HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.12.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, January 12, 2009 — 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Terrones called the January 12, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica (arrived at
7:05 p.m.) and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Cauchi
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner, Erica
Strohmeier;
and City Attorney, Gus Guinan
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the December 8,
2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted.
Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; welcomed new City Attorney Gus Guinan. Also spoke regarding recent
appeals of Planning Commission actions regarding 1452 Drake Avenue and 260 El Camino Real; and the
City Council's recent actions overturning the Commission's decision in both instances. It was suggested
that this matter be placed on the agenda for the annual joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Brownrigg spoke to Ms. Giorni's comments regarding the City Council's actions. Noted that
he understands the need for swift review of an appeal, if the City Council can accommodate it. He
expressed concern about the City Council substituting for the Planning Commission when determining
design consistency. He indicated that he doesn't understand the haste that the City Council felt with
respect to the Walgreens project. He doesn't dispute the Council's right to make the decision, but doesn't
agree with not having it sent back to the Planning Commission. He indicated that he doesn't recall actions
of this sort within his eight years on the Planning Commission.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1024 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FORA CLASS USE (DANCE/PILATES STUDIO) (DOUG MCINTOSH, APPLICANT;
GLORIA C. CONTI TRUST PROPERTY OWNER; JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN
Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 12,
2009.
Commission comments:
■ Consider changing the green (24-minute) parking zone to a one -hour parking zone.
■ Concerned about impacts upon parking in the area due to congestion in the area in the mornings
and afternoons related to Burlingame High School; quantify the available on -street parking during
peak times.
■ Calculate the parking demand for other tenants of the building.
■ Appears that the parking on Carolan Avenue is not heavily used; check to determine if there is a
policy restricting student parking in the area to only the southern side of Oak Grove Avenue.
■ Check to see if the occupancy change for the tenant space will necessitate a second exit; if so,
there may be exterior alterations to the building; have Chief Building Official look at this issue to
determine if this will be needed.
■ Good use for the site; this use will be complemented by the other uses in the area.
■ There will be minimal parking impacts from the use; the area accommodates parking for AYSO
events; there is also parking available on California Drive.
■ Coordinate with Public Works with respect to possible changes along Carolan Avenue that would
impact parking on the street (e.g. bike lanes).
This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by
the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m.
2. 16 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PERSONAL
TRAINER BUSINESS (KEVIN HOWARD, APPLICANT; AND MIKE HOWARD, PARK ROAD
PROPERTIES, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 12, 2009.
Commission comments:
Requested information on the uses present on the second floor and the parking for the uses.
This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by
the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
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.
Vice -Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Item 3a was pulled for discussion.
3b. 113 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH RECREATION ROOM AND BATHROOM AND
SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ONSITE FOR AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TOM KIELY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA
WHITMAN (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 24, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Commissioner Vistica moved approval of the Consent Calendar (Item 3b) based on the facts in the staff
reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in
the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Vice -Chair
Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent).
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3a. 1305 -1331 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP (WILLY
OSTERTAG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BRIAN BUCHER, AIA, BUCHER DESIGN STUDIO,
ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Willie Ostertag, 3104 Cananea Avenue; represented the applicant.
■ Built complex in 1975, has operated it since as an automotive facility.
■ Have never had problems with parking since 1975, have complied with City requirements.
■ Noted that there have been problems with employees from area businesses parking on the
property.
■ More automotive businesses have come into the area and have impacted the area; he has installed
signs on his property.
■ Original plan showed six trees along Rollins Road. Still has one tree along Carolan Avenue.
Needed to remove the trees because bird waste caused damage to cars on the property; is a
liability issue. The proposed type of tree is not appropriate and will create the same type of
problem.
Commission comments:
None.
Public comments:
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Richard Johnston, 1545 Rollins Road; requested that parking spaces in the rear be used for
parking, not storage. Expressed concern that the interior parking spaces may not be useful.
Additional Commission comments:
The trees recommended are large scale and go well with the width of Rollins Road. There may be
other species that may meet the needs of the City and the applicant.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
All concerns have been addressed in the application.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped December 16, sheets AO and Al. 1 and date stamped November 18, 2008, sheets A1.0,
A1.2 and A2.1, and the Property Condition Assessment date stamped June 27, 2008;
2. that the applicant shall work with staff and the City Arborist to choose an alternate species of street
tree along Rollins Road that is still consistent with the intent of the Burlingame/North Rollins Road
Specific Plan, in an effort to reduce the potential for damage to vehicles from bird waste; the
selection shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as an FYI;
3. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
4. that the conditions of the City Arborist's September 4, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's November
26 and July 17, 2008 memos, the Chief Building Official's November 20 and July 3 memos and the
Fire Marshal's June 30, 2008 memo, shall be met;
5. that the Parking Variance for backing onto a public right-of-way shall only apply to this building and
shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or
natural disaster or for intentional replacement;
6. that the 40 on -site parking spaces shall be used only for parking by the customers and employees
of the businesses at this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles or any
other goods either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off -site parking;
7. that all on -site parking spaces shall be maintained for customer and employee parking and shall not
be used to store trash and recycling receptacles or storage of materials related to the business in
the condominium units;
51
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 12, 2009
8. that trash and recycling receptacles, furnaces, water heaters and any other utilities shall be shown
in legal compartments outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with
zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued;
9. that sidewalk, curb and gutter and driveway apron improvements shall be installed to comply with
the Public Works' requirements and construction standards and shall be installed prior to the final
inspection; the applicant shall obtain the necessary special encroachment permit for any
improvements required in the public right-of-way;
10. that prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall install six, 24-inch box trees (species
determined by staff and CityArborist), spaced approximately forty feet apart, along Rollins Road
as shown on the Site Plan, sheet AO, date stamped December 16, 2008; after the final inspection
by the City Arborist, plus ninety days for tree survival assurance, the newly installed trees shall
become the maintenance responsibility of the City of Burlingame;
11. that the landscaping noted on sheet AO shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated
with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be
immediately replaced with an equivalent species;
12. that prior to issuance of a building permit or sale of any of the condominium units, the Covenants
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall be reviewed and accepted
by the City Attorney;
13. that the reports required by this code, in a form approved by the city, shall be provided to each
person executing any purchase, rental or other agreement to purchase or occupy a unit in the
project. Copies of the full reports shall be made available at all times at the sales office and shall be
posted at various locations, as may be required by the city, at the project site;
14. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of
the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and
address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees
of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of
the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and
furniture;
15. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of
escrow on the sale of each unit;
16. that demolition for removal of the existing structures or walls within the condominium units and any
grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such
site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District;
17. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
18. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Include specifications on the location of dumpsters in the CC & Rs.
Other motor vehicle related uses may also make the same request in the future regarding a
different street tree along Rollins Road; staff was asked to work with the City Arborist to determine
an appropriate alternate tree selection.
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:44 p.m.
4. 1517 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND
GERARD AND ORLA GALLAGHER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (86 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: LISA
WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested
for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant..
Have met with the neighbor and have revised plans to address concerns.
Public comments:
Sean Pitonak, 1521 Howard Avenue; submitted a letter. The applicant is requesting something outside the
norm; a Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit are requested. The accessory structure is more
manageable, but it is still not per code, the impact upon his property is still great upon his yard. Suggested
that the bathroom in the accessory structure be approved. The garage is too far forward relative to his
garage; it should be moved back several feet. Felt that he should not need to camouflage the structure
from his property. The proposed garage should be of the same height has his garage.
Commission comments:
Noted that existing garage is set considerably forward relative to the neighbor's garage.
Neighbor has a condition with two driveways adjacent to one another; the contention that the front
doors of garages should be synchronous is not appropriate.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Is a successful project; improvements have been made to address the neighbor's concerns.
Did not see anything atypical about the garage design.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped_December 11, 2008, Sheets 1 through 8;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or
Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use
Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 10, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's
October 16, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 13, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's October 29,
2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 17, 2008 memo shall be met;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 12, 2009
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on
the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by
the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Application has come a long way, hopes that there is no lingering acrimony amongst the neighbors.
Noted that barge rafter is intended to balance the front of the garage, perhaps the rafter could be
cut back somewhat.
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
5. 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (PATTY AND ANDREW JORDAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND
GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones (noted that he had listened to the recording of the prior proceedings regarding this
matter) opened the public hearing.
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 12, 2009
Pattie and Andrew Jordan, 2537 Hayward Drive and Victor Zvarich, 3475 Investment Boulevard, Hayward;
represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Noted changes to the window grid pattern as was a change to the side lights at the door.
■ Discussed artificial turf; how is it installed (Jordan — installed to allow water to drain through;
installed by Heavenly Green). Where does it drain to (Jordan — drains to street).
■ There are a lot more impervious surfaces present on the property (Jordan — wanted to make it as
drought tolerant as possible).
■ Expected the project to be built per the approved plans.
■ Railing and chimney cap are the most problematic changes (Jordan — was asked to choose the
railing that she likes most that is most aesthetically pleasing).
■ Concerned with the amount of impervious coverage on property; was approved with prior design to
alleviate impacts upon drainage. Concerned particularly about the area to the left of the garage
(Jordan — offered to plant grass at that location).
■ The architect and contractor need to be familiar with requirements of City. The contractor must
know that choices offered must fall within what was approved by the City. The process is intended
to ensure that the end product matches what was approved.
■ The changes made are not necessarily unappealing, but are a conflict with the agreement at the
time the project was approved; establishes a precedent that can cause future projects not to be
aesthetically pleasing.
■ Homeowner is the line of communication between the contractor and the architect to ensure that
what is approved is actually built.
Public comments:
Amanda Wallace, 2521 Hayward Drive; David Attard, 2517 Hayward Drive; Doug Shetti, 2541 Hayward
Drive; Shannon Casey Cannon, 2535 Hayward Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke
regarding the project:
■ Supported the applicant.
■ Satisfied with the look of the house.
■ Discussed tree height condition, confirmed that it would remain a condition.
■ Asked why the applicant didn't apply for an amendment previously when they received approval of
window changes.
■ Asked if the architect still associated with the project.
■ No details are unimportant; the applicant had a contract with the City to complete the project as
approved.
■ Requested removal of all excess paving and replacement of the chimney cap.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
The biggest concern is the change in the landscape/hardscape.
The chimney caps can be improved.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
9
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped December 1, 2008, as -built Site Plan, as -built Front Elevation, and as -built Landscape
Plan; date stamped May 6, 2008, sheets A3 and A4, and date stamped June 11, 2007, sheets Al,
A2, A5 through A8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor
area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the paved area to the left of the driveway shall be removed and replaced with a planting area
(not artificial turf); stepping stones to the rear yard may also be installed within the planting area;
3. that the chimney cap shall be installed as shown on the original approved plans;
4. that, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the existing height of the
row of Birch and Cypress trees on the property shall be determined and noted for the record. As
long as the trees exist on the property, they shall be maintained at a height no greater than the
height measured at the time of building permit issuance;
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES
Coordinator's March 5, 2007 memos shall be met;
6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio
Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled.
10. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
12. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
issued;
January 12, 2009
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
14. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1
(Commissioner A uran dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 8:44 p.m.
6. 145 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN &
ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JENNY NGO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones (noted he had listened to recordings of prior proceedings regarding this matter)
opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Noted standards that are being established for permeability. There are permeable interlocking
paving standards that exist; in the future, this standard should be called out in the conditions of
approval to ensure that permeability remains for the life of the project.
It is critical that sand not be placed between pavers; it will eventually turn to concrete, decreasing
permeability.
James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant.
Public comments:
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
On front elevation, a header over the window on the curve would help to balance it.
Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped December 3, 2008, sheets A.1 through A.6 and L-1;
2. that exposed 5'/2-inch minimum wood headers be installed above the second story front window,
on the rear elevation above the rounded bay, on the right elevation above the planter box, and on
the left elevation above the planter box;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or
Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 23, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's
October 17, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 22, 2008 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's September 22, 2008 memo shall be met;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 12, 2009
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on
the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by
the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:49 p.m.
7. 717 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES
TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (DANIEL EWALD, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND BARRY SUDBECK, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
None
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Daniel Ewald, 1175 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
Described rationale for the request.
Additional Commission comments:
Why not extend the dormer, there is more area to work with (Ewald — cost reductions).
Public comments:
Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way; spoke regarding the project:
She thinks the project has been well done to date; the contractors have been very nice. Have done
a good job; should be allowed to make the changes.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped December 9, 2008, sheets A1.0 through A3.3, and that any changes to building materials,
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 17, 2008 and July 3, 2007 memos, the Fire
Marshall's June 16, 2008 and July 5, 2007 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's June 16, 2008 and
July 5, 2007 memos and the City Engineer's June 16, 2008 and July 9, 2007 memos shall be met;
3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
January 12, 2009
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
10. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
8. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIAL ART, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND CHRIS DUNNING, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
(RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
None
Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive and Bacilia Macias, 121 Scotts Chute Court, El Sobrante; represented the
applicant.
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Have revised project to eliminate neighbor's view blockage concerns; though the addition now
occupies most of the rear yard.
Noted objections from neighbor to left raised at the design review study meeting; the story poles
may have alleviated her concerns.
Submitted photos from uphill neighbors to Vlahos showing view obstructions.
Additional Commission comments:
Clarified that 6' 4" side setback is an existing condition.
Public comments:
Paul Vlahos, son of the owners of 1847 Hunt Drive; speaking on behalf of his parents; and Mrs. Theodore
Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive, spoke regarding the project:
■ The story poles currently obstruct a lesser portion of the distant view than the prior version of the
project.
■ There remains privacy issues related to the Vlahos property.
■ Do not want to be unpleasant neighbors, but want to preserve their views. Leaves it up to the
Commission to make the decision; cut some of the added space that obstructs the view from the
kitchen. The current design is unacceptable.
Further Commission comments:
Applicant has worked well to resolve the concerns; is there any room to pull the front wall of the
bedroom wall any more to address neighbor's view concerns (Dunning — moving it back any more
will further obstruct the windows and make it look odd from the street).
Can the closet and the master bathroom be flipped as a better solution for the applicant (Dunning —
would impact the flow. Additional landscaping could be provided along the four foot fence on the
property line in order to preserve privacy).
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
More Commission comments:
Difficult application; applicant has worked diligently to revise the project to address neighbor
concerns.
Can support the application as it stands; the applicants have a right to improve their property.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped December 18, 2008, Sheets A-0, 1-1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0 through A3.2, A4.0,
and A5.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or
Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side setback variance
as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes
January 12, 2009
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 7, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's
February 28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2008 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's February 28, 2008 memo shall be met;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
■ The addition has eliminated most of the prior concerns about view blockage; unfortunately, the
addition now looks like an addition.
■ Always difficult to build in the hillside area; the project design has come a long way to minimize
neighbor impacts; compromises have been made by the applicant.
■ The designer has done a good job of moving the occupied spaces to the downhill side of the
addition.
■ Commissioner Brownrigg abstained since he had not visited the Vlahos property.
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1
(Commissioner Brownrigg abstaining, Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 9:24 p.m.
Commissioner Brownrigg left the meeting at 9:24 p.m.
IN
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 1461 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (VIVIAN AND
AMANDA LARKIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JACK MCCARTHY, DESIGNER)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Complemented the design.
■ Concerned about the half bath opening directly off of the dining room, consider placing the door off
of the entry.
■ In the family room, installation of clerestory windows would break up the blank wall on the left
elevation.
■ Consider reorganizing the kitchen to permit a larger window to allow more light in.
■ Provide a streetscape image that shows the proposed house in context with other houses on the
street.
■ Noted that groundwater will be an issue on the lot; review with a soils engineer. Ensure that the
sump pump on the property has battery back-up.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project:
■ The architect designed the house to the right; it was built at just under 30-feet.
■ The design adds elegance to the neighborhood.
■ Requested clarity regarding the FAR exemption.
■ Why so many doors and windows from the basement; concerned about having the door become the
center of activity for egress.
■ With respect to drainage, her neighboring property owner's sump pump runs frequently during the
day. When the sump pump is installed, wants to be assured that it doesn't run as frequently.
■ Asked if a hydrology test has been performed for the property.
■ The lot coverage is increasing with the new design, as opposed to the prior design. Asked for a bit
more green area be added to the property.
Additional Commission comments:
Consider adding a landscape area down the center of the driveway; or otherwise decrease the
amount of hardscape on the lot.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
19
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Further Commission comments:
There is justification for the special permit due to the small nature of the lot.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice -Chair Terrones 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 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and
Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
9:43 p.m.
10. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, 3 '/2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
John Ward, 792 Willborough Place and Alex Mortazavi, 20 Vista Lane; represented the applicant.
■ Noted prior design for site that wasn't embraced by the Planning Commission.
■ The Commission directed him to step the house up the hill; and that a height Variance could be
supported due to the lot characteristics.
■ Discussed average setback requirements in Burlingame, and the presence of multiple, significantly
varied setbacks that are present on the neighboring properties that lie in unincorporated San Mateo
County.
■ Noted that large Oak tree in center of property should be preserved, per City arborist.
■ Traditional architecture would add to mass and bulk of building; have chosen modern architecture in
an attempt to reduce the mass of the structure on the hillside.
■ Submitted letter from Shefsky's withdrawing their opposition to the proposal.
■ Have not had the opportunity to discuss other neighbors' objections with them.
■ Side setbacks are much greater than what the City of Burlingame requires.
■ Much of the home is dug into the hill; and steps up the hillside.
■ Noted correction in his letter to a neighbor indicating that the distance from his garage door to their
dining room is 51 feet.
Commission comments:
Have done a masterful job of reducing the mass and scale of the house.
20
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
■ Landscaping helps to obscure the mass of the house.
■ Like the design a lot; suggested consideration of a green (living) roof as it could further soften the
appearance of the house.
■ The mass is broken up well; requested a massing model to help illustrate this in 3 dimensions.
■ Appreciated that most of the trees on the lot are being preserved.
■ Design allows the massing to be articulated up the hill; permits it to be achieved with some
elegance.
■ When the project comes back, ensure that elevations completely match the floor plan.
■ Massing model could be helpful.
Public comments:
Art Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; Donna Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Mike Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Eileen and
Steve Shefsky, 24 Vista Lane; Gail Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke
regarding the project:
■ The owner to the left of the property feels that his light on his lot will be impacted. Provided photos
of his rear -yard. Has a swimming pool with a 5'/2 foot high wall. Sun sets directly over the ridge on
Mortazavi's property. Will adversely impact his property. Height restrictions exist for numerous
reasons; blocking out the natural sunlight and privacy. At left elevation; upper floor deck will look
directly into his pool. No height Variance should be allowed. Referenced his letter submitted to the
Commission.
■ Expressed concern about the position of the garage; concern about fumes from garage entering his
property; suggested having driveway enter garage from the other side, rather than circling around.
■ Think about surrounding properties, not just those in Burlingame.
■ Referenced prior design; indicated support for it.
■ Liked that the house has been stepped back.
■ Appreciate that applicant is keeping the oak trees.
■ Was opposed to original design. Likes modern architecture; there is a bit of a precedent; there is a
variety of architecture in the area.
■ The applicant has assured that the new home will be finished in earth -tones.
■ Noted that the City's Hillside Area Construction Permit process allows any property owner to call up
a permit for review; the procedures do not differentiate between City versus County property
owners.
■ Story poles should be required regardless of jurisdiction within which adjacent properties are
situated.
■ There will be view impacts from the new design; were supportive of the original proposal that placed
home closer to the road.
■ Light to the adjacent property will be severely impacted.
■ The proposed setback will more severely impact privacy on the adjacent property.
■ Noted that California law does not give you light, air and water rights. The local view ordinance only
applies to hillside areas.
■ There are few comments about view obstruction; primarily loss of privacy and fear of change.
■ Clarified the method of height measurement is the distance above the curb at the street level.
■ With respect to story poles; will need an interpretation from the City Attorney. Recommends story
poles; have generally required them in other hillside areas.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
21
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Expressed concern regarding requiring story poles for benefit of San Mateo County residents that
are not subject to the same requirement; perhaps consider a more limited story pole installation.
A model could help to demonstrate the massing of the project, but would not help to understand the
massing in context with adjacent properties.
Determined that the applicant can choose to erect story poles, or provide a massing model, but if
story poles are not installed the Commission retains the right to require them in the future.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when
plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg
and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:40 p.m.
11. 1609 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (GLIOHLIZ CHEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOE HALL, DESIGNER)
STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Guohui Chen, 1609 Albemarle Way; represented the project.
Commission comments:
■ There is no hardship for the Variance; the addition could be reduced by 11-inches to eliminate the
need for the Variance.
■ The addition looks like an addition; it is not well integrated and needs more work.
■ Clarify the floor plan; there appears to be a bedroom with no door.
■ Would like to see the door on the rear elevation changed out to wood.
■ Inclusion of a trellis on the rear elevation would help the appearance of the structure.
■ Some of the drawings are inconsistent and don't resolve themselves; it would be difficult to build the
addition as shown.
■ Should be sent to a design reviewer.
■ The addition is modest; assistance from a design reviewer could result in changes that could make
the project "approvable".
Public comments:
22
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project:
Encouraged sending the project to a design reviewer.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Clarified that the architect is no longer involved in the project (Chen — has a drafter to finalize the
points on the plans. Can't afford a complete overhaul on the residence. Requested flexibility with
this issue).
Commissioner Yie made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Modest addition, with some type of streamlining it can become an approvable project.
Vice -Chair Terrones 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 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and
Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
11:01 P.M.
12. 1040 BROADWAY, ZONED RR — SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW
STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK, LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE TO REBUILD AN EXISTING
GAS STATION WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A NEW FUELING CANOPY AND DISPENSERS,
CONVENIENCE STORE AND CAR WASH (BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC., APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; AND BOE ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Richard LaRowe, 853 Leith Court, Lincoln; and Timothy Boe, 150 South Arroyo Parkway, Pasadena;
represented the applicant.
■ Noted that BP/Arco and the franchisee wanted to halt the project completely after the last study
session. Arco is withdrawing from all retail sales operations.
■ Believe they were able to incorporate nearly all of the requirements; but did not incorporate LEED
certification (cost prohibitive).
■ Did not consider solar application.
■ Can't support removing the car -wash.
■ Location of building is being dictated by neighboring auto dealer.
■ Requested consideration as a Consent Calendar item the next time it appears on the agenda.
23
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Commission comments:
■ Vice -Chair Terrones noted that though he wasn't at the prior hearing, he had listened to the
recording of the prior meeting.
■ Requested the status of the traffic analysis.
■ Asked about handling of waste water from car -wash.
■ Asked if there is flexibility in the design of the building; expressed concern that the project turns its
back on the entry to the Broadway corridor. The design of the building is critical at this location.
■ Faux windows are not an acceptable solution; the design looks like any other design that can be
found elsewhere in the State; this is an important site for Burlingame. The design needs to
drastically change for it to move forward.
■ The design is still not remarkable; not true to Spanish design; there is no relationship between the
function and the design.
■ Asked what is planned for the faux windows on the rear elevation.
■ Requested information regarding the useful life of the buildings.
■ Improve pedestrian amenities along Rollins Road; create some activity at the corner; benches and
other amenities that appeal to pedestrians.
■ Would a trellis or some other amenity be means of improving the rear elevation?
■ The design of the canopy diminishes the appearance of the building.
■ The building is only oriented to the canopy but the site is oriented to the corner; this is not
acceptable.
■ Could there be some type of corner entry floor plan that can at least open up the corner of the
building to the plaza area on the corner. Also create an architectural element that draws attention
to the corner; create more shadowing.
■ The project is seeking a significant Variance from setbacks along Rollins Road.
■ Suggested revising the placement of the vehicle bays to create more design flexibility.
■ The "Welcome to Burlingame" sign could be concave to allow more landscaping in front; it could be
integrated with other landscape elements.
■ Believe that the spaces at pumps should be considered parking spots.
Public comments:
None
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Questioned the use of brick as a design element; it is not common in this area.
Requested an evaluation of traffic and circulation.
Requested an evaluation of water use and drainage from the car -wash and landscaping.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
None.
24
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when
plans have been revised as directed and the environmental analysis is complete. The motion passed on a
voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Introduced City Attorney Gus Guinan.
Actions from Regular City Council meetings of December 15, 2008 and January 5, 2009:
On December 15, 2008, the City Council granted the appeal of Council Member Jerry Deal and
overturned the Planning Commission's approval of the new single-family dwelling at 1452 Drake
Avenue.
On January 5, 2008, the City Council granted Kevin Cullinane's appeal, and approved entitlements
for the proposed Walgreens store at 260 El Camino Real.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — December, 2008:
Accepted.
FYI: 612 Concord Way — Changes to a previously approved Design Review project:
Requested that a public hearing be scheduled to review the changes.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Vice -Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 12:24 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
25