HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.03.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
March 12, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the March 12, 2001, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica
and Luzuriaga
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen
Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza
III. MINUTES The minutes of the City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Meeting
minutes of February 24 and the regular meeting of the Planning Commission
on February 26, 2001 were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the applicant at 2606 Summit Drive has requested his
Item #5 be continued to the March 26, 2001 agenda. There were no other
changes to the agenda.
V.FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Dreiling noted that he had a concern he wished to discuss with
the Planning Commission and it was his understanding that this was the place
to ask that it be placed on the next agenda. He would like the reappointment
of Planning Commissioners to be placed on the March 26, 2001, agenda for
discussion.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW – ORDINANCE TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO SOME
BUILDINGS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS.
CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed commercial design review ordinance. Planning
commissioners who sat on the extended citizens committee which proposed this recent revision to the
proposal reviewed the history of the ordinance review and the suggestions from the committee were
included. Commissioner noted that exempting 25 lineal feet of façade on street or parking lot could have a
big impact on the appearance of an area and be out of character. Commissioner who participated on
committee, responded that 25 feet was a threshold chosen because the group did not want to discourage
smaller tenants from making improvements to their businesses by forcing them through a design review
process and because the smaller spaces are important to promoting the diversity we enjoy in the downtown
areas. A concern was also expressed by a commissioner about work load increases from minor changes to
facades. Commissioners discusses whether there was some intermediate requirement short of full design
review if staff felt a change to less than 25 feet of frontage would impact an area.
CA Anderson indicated that in zoning something is either permitted or not, no real mid-ground.
Commissioner noted that the guidebook needs another pass, has a couple of grammatical errors and some
blanks. Asked commissioners and staff to review for editing and get back to him by end of week. There
was a consensus that the ordinance was ready for public hearing.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
2
Chairman Luzuriaga set the public hearing for the March 26, 2001, action calendar. This item concluded at
7:25 p.m.
2. 1447 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT (IQBAL SERANG,
ARCHITECT; ELIO D. URZO, APPLICANT; BANK OF AMERCIA NT SA ET AL, PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: there is some suggestion of
signage on the plans, want to make sure applicant is aware of the sign code and that their action does not
address signage; application notes that the objective is to provide delivery service for food, could applicant
expand on this, are they providing parking for delivery trucks, if so, where; applicant proposes to provide
cooking classes in the afternoon, can they do that and if so, how many people will be on site; the area of the
restaurant is expanding quite a bit, is the number of employees shown correct; the application states that
there will be 75 people on site at any one time, do we have a study on the number of public parking spaces
available in that area after 5:00 p.m.; provide information on where all the employees of current business
park. There were no further questions and the item was set for action on March 26, 2001 provided all the
information can be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:30
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. Commissioner Dreiling noted that he will abstain from voting on the item at
2627 Easton Drive because he has a business relationship with the applicant.
3A. 2627 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (MARTIN DREILING, CSS
ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TRICIA GODOWSKI, PROPERTY OWNER)
3B. 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)
C. Keighran 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. Bojués. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; Item 3a,
2627 Easton Drive passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling abstaining) and #3b, 164 Pepper Avenue passed 7-0.
Appeal procedures were advised.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 2812 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT IN ORDER TO
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
3
PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND (BASIL N. MUFARREH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER)
Reference staff report, 3.12.01, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions
of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Charles Kavanagh, 470 Chatham Road, project engineer
and Bill Mufarreh, 2812 Easton Drive, property owner, noted that this is a small project, there are existing
culverts for 200 feet upstream and downstream from the site, traffic access is constricted on and off Easton
Drive, applicant needs a way to turn around on his site and enter forward onto the street; he is continuing the
same kind of channel that now exists on rest of site, will maintain the same amount of channel storage which
will minimize the downstream effects; regarding permeable pavement, pavement will be over the creek
culvert, whether use permeable pavement or not, runoff will end up in creek, for maintenance and durability,
asphalt is better than turf block over the culvert.
Commissioners asked how many cars are now parked in the garage and how many on site; it appears that
this is will be used more as a parking area, not a turnaround; propose 1500 SF of paving, could
accommodate 5 cars, would like to see area reduced, would be in favor. The applicant noted that backing
out on to street is difficult, there is one car parked in the garage, it can accommodate two, have three other
cars which now park in driveway so backing is a problem; seems like a lot of area, but need area to turn
around a suburban or Chrysler; regarding planting area, plan to use native plants on creek side of property,
am willing to reduce paving area.
Commissioner comment: there are two skinny planting areas shown to screen large asphalt area, is there a
way to increase landscape screening, can it be planted with heavier material; could there be vegetation to the
back of this area toward the house, have you talked to a landscape architect, should be thought through,
landscape can enhance project and should be incorporated; if look at plans there is an enclosed culvert with
a wall close to the house, why can't turnaround be accommodated using existing space; and leave stream
open as valuable amenity to the house and lot, no need to bridge. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion: clearly don't have a problem with providing a turnaround, but it appears applicant
is making a parking lot, if allowed all properties to asphalt whole front yard, it would be a blight; would like
to see if this turn around could be done without culverting the creek or at least reducing the pavement area;
like to see more vegetative screening, would like to see a detailed landscape plan which addresses more
screening.
C. Vistica moved to continue the application, with the applicant returning with a proposal with a reduction
to paved area and providing a landscape plan showing substantial screening of all paved areas from the
street. C. Osterling seconded the motion.
Commission asked if there is an issue with parking in the front setback. CP Monroe stated that there is no
limitation on the percentage of front setback area that can be paved one may only park on a driveway
between the face of the garage and the street. Commission directed that the project should be eco-friendly
with less paving, and visual impact should be reduced.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This item
concluded at 7:50 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
4
5. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS NGAI
AND YOLANDA YEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECT) (CONTINUED TO MARCH 26, 2001 MEETING)
At the applicant’s request this item was continued to the March 26, 2001, meeting to the regular action
calendar.
6. 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, 3.12.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if
this project needs a special permit for the relocation of the attached garage. CP Monroe noted that this
would be required, that a special permit for an attached garage has not been noticed, the public hearing can
be held, but the Commission cannot act on the project until proper notice of all applications has been done.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Natalie Forood, 1219 Vancouver Avenue, applicant, noted
that since the last session, they have incorporated all comments into plans, have worked with design review
consultant and think this project fits in with the neighborhood.
Commissioners noted that they are baffled, when this was here before, explicit direction was given that the
project is too bulky, it needs a detached garage, now the house is 400 SF bigger, found loophole to get more
area but nothing done with the bulk, realize that project went to a design review consultant, don't see how it
would fit in with neighborhood; this is a big block buster, designed by declining height envelope
requirements, project needs a lot of help.
The applicant noted that they did not find a loophole, they are within code, intent is to make the house look
symmetrical, like a simple clean style, same shape windows, doesn't seem grandiose; have lowered the
garage at an expanse so that it is considered a basement, decided to add extra square footage in to house,
project as now proposed did go back to design review consultant; attached garage fits our lifestyle, want it in
front, detached garage in back takes away yard area. Gary Diebel, project architect, noted that the roof was
also changed on right side to satisfy the concern with the deck.
Commission discussion: agree that this house remains bulky and massive, practically a brand new house,
detached garages predominate in neighborhood; agree about mass and bulk, by lowering the garage, have
lowered the datum, house now reads from bottom of garage to top of roof, project lacks thought about site,
seen no landscape representation, could help mitigate mass from street; will be looking at the roof of the
garage from front yard, might reconsider garage location.
Further commission discussion: commission placed in difficult position, concerns have not been addressed,
but design review consultant gave project green light, this doesn't fit in to Burlingame fabric, there are
plenty of examples of traditional styles in this neighborhood, this project doesn't incorporate these features,
other houses have smaller spaces, smaller windows; need to have systematic approach, small things were
done when the entire program of house is not in keeping with neighborhood.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
5
Public comment: Dick Sanguinetti, 1215 Vancouver Avenue, owns home directly behind this property, is
concerned with the scope and scale of project and its relationship to the size of lot, especially concerned
with the height exception, now enjoy view of the East Bay, will block out the view and privacy on this lot,
will loom over our property, not in keeping with the neighborhood. There were no further comments and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: its not the dress that makes the house look fat, it’s the house that makes it look fat;
still have a large box, problem is house square footage and how it is arranged, need to trim inside to make
whole more believable; if applicant is flexible with style, could get similar size; in terms of perception, this
is a wide lot for this neighborhood and the house is proposed setback to setback resulting in usual mass, the
house goes right up to the edge of the declining height envelope, these things make it appear massive;
adamant about garage, neighborhood has detached garages, two-car garage in front takes up whole front of
house; that's what we want to avoid, need to do major changes to the bulk, it is not about the FAR, can do
things to reduce the effect of the FAR, this design doesn't do it, cannot support; perspective drawing shows
the bulk of the house, box with garage sticking out front, will walk out front door and look at garage roof,
would like to see something that fits better; if consensus is to deny the project can put it on the consent
calendar to deny next meeting when proper notice is given for the additional special permit.
C. Luzuriaga moved to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 2001, to be
placed on the consent calendar for denial of the project. C. Dreiling seconded the motion.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m.
7. 1228 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
(JAMES AND MICHELLE DELIA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES,
DESIGNER)
Reference staff report, 3.12.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal noted that he will abstain from
this item because he has a business relationship with the applicant.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Delia, 1228 Bernal Avenue, applicant was available
for questions.
Commissioner comment: was previously opposed to the project because of the floor area ratio variance and
that has been eliminated, did not understand the barge rafters; have looked at examples of similar garages
with barge rafters on garages at the rear of the site and feel it works, will support the project since the FAR
variance is removed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Luzuriaga 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 Building Department date stamped January 30,
2001, sheets 2, 3, 3.1, 4, 5 and L1, and on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
December 15, 2000, sheets 1 and G; with the proposed ceiling height of 12’-0” in bedroom # 1; and with the
proposed detached garage with an eave extending 1'-6" at the west elevation and a barge rafter extending 1'-
6" at the east elevation, an overhang at the front of the garage which measures 1’-6”, and a side setback of
1’-6”; 2) that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to the
permit; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
6
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 City Engineer’s and Chief Building
Official’s September 5, 2000, 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. C. Bojués
seconded the motion.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal
abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
8. 999 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A NEW THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING (JESSE MORGAN, HOWARD
MYRTLE STORAGE LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NILES TANAKATSUBO, TSH
ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT)
Reference staff report, 3.12.01, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Dreiling noted
that he will be abstaining from action on this matter.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, Jesse Morgan, 661 Live Oak Avenue, Menlo
Park summarized the proposal and noted he believes the office building will be a good addition to the
community, environmental document indicates no adverse impacts, all recommended conditions are
acceptable, have addressed concerns raised at the study meeting, noted that the project architect is available
for questions; presented a revised landscape plan, noted that the only changes were to the location of a tree
near the Howard Avenue driveway, it had inadvertently been shown within a communications easement so
has been relocated; they were able to realign the driveway on Myrtle so that another street tree can be saved,
only one will have to be removed for that driveway; a lawn area along Myrtle was changed to flowering
shrubs.
Commissioners noted that the building as proposed is not oriented to the street but to the parking lot, asked
how was that addressed. The applicant noted that changes were made to the landscape plan to provide
hardscape plaza area along Howard frontage, windows on that frontage were brought down to the ground so
that it will be like a storefront, can be converted to doors at a later date; on Myrtle frontage, 1/3 of the
windows in each bay were brought down to the ground, and hardscape was brought up to window so in the
future business could have a direct entry to street if desired; the entry facades on Howard and Myrtle were
reduced in scale so that the entry is not so imposing, there is a functional street entrance on Myrtle, and on
Howard there is an opportunity for a street entrance.
Public Comment: Albert Sadakian, 909 Howard Avenue, Dorothy Church, 140 Myrtle Road; asked if there
will be a wall along Myrtle Road. Staff noted that there will not be a wall or fence, and pointed out where
the building line will be along Myrtle; where will the people who occupy and visit the offices park, there is
no available street parking on Myrtle Road. Staff noted that 73 parking spaces will be provided in a parking
lot along the railroad tracks, this meets the city code requirement for parking. The applicant noted that the
parking and traffic study determined that 65 parking spaces were necessary to accommodate the building,
even without taking into account the easy access to Cal Train and SamTrans, city code requires 10% more
than that, it should not be a problem. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: building is right size for site, but the benefits stop there, projects suffers from a
misunderstanding of the site, this is a potential urban pocket and this project presented is suburban
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
7
surrounded by landscaping and oriented to the parking lot, if sited correctly would be emphasis on street;
there is a pattern that exists in the neighborhood of a regular edge fronting the street with sawtooth along
railroad track, this building should respect that pattern, site is a gateway and project fails to recognize this,
does not respect aesthetic nature of the neighborhood, gestures the applicant has made are acceptable but
building should be oriented to the street, for these reasons cannot support.
Commissioner comment continued: was also part of the subcommittee reviewing project, think there is an
appropriate relationship with the street, goes back to neighborhood comments on previous project on this
site, did not like three-story wall along Myrtle, this does set back mass from street, wonder if existing
buildings in area will be there long, this project will stimulate changes, this project does not have significant
effect on the environment.
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 and date stamped March 2, 2001,
Sheets A0.1 through A1.3, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Site Sections, Sheet 1, Site Grading and
Drainage Plan, and date stamped March 12, 2001, Sheet L-1, Landscape Plan; 2) that the conditions of the
Chief Building Official’s November 13, 2000 and the Fire Marshal’s July 24, 2000 memos shall be met; 3)
that this project as built shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4) that there shall be no uplighting of the exterior of
the building; 5) that during project construction BAAQMD’s standard mitigation for construction sites shall
be implemented (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing Air Quality Impacts for Projects and Plans, April
1996. Page 14). The mitigation shall consist of: a. The construction site shall be watered at least twice per
day; b. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered; c. All parking and staging
areas at the construction site shall be watered three times daily, and/or treated with a non -toxic chemical
stabilizer. d. All access roads, parking areas, staging areas at the construction site, and adjacent public
streets shall be swept whenever visible material is carried onto them; 6) that should any cultural,
archaeological, paleontological, or anthropological resources or human remains be discovered during
excavation, work shall be halted until the findings can be fully investigated by a professional accepted as
qualified by the City Planner and proper protection measures, as recommended by the expert, have been
implemented to the satisfaction of the City; 7) that erosion control and siltation measures shall be employed
during construction to prevent silt contamination of sediment runoff, including protection of existing storm
drains with grease absorbent pillow installed to intercept contaminated street and parking lot runoff; 8) that
all catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fences to prevent debris and eroded materials
from entering the system; 9) that if grading is done during the wet season, alternatives shall be provided for
drying the soil during fill placement and compaction; 10) that in order to mitigate the possibility that
stormwater runoff from the project site could contain contaminants, the following measures shall be
implemented: a. During construction, all catch basins and storm drain inlets shall be protected with hay
bales and/or silt fences to prevent debris and silt from entering the storm drain system; b. Grease traps and
drain filters shall be installed on storm drain inlets to ensure that runoff from interior pavement does not
substantially degrade water quality; 11) that the building design shall incorporate appropriate materials to
reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL; 12) that the applicant or applicant’s contractor shall use Best
Management Practices to reduce construction noise such as requiring appropriate mufflers for larger
vehicles, prohibition of the use of personal radios by construction personnel; 13) that construction hours
shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 14) that all roof -mounted HVAC
equipment shall be set back from the sides of the building and streets, and shall be visually and acoustically
screened; 15) that to ensure that the applicant meets the goals of the City’s Recycling and Waste Reduction
program the applicant shall submit the “Recycling and Waste Reduction” form to the building department to
be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates that 60 per cent of construction waste will be
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
8
diverted from the waste stream; and 16) that to ensure that the applicant meets the goals of the City’s
Recycling and Waste Reduction program, the applicant shall be required to install and maintain a recycling
facilities program. The program shall be designed to address the size, location, tenant waste stream and
operation of the building; the facility and program shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a
building permit. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: this project is not subject to design review, but next month would be, should
consider these guidelines; this has been a long interesting process, what was first proposed had the
neighborhood up in arms, now chambers are calm, indicates neighborhood content, if perfect world would
like to see front turned to street, however neighbors were concerned with a three-story wall along Myrtle,
applicant has responded to their concerns and broken up the mass, this is a transition site, pleased that it
came back as office project instead of a parking garage for auto dealership vehicles, came a long way, will
support in current state.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C.
Vistica dissenting and C. Dreiling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
8:55 p.m. The commission took a recess and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 1324 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (TZER HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Commissioner Deal
noted that he will abstain from the discussion because he has a business relationship with the applicant.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Tzer Hung, 1324 Drake Avenue, applicant was available
to respond to questions. Commissioners noted that regarding the height of the home, the neighborhood
consists of single story and Mediterranean style homes, concern with this request for special permit for
height, is it possible to lower the roof line by 1 ½ to 2 feet and maintain the Tudor style because this is a flat
lot and there are so many single story homes in the neighborhood; would like to see the design appear less
bulky, asking for close to the maximum floor area ratio, the 8 foot plate height on the second floor could be
broken up and dropped in some places as is typical in Tudor design even bring roof down to first floor to
reduce the mass and bulk.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor: Dave Woodrow, 1316 Drake Avenue, lives
two doors down from the site, has lived in the area 18 years and seen a lot of changes, walked through
similar size house recently built in neighborhood, large; concern with height, there are plans coming forth
soon for houses on both sides of this, one for second story addition and one for a new two story house, the
house directly across the street is a typical cottage with two-story houses on either side, would like to see
project toned down and reduced in height.
There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public comment. C.
Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar on the March 26, 2001, commission agenda
if the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked: look at lowering roof height by a couple of
feet and preserving the Tudor style; can see way to bring roof down by reducing plate heights on second
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
9
story, bring some roof elements down to first floor and reduce the mass and bulk. This motion was
seconded by C. Bojués.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent action calendar for
March 26, 2000 if plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
10. 1532 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (ROBERT ALLEN WILLIAMS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND KATINA
COSENZA, PROPERTY OWNERS)
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. C. Keighran noted that she will abstain from the
discussion because she lives within 500 feet of the property. Commissioners noted that there is a lot of
basement area, what portions count in the floor area ratio. SP Brooks noted that this application was
submitted before the new basement regulations take effect, since all of the basement areas are more than
50% below grade, the entire basement area, including the new wine cellar, is exempt from floor area ratio
calculations.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Mark Cosenza, 1532 Vancouver Avenue, applicant, noted
that they are adding storage and wine cellar in basement area, is proud of the project, the master bedroom is
not as big as he wanted because of the FAR, thinks the elevations are pleasing.
Commissioners noted it is a nice design, noted that the upper floor is shy on windows, more windows could
make the master bedroom area seem larger, could add paired windows in bedroom; walls on side and back
seem blank, also in stairwell, could add windows at top on sides of stairwell increasing light to the interior;
massing is in right location, works with the existing architecture, the front of the house has hierarchy of
elements, but what is being added at the back just seems to be a bunch of house, could give emphasis to
stairwell with windows, give mass in back the same hierarchy as in front; addition looks like it belongs on
the house, doesn't look tacked on, is in keeping with the style of the house.
The applicant noted that the house next door has a new addition with lots of windows, they would like to
preserve their privacy so did not add as many.
There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
Chair Luzuriaga made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar on March 26, 2001, provided
that the following revisions have been made and plan checked: that windows be added to all sides of the
stairwell; including the blank wall at back of stairwell as well.
This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar on March 26,
2001, if plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstaining). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
10
11. 1480 BENITO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVE HOWELL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CRAIG AND
DENISE FAWCETT, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Dave Howell, 2825 Hillside Drive, project designer, was
available for questions.
Commissioners noted that this is good design, would comment on the flat roof, it should be eliminated, the
area which would extend above height limit is only about 3 ½ feet wide, roof might only need to be about a
foot higher to eliminate flat area, qualifies for special permit for design; from rear looks like building has
flat top, nice articulation, walls step in and out, but the second story plate line and roof peaks need a little
work; extending the roof would be true to the style of the architecture; need some aggressive work done
with plate lines, could be less than 8'-6" on most of top floor, some at 7'-6", might mean some of the roof
comes down to the first floor; it is still a layer cake look that needs to be resolved, maybe lower plate on one
side of a room, not whole room; this may impact perimeter walls on plan to accommodate changes.
The applicant noted that he was trying to stay within all code requirements and noted that from the street it
would not be apparent that there is a flat roof. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
Commissioners noted that this project will require some work but feel designer understands what needs to
be done. C. Dreiling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar on March 26, 2001,
provided that the following revisions have been made and plan checked: that the flat portion of the roof be
eliminated and a special permit for height be considered to keep design in true Tudor style; need some work
done on the second floor plate lines, some sections of roof could extend down to first floor; may need to
change perimeter walls on plan to accommodate roof changes. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar on
March 26, 2001, if plans have been revised as directed and staff has time to plan check them. The motion
passed 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45
p.m.
12. 1424 CASTILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALBERT
SHILAIMON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ARIS RUIZ AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
ARCHITECT)
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Aris Ruiz, 726 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco,
project architect, summarized the project and was available for questions. Albert Shilaimon, 1424 Castillo
Avenue, applicant, was also available for questions.
Commission noted that this is a tough project, working with existing house that now has a plain façade, but
the existing design does hark back to the 20's and 30's; with the addition, will become a modern tract style
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
11
house; garage is attached, but there is no way to enter the house from the garage, is virtually detached
anyway, why deviate from the pattern of the neighborhood.
The applicant responded that he wants to respect his client's wishes, who wants this style house, there are
similar styles in neighborhood and attached garages; noted that the garage door is closer to the front
entrance, never uses existing detached garage, will regrade driveway, now car exiting across sidewalk from
existing sloped driveway is unsafe.
Further commissioner comment: this is a deviation from the traditional style in neighborhood; foam trim
around windows or concrete tile roof are not consistent with neighborhood, don't see double door entry,
looks flat and boxy, not consistent in this neighborhood; regarding the back deck with large stucco columns
out of the ground, should be classic column or with redwood features; other houses do not have 10' ceiling
height on first floor, stair enclosure doesn't look natural, seems to be driven by declining height envelope
requirements; reinforce previous comments, this is a tract house in a 1920's to 1930's neighborhood, bay
window at front doesn't work; rear elevation looks like a big box, balcony has taken on an international style
that doesn't fit; don't look for examples at bad things in neighborhood, there are lots of good examples, hope
you will read and understand the design guidelines; backing out from this site is the same as other places in
the City, there is no man door shown on the garage, if garage door opener broken, won't be able to get out;
the garage is in the wrong location; the design needs a lot of work in order to blend in.
The applicant noted that the garage was put at the front to provide room for a pool in the rear yard, detached
garage does not leave any yard room for landscaping.
Commissioner comment: the house at 1429 Castillo is a perfect example of how an attached garage can
look like part of old style architecture; not saying you can't have an attached garage, but has to be better
integrated with the architecture; sense is that this needs to go to a design review consultant; it fails design
guidelines in mass and bulk, human scale, front porch and details; such as the fascia which is two feet tall on
the east elevation, should be just a few inches tall; also see a lot of flaws in the drawings, the way windows
are articulated , there will be waterproofing and flashing for deck structure which will make it look different,
the AutoCAD is not effective; should draw the elevations by hand so can get a feel for the building.
Further commission comment: look at example houses with appropriate qualities of mass and scale,
recommend that you look at the houses at 1428, 1412, 1429, 1431 and 1408 Castillo as good examples of
ways to get more space and still get the proper scale, there are a lot of styles that solve the design problem,
existing house is unique, it needs work to evolve, don't look at 1417 Castillo as an example, this has all the
problems that caused us to develop design review. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion
was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: have given applicant specific direction, this project needs to be completely
redesigned; it is important that the design review consultant listen to the tape of the hearing to understand
the issues that need to be addressed and why the commission feels the project does not fit into the
neighborhood, agree that house not good looking now, this is an opportunity to make it fit in to the
neighborhood.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001
12
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The
motion passed 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 10:19 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2001, AND JOINT CITY
COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2001.
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the council actions at their March 5, 2001, meeting. While the minutes of the
Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 2001, were on this agenda for approval,
the conclusions of that meeting in terms of work program had been discussed by the commission earlier.
REVIEW OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
Commissioners discussed the Open Space element noting that there were some very useable policies
contained in this and the other elements the group has reviewed. Discussion focused on how the
Commission can use these policies in their decision making. Staff pointed out that, for example, all
environmental reviews require an evaluation of consistency of the proposed project with the General Plan,
Commissioners can raise these policy issues at scoping meetings and well as use them for rational to justify
planning decisions. The group agreed that the Housing Element would be the next element to be reviewed
because of the 2001 work program.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Bojués, Acting Secretary
MINUTES.312