs to go to a design reviewer, want to make sure that the applicant understands
that the project needs a lot of work, not just fixing a couple of little things, can use existing architectural
style to build a new house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Dreiling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the concerns and direction clearly
given. If the house is to be demolished, the neighborhood should receive something with the same or
greater value in return, need to preserve the value of the neighborhood, architectural style should be
realized and made clear in all details throughout the entire house, needs to go the distance, needs to be
designed for the site, should study the placement of windows, articulation, exterior can’t be dictated by
the interior floor plan. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on motion: need to have very explicit direction for the design reviewer, suggest giving the
design reviewer a copy of the meeting tapes, should add landscaping on property line between the double
driveways.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the
concerns and direction clearly given. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The
Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
12
12. 164 PEPPER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREGG AND KRIS HURLEY, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, represented the project, noted
that classic shingle style forms are being proposed, there are similar houses in the neighborhood.
Commission discussion: size of windows were increased and became flat compared to previous project,
overall like the project, front porch is great, stone chimneys are massive, rear windows are not appropriate
to the rear façade, do not have the same feel as the other windows. Commission asked if opaque stained
cedar shingles will be an earth tone color; applicant responded that the stain has not been chosen yet but
will be compatible. Commission noted that the front window on the second floor is too big; applicant
noted that he did not want to copy historic architecture, wanted to find common shapes, window is a
departure from classic but is fun; can’t find anything wrong with the project, garage is large and takes
more FAR out of the house, like the amount of roof, applicant is taking an eclectic style and having fun
with it, good looking house, front window is o.k., rear windows are at the ground floor, mass in chimneys
should be reduced, can be carried to the top and end simply with a spark arrestor as required by the building
code. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for the meeting of March 12, 2001
with the revisions suggested.
This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Comment on the motion: trust that the applicant will do all that is necessary to protect the redwood tree
at the rear of the lot; windows at the rear of the house appear large, but will not be seen from the street,
should leave change up to the applicant’s discretion.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the March 12, 2001,
consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning
Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:57 p.m.
13. 713 WALNUT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (PHILIP HYLAND, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OLIVER
AND DEBRA BROWN, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Phil Hyland, designer, represented the project, noted
that they considered the neighbor’s privacy and the present house is a maintenance problem, would like
to replace the wood siding with a stucco exterior. Commission asked if the fireplace is prefabricated;
applicant noted that it is a direct vent gas fireplace. This is a layer-cake house, cover over entry doesn’t
work, front element is tall, concrete balustrade does not fit into the neighborhood, precast columns on the
second floor are not appropriate, need to work on the massing, windows along the left side elevation are
random and lack harmony, too many window sizes, this is a stucco box with a 5:12 pitch roof, need to
look at the neighborhood, second floor porch does not fit with the scale of this smaller house.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
13
Oliver Brown, property owner, 609 Howard Avenue, noted that that the neighborhood has many different
styles. Commission expressed a concern with the proposed style of house, tends to emulate a modern-style
tract house, what design review wants to avoid in older neighborhoods. Commission was glad to hear
owner thinking about Spanish Mediterranean, great place to start, Spanish style won’t have a heavy
balustrade, large horizontal windows, hip roofs and overhangs, need to research Spanish style, will require
alterations to the floor plans, need to work from outside in, needs semi-circular windows recessed into the
wall, can provide applicant with a list of examples in Burlingame. There were no other comments from
the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: project needs a complete rework, project is appropriate for a design reviewer,
applicant needs to pick a style and think hard about it.
C. Luzuriaga made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This
motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on motion: suggested that the meeting tapes be sent to the design reviewer.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant
with the direction given by the Commission. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran
absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15
p.m.
14. 808 PARK AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JUANCHO C. ISIDORO, JR., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ERIC
AND ELIZABETH STARKS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Juancho Isidoro, applicant and designer, represented the
project and noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission noted that the comments
for this project are very similar to the previous project presented tonight, asked if the s-shaped chimney
shown on the plans can be built; this house has a layer-cake problem, concerned with horizontal line
around roof and one on second floor, needs variation, eave details are inconsistent, some concave others
convex, eave changes from first to second floor, started out well on the south elevation, stepped back
second floor, wall above the front entrance is blank, 3’ overhang looks odd, rest of house falls apart after
south elevation, has a tract-house look, need to work on massing, rooflines and eaves, s-shaped chimney
looks awkward, should be straight, need to study the way elements relate to each other. There were no
other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with direction given by the Commission,
suggested that the meeting tapes be given to the design reviewer along with the plans. This motion was
seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on motion: would like to note that the garage should be compatible with the design of the house.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with
the direction given by the Commission. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent).
The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:25 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2001
14
X. PLANNER REPORTS
REVIEW OF City Council regular meeting of February 20, 2001 and the Joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting, Saturday, February 24, 2001.
CP Monroe reviewed the planning related actions at each meeting.
REVIEW OPEN Space Element of the General Plan.
The Commission deferred the discussion of the Open Space Element to their next meeting.
REVIEW OF Proposed Second Unit Amnesty ordinance.
2nd Unit Amnesty – Cers. Deal and Vistica abstained from the PC discussion on the proposed ordinance
discussion because of a conflict of interest. PC discussed the proposed ordinance as recommended by the
subcommittee. Commission directed the CP to set this item for public hearing at the end of March if
noticing could be completed in time.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 12:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stan Vistica, Acting Secretary
MINUTES2.26