HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.07.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
July 23, 2001
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the July 28, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Osterling
and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Commissioner Bojués
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 9, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission
were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Robert Showan, attorney, 533 Airport Blvd., requested that item 3, extension
of the permit for the project at 301 Airport, be removed from the consent
calendar and a public hearing held because he wished to add some facts to
the record; he is not opposed to the permit extension.
Constance Cohen, resident, commented on the property at 1100 A Carolan
Avenue, which previously housed Monney Audio. She noted that the
building had been removed, the site paved, and it is now being used as a used
car sales lot; but there is no landscaping, is there a landscape requirement for
this use? If there is not one should be added. Look at the nice landscape job
done at the Chevron Station at Broadway, no reason this property owner
could not do something comparable. She also noted the same lack of
landscaping on the new Mike Harvey used car lot on California Drive at
South Lane.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 117 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES TO PROVIDE
ONE OFF-SITE COVERED PARKING SPACE ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL AND TO PROVIDE NO
UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE (MARTIN AND ALISON WESLEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: does the owner of 119 Dwight
have some reservations, does she understand that the two car garage counts against the FAR allowed on her
lot; these two properties will share one garage with one garage door, how will the garage be secured for each
property owner, should it be divided with two doors; since 119 Dwight is giving up rear yard for the shared
garage, why is the garage not placed all the way to the rear property line; need as a part of the application
some kind of drawing that defines the easement clearly with dimensions; need to define the edge of the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
2
asphalt; concerned that the easement document states where the line goes, a divider wall in the garage, a
good documentation of what belongs to whom is needed; need to address the width of the driveway, if any
of it is less than code required will need an exception. This item was set for action at the next commission
meeting provided the information required is submitted in time. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
2. 1115 CALIFORNIA DRIVE – ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (ROSE HOCKER, REALTY EXECUTIVES
VISION, APPLICANT; CHRISTINE CREMA, PROPERTY OWNER; DANIEL EWALD, DESIGNER)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: when did the use change from
auto repair to insurance and what was the change in parking requirements; how often are the staff members
of the real estate office on the site as well as those in the other office use; how do these numbers compare to
the past employee frequency of use; typically an 8 foot wide parking space cannot be used, can’t get out of
the door once car parked, so have 9 unusable parking spaces, parking should be restriped to current code
dimensions; plans note a conference center, will outside people come an use it and how often; how many
people; will there be meetings of all the real estate contractors; at what times will be site be used in the
evenings and on the week-ends, the number of times should be added to the conditions; how many people
will work on this site total, real estate notes 12 employees and the other business how many, will be very
short of parking since real estate use shows 15 in the future, should look at and make the numbers of
employees fit the parking better. This item was set for public hearing on August 13, 2001, providing all the
information is submitted to the Planning Department on time. This item concluded at 7:23 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 Vistica noted that since there had been a request to move the project at 301 Airport to the action
calendar, there are no projects on the consent calendar this evening.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD – ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT EXTENSION FOR 4
OFFICE BUILDINGS (488,000 SF) AND A DAY CARE FACILITY (DAN LEVIN, GLENBOROUGH
PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL LYZWA, ARCHON, ARCHITECT)
Reference staff report of July 23, 2001. CP Monroe presented the staff report in which the applicant is
requesting a one year extension of the project approval to August 7, 2002. She noted that there were three
additional conditions to be added to the extension request since there were permits from other agencies
which might expire if the project does not proceed. The Commission had no questions.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Dan Levin, representing Glenborough the applicant, and Bob
Showan, attorney for the property owner at 360 Beach Road, were present. Mr. Levin noted that he was
present to answer questions, he also requested that he be given an opportunity to comment after Mr.
Showan.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
3
Mr. Showan noted that he represented the owners of 360 Beach Road who purchased that property from the
Keyston brothers who also owned the drive-in theater. His client has owned the property for 30 years, and
for all that time have had a one-way, angled parking system which exits onto 350 Beach Road, the property
which is proposed for the day care center on the Glenborough site. His clients built a double gate in the
fence which allows the cars and trucks out onto 350 Beach; he contends that this is an “implied easement”,
and wants this access to remain after development of the adjoining site; he is not asking the commission to
determine the easement, it will be determined by the parties or the court, this is to add this information to the
record. Mr. Levin responded that first he had heard of this issue was 4:30 p.m. today; there have been 4
years of public hearings, drawings, etc. for this project; he was unsure what this had to do with the
commission’s action tonight; he will speak to his title insurance company about this issue. Mr. Levin was
asked if he was familiar with the conditions suggested tonight, he noted that he was and wanted to point out
that he would assist the city in getting the extensions to the various permits, but the city was the actual
applicant. CP Monroe noted that condition 3c should be amended with wording to note that distinction.
There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Dreiling made a motion to deny the extension of the permit for 301 Airport Blvd. The motion was
seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: CA Anderson noted that the action of extending a permit is ministerial and can be
denied only for reasons of danger to the public health and safety, he also noted that the issue for action was
the extension request; commissioners noted: will vote the same on this extension as did on project for the
same reasons in the record that opposed the original project, this is not a good plan; agree things that were
wrong before have not been corrected now, project is not the best for the city will act in keeping with
original Planning Commission action; if the permit expires on August 7,2001, and the extension is denied,
will the approval of the project be negated, no, CA noted the code requires that the extension be requested
before the expiration date, if Commission denies the extension the applicant may appeal to the City Council.
Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny the extension of the permit for the project
at 301 Airport Blvd. The motion to deny passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Auran, Osterling dissenting, C. Bojués
absent).
CA Anderson asked the commissioners to clarify for the record their reasons for denying the extension of
the permit. Commissioners noted: the project would increase traffic congestion to dangerous levels which
subtracts from the quality of life in Burlingame, this is a bad project and do not want to see it on my shift,
rely on the findings and statements in opposition to the project made at the time the project was acted on by
the Planning Commission; main concern is traffic, during project received information that the project
would maximize congestion, traffic has only worsened during the past year; rely on the statements made for
denial originally; have listened to the commissioners concerns, was moved by them and support the denial;
since denied it when it was before the commission before will be consistent now a nd vote to deny it.
Chairman Vistica noted the appeal procedures. This item concluded at 7:46 p.m.
4. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION
OF USE (JAN HASEMAN, APPLICANT; BASIM AND LINDA AZAR, PROPERTY OWNERS)
C. Auran noted that he was listing agent for this site and must recuse himself. He stepped down from the
dais. Reference staff report, 7.23.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed general
plan and zoning code as they apply, noted that either use being considered is allowed in Subarea B, however
the change in use to office would require on site parking to current code requirements. Commission asked
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
4
if staff knew when the applicant occupied this site, staff noted a building permit for electrical upgrade was
issued in January 2001, perhaps the applicant has more information.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudack, attorney, 216 Park Road, and Jan Haseman,
London Road Design, represented the project. They noted that when Subarea B was drafted in 1980 things
were different, today retail sales operates differently, the code should be flexible and not force uses into
categories; this business is a hybrid operation they do $1 million in retail taxable sales, but they do not sell
in the traditional “pedestrian oriented” way; they are also not asking to be located on Burlingame Avenue,
they are located next to an auto repair shop; hoping will find that they are a retail use so that they will not be
required to find additional parking; debated the way staff had arrived at the parking requirement for the
present use, contradiction in staff report one place says mezzanine is now in office use another it was retail;
how mezzanine counted could affect parking requirement for future variance; discussed providing one on
site parking space. Commission asked when this business occupied this space, applicant noted the end of
January or first part of February 2001; how many clients walk in as opposed to having appointments, would
like more walk-in but oriented to appointments. Commissioner did site inspection, this is not retail in
traditional sense, no display area (did see a piece of office furniture and one picture on the wall for sale), no
invitations or cards, what one would ask to purchase is not clear at the door. The work is done on the
computer and customized for the client. Applicant noted work done recently for local businesses, and
customized wedding invitation. Commission noted that the number of employees 8 to 10 indicates an office
compared to number of employees at retail, why not be an office and ask for a parking variance. Applicant
responded cost of in lieu fee for additional parking is high and limit the options for the use of the property in
the future, one must come up with a hardship on the property for a variance to be granted. There were no
further comments from the floor.
Commission comment: can not buy that this is retail, retail in this size space has fewer full time employees
and more visitors, this bigger impact on parking because employees park all day, customers turn over during
the day; prefer to see this as office and apply for parking variance; agree sounds as if this use is being forced
into retail category, this location is appropriate for this proposed use; this proposed use does not meet the
definition of retail, do not want to set a precedent for the future; how big would the parking variance be 1, 2,
or 3 spaces. CP Monroe noted that it was unknown since staff needed plans to scale of interior use areas
before and proposed not provided. The public hearing was closed.
C. Luzuriaga moved to determine that the proposed use does not constitute a retail sales use as defined in the
code and finds that the use is an office use for the reasons stated during the public hearing; and directed that
the applicant apply with in 30 days for a parking variance to support the office use. The motion was
seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion which determined the proposed use was an office use
and directed the applicant to apply for a parking variance within 30 days. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1
(C. Auran abstaining, C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20
p.m.
5. 1504 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(BARRY AND MONICA EHLERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ANTHONY K. NGAI,
ARCHITECT)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
5
Reference staff report, 7.23.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Barry and Monica Ehlers property owners, Anthony Ngai,
architect, represented the project. Feel addressed the 8 issues clearly on the revised plans, did pop out and
area 10 feet by 1 foot in depth on the north elevation to add articulation, this extends beyond the declining
height envelope; there were no questions from the commissioners or from the floor. The public hearing was
closed.
C. Keighran commended the applicant on their responsiveness to the commission’s concerns, feel that the
declining height exception on the north elevation benefits the design and moved approval of the revised
project 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 16, 2001, Sheets A1.0 through A5.2, site plan, floor
plans and building elevations; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s April 16, 2001 memos shall
be met; and 4) 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. Dreiling.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review and declining height
envelope special permit. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m.
6. 10 BELVEDERE COURT – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY DECK ADDITION
(RICHARD AND DEBRA BIANCHINA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN
CAHALAN, ASLA, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT)
Reference staff report, 7.23.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked about a study
outlining tree protection requirements, staff noted compliance could be added to the conditions of approval.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Richard Bianchina, property owner, represented the project.
He asked how to get the trees evaluated, CP Monroe noted that he could call staff. Commission asked what
material would be used in construction of the deck, applicant noted a synthetic wood material would be used
for both decks. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Dreiling moved approval by resolution of the request noting that the deck was consistent with the
architecture and the impact no greater than the original being replaced with the following amended
conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped June 26, 2001 sheets 1 through 3, and sheets 3 of 4 and 4 of 4, and that any changes to the
footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and shall be subject to the
provisions of ordinance 1649 and that the decks shall be constructed of wood or synthetic wood, not metal;
2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December
18, 2000 memo and the City Engineer's December, 2000 memo shall be met; 4) that the applicant shall have
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
6
an arborist’s report prepared by a licensed arborist which shall be approved by the City Arborist and shall
outline the measures to be taken during construction to protect the existing trees on the site and that none of
the existing trees on site shall be removed with construction; and 5) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by t he City of
Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: this house is at the end of a cul-de-sac which looks out on to a forest, does not
block views. Would maker consider amendment to include an arborist’s report to protect the trees during
construction and that the material used for the construction of the deck be wood or synthetic wood not metal.
The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amendments to the motion and conditions.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with amended conditions. The
motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
8:35 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD – ZONED C-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR A NEW, TEN-
STORY 600-ROOM HOTEL (PAUL SALISBURY, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND ARCHITECT; BOCA LAKE OFFICE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe noted that this request is for an environmental scoping to iden tify any issues that the
commission and public would like to have evaluated as a part of the environmental document for this
project. She described briefly the project and its location; and the environmental issues which staff had
already identified as needing review.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Paul Salisbury, Blunk Demattei, Architect, and Colman
Conneely, representing the property owner, were present to answer questions on the project. There were no
questions and comments from the floor. The public comment was closed.
Commissioners identified the following concerns:
- What is the logic for asking for 200,000 SF over the allowed floor area ratio, impact should be
evaluated in the environmental document; provide information on the floor area ratio of surrounding
buildings;
- Project is providing substantially less parking than required (503 provided, 600 required), will there
be a parking problem, actual parking demand at other hotels with the same or about the same
meeting room space should be determined and compared; how will parking for meeting rooms be
managed, will it conflict with guest room usage/demand;
- Show submerged parking, how will this affect/or be affected by groundwater, are there tidal or
erosion issues on this site;
- Given its size how will this project affect traffic within the area and in the surrounding area to what
extent can traffic and parking impacts be reduced by mitigation, identify mitigations assignable to
this development; what impacts will the project have on other parcels in the area, will it affect how
they can be developed; have we used up the entire traffic allocation on the Bayfront between the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
7
office project and this hotel, how can we grant if access is used up; traffic analysis should address
Broadway and Anza accesses to 101,
- project should include a pedestrian component, elements of the design should support pedestrian
activity and access;
- Where will the users of the ballroom/meeting space come from, what proportion will be local; how
wide a region will this hotel serve, should include analysis of actual experience of Hyatt and other
hotels with large meeting facilities;
- Anticipating a lot of changes to 101 (auxiliary lanes) and Broadway interchange, how will these
affect the traffic generated by this hotel; how will the shuttle bus affect the hotel;
- San Mateo is concerned about flood plain issues and dike stability, are these issues on this site;
- How does the higher density proposed for this hotel affect its exterior; how will the density of
development on the site affect the natural area where the trail is on the bay side of the site;
currently the plans show the hotel in the middle of the site, what could be done to reduce the visual
mass of this hotel and the one next door; concerned about view blockage and the size of the building,
include an alternative of a building which is easier to see through from the road and from
Burlingame Hills where views of the bay are also blocked.
- A view study, concerned about the “Wilshireization” of the bayfront, cumulative impacts of building
need to be evaluated; want visual analysis taken from a number of locations including in the hills at
a height equal to the height of the building, want to see what people will see, would like to see
projection of development on remaining sites so see the impact of infill to code requirements on the
rest of the area; concerned about people in the hills loosing their view of the bay; visual analysis
should also include near views.
- Project should include a wind analysis of change and cumulative effect;
There were no further comments and Chairman Vistica closed the discussion. This item concluded at 8:56
p.m.
Chairman Vistica called for a break. The commission reconvened at 9:08 p.m. to continue with the design
review study portion of the meeting.
8. 1471 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (NESTOR C.
REGINO, DESIGN ADVOCACY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENNETH AND VANESSA
KAMMULLER, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Nestor Regino, architect, represented the proj ect for the
owners. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
Commissioner discussion: harmless project, small addition that is consistent with the existing house.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
8
C. Dreiling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action. C. Auran seconded the
motion.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the
information is available to the staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The
Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m.
9. 3030 HILLSIDE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (KENNETH ROBY, ALADDIN HOMES, APPLICANT;
DAWOOD AND BATOUL JAMSHIDNEHAD, PROPERTY OWNERS; REZA NOROUZI, MEMARIE
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Fred Falin, architect, represented the project. Carolyn Crow
1514 La Mesa Drive, noted that new house would have a visual impact because of the large volume. She
wants to see landscaping elevations. She stated that there are engineering problems with site and this area
including sewer main backs up with a larger house there will be more of an impact on the sewer system.
During wet weather there have been landslides down to La Mesa from Hillside Drive in the past and in the
winter there is constant drainage onto her property. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public comment was closed.
The Commission had the following concerns:
➢ 8,000 SF house on a ½ acre lot is too much house, 5,000 SF seems more appropriate;
➢ Proposed house is a mix of various architectural styles, should just pick one style and stick to it;
➢ What is the intent of the rounded section on the right side, this is the highest point of the roof yet it is
a tall attic area over the living room, adds to bulk and mass;
➢ Design is not consistent with surroundings;
➢ Very busy with brick, stucco, glass block, mixed window styles-keep materials consistent, look at
surrounding neighborhood;
➢ Even though house is hidden it still needs pedestrian friendly entrance, entrance looks like hotel
entrance, very big, entry is two times higher than garage doors;
➢ Story poles need to be erected;
➢ Clearly note trees proposed for removal;
➢ Clearly note driveway and easement locations, show the access easement to the two properties at the
rear;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
9
➢ Present design fails to meet all design review guidelines, including mass, bulk, neighborhood
consistency, effect on hillside views, scale components;
➢ Existing house is currently constructed on the flat portion of the lot, keep siting of new house
tailored to the hillside; and
➢ Provide detailed landscaping plan; how will landscaping address size of the house.
C. Dreiling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This
motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Vistica 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. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and
not appealable. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m.
10. 1509 LOS MONTES AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
FRED STRATHDEE, F.R. STRATHDEE & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT)
Chairman Vistica noted that he would be abstaining from action on this item due to a business relationship
with the owner. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description and noted that two letters were
received from neighbors with concerns about the height, compatiblity of design, and loss of light and view.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Ron Grove, property owner, presented the project and
passed forward a color rendering of the proposed house. Peter Keys of 1505 Los Montes Drive stated that
he feels that the proposed project does not fit in with the neighborhood, most of the homes are split level
with an attached garage. There are drainage problems in this area, he just spent a lot of money on retaining
walls and is concerned about a detached garage being located near the easement where there is a wall and a
new catch basin. Wife would like them to retain the tree in the rear yard. He stated that the design needs to
fit with the neighborhood, detached garage does not fit with the neighborhood. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
The commission had the following concerns with the project:
➢ Design not consistent with the neighborhood, most homes are split level, but new house is designed
for a flat lot, so you will need to fill this lot to make this design work;
➢ Bulk is bigger than other homes in the area;
➢ Provide tree protection for sycamore tree in the front;
➢ Reduce plate height to address mass and bulk, usually 9 feet on lower level is o.k., with 8 feet on the
upper level;
➢ Materials are o.k. with what is in the neighborhood;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
10
➢ Pattern in neighborhood is split level homes, may want to pursue attached garage as well;
➢ Trend in neighborhood is changing, this design does fit with the newer homes, materials appropriate,
plate height should be lowered, in general nice design;
➢ Doesn’t blend with surroundings, too massive and bulky, corbels around the entrance don’t work,
plate height too tall, support detached garage, because it creates larger separations between properties;
➢ Porch function unusual with access only from dining room, FAR squeezed, front porch because of
interior access appears as a token gesture that was added on, too much square footage in house, cut
square footage to make house harmonize with surroundings;
➢ Concern with view blockage expressed by the public, needs to install story poles when design
finalized and ready to come back for action; and
➢ Existing house has a lot to work with, prefer to keep existing houses in good shape and remodel.
C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This
motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Acting Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The
motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Vistica abstaining and C. Bojués absent). The Planning
Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:51 p.m.
11. 1730 ESCALANTE WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEWART
ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RONALD KO, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street San Carlos, architect for
project was available for questions. Mr. Makras of 1724 Escalante Way stated that the two-story entry is
different that other entries in the neighborhood, he felt that the addition may obstruct light and views,
doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood, exterior wood also not appropriate when the homes in the area are all
stucco. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
The Commissioners had the following concerns with the project:
➢ Entry is a very tall component, looks like a tower, does not fit with the neighborhood;
➢ Need a more traditional, lower entry porch that fits in with the neighborhood;
➢ Can still get light into entry by lowering the window and reducing the size of the window;
➢ proposed Cal-Pac metal roof with stone covering may not be appropriate, use a more traditional
roofing material; and
➢ Hillside area construction permit required, heard concern from neighbor regarding view
therefore need to put up story poles prior to the action meeting.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
11
C. Luzuriaga made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above
requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning
Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m.
12. 531 CORBITT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DEREK
AND LUCIE KOBER, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Derek Kober, property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, were
available for questions. Commission asked if the existing house was already over the height limit, designer
explained that the existing house is already above the 30’ height limit. There were no other comments from
the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar.
Comment on motion: nice project, the addition retains the style of the existing house, it was noted that letter
was received from a neighbor at the rear at 530 Francisco with concerns about the height of the proposed
addition.
This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The
motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:12 p.m.
13. 1522 LOS ALTOS DRIVE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE,
F.R. STRATHDEE & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT)
Chairman Vistica noted that he would be abstaining from any action on this item due to a business
relationship with the owner. Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no
questions of staff.
Acting Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Ron Grove, property owner, and Fred Strathdee,
architect, 140 Leslie Drive San Carlos, represented the project. There were no other comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: design integral with flat lot, design is consistent with the neighborhood except
the double doors, scale down front entry.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
12
C. Luzuriaga made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked; revision has been made and plan checked;
➢ Entry needs to be scaled down, reduce double doors down to one door;
This motion was seconded by Acting Chair Keighran.
Acting Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Vistica abstaining and C.
Bojués absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
10:17 p.m.
14. 713 WALNUT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (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 Vistica opened the public comment. Phil Hyland, project designer, was available for questions.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Osterling. Commission gave no direction to modify the design, finding it was compliant with the design
guidelines.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:21p.m.
15. 207 CLARENDON ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN
AND LYNN LAZCANO, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica
asked if the Commission had seen this project before. CP Monroe explained that the Planning Commission
approved a two-story addition to this house effective April 17, 2000, however due to construction cost
associated with that design the applicants have decided to redesign the addition and not build the previously
approved addition.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, project designer, presented the project and
explained the changes made to the project from the previously approved design. There were no othe r
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioner’s noted the following items to be address:
➢ Upper walls are very tall;
➢ Lower plate line on second floor, if plate line can’t be lowered consider sloped roof in some rooms;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
13
➢ Roof adds a lot of bulk and roof line doesn’t match existing roof, with gable end facing front and flat
and shed roof in other places, reduce roof bulk;
➢ Consider hip roof to address roof bulk concern;
➢ Add detail where carport currently is located, replace with band at the front; and
➢ New rake detail should match existing, keep changes clean and simple.
C. Dreiling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions
have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by Chairman Vistica.
Comment on motion: south elevation is attractive, like design the way it is.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning
Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:33 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of July 16, 2001.
CP Monroe reviewed the planning related actions at the council meeting of July 16, 2001, and the
special council meeting of July 23, 2001.
- Review of Feedback Report from June 23, 2001 Housing Needs Workshop.
CP Monroe noted that she had extra copies of this report for the Commissioners if they wanted it.
She also noted the change in date for Workshop Two from Saturday, September 8, 2001, to
Wednesday night September 19, 2001. The date was changed because of conflicts. She felt that the
meetings might change to a series of evening workshops, would see as the project evolves. She also
suggested that scheduling commission subcommittee meetings might be facilitated by identifying a
good day during the week for commissioners. Commissioners noted that Wednesdays at 5:30 p.m. is
generally most convenient for the group.
C. Osterling noted that the landscape plans shown on many design review submittals are inadequate
in the sense that they do not show plant material that will grow big enough to screen the new
construction and facilitate its blending into the neighborhood. Also how these larger plants are
pruned and maintain after they are planted, also affects how they contribute to the area’s canopy.
Commission suggested that C. Osterling draw a draft of landscape guidelines and submit it to the
Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee, or, in the absence of a timely meeting by that group, to
the commission for discussion and consideration for amendment to the application handouts.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001
14
Respectfully submitted,
Mzrtin Dreiling, Acting Secretary
MINUTES7.23