HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.22.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
September 22, 2008 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Terrones called the September 22, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order
at 7:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Cauchi
Staff Present: Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks and Senior Planner, Ruben Hurin
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the September 8,
2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as submitted.
Motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica abstaining, Chair Cauchi absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, Beautification Commission is working on street tree policies and has come up with
a new list of street trees for residential areas, will be reviewed by City Council in the near future, this will
help in Planning Commission's process.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 118 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DANIEL AND SUSAN SCHOENTHALER, APPLICANTS
AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 22, 2008.
Commission comments:
Proposed doors should swing out from garage so they don't swing into the parking area.
Add a condition that the Waste line should be no larger than two inches.
Ask the applicant why are two doors are proposed.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
Recommend that a condition of approval be added that the recommendations of the arborist's report
shall be followed.
Can the special permits and conditional use permits be eliminated if the garage were reduced in
length?
It appears that the side of the garage will act as a fence, clarify how the fence along that side will be
configured.
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
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. There were no requests.
2a. 1709 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK
ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND MIKE AND JENNIFER BUCKLEY, PROPERTY
OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Yie moved approval of the Consent Calendar 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 Brownrigg. Vice Chair Terrones
called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. The item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 1125 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
(JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND YANG MIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated September 22, 2008, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design & Engineering, represented the applicant, and noted that changes have been
made that the Commission requested, installed story poles, project looks good, setback 20 feet from
adjacent residence on the left and 30 feet on the right, purpose of Special Permit is to encourage traditional
homes with steep pitched roofs, because of the distances, impacts on neighbors are reduced, could lower
the height by changing roof pitch, but don't think it would enhance design. Maximum height is measured
from average top of curb, this lot has a slope, if measure from the grade at the right, height is only about 31
and a half feet tall.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
Commission comments:
■ Applicant indicated height could be reduced, how would that be achieved? (James Chu - If had
known neighbors objected, might come in with a different style such as colonial or craftsman, this
proposal was designed based on design guidelines. Pitch of the roof could be reduced from 12/12
to 10/12, would gain 1 foot and a half, could lower the building pad and could reduce plate height,
all these measures could contribute to a height reduction.)
■ Reason for Special Permit is for stylistic consistency, whether it is an addition or new house, have
looked at story poles, think it is a pretty good fit for the block, but would like to explore possibilities
of lowering the house without impacting the style.
■ Agree it is a good design, height is in center of house, is well done, unfortunately, our guidelines
indicate that with small lot neighborhoods privacy can't be expected, reason for allowing special
permit for height is to promote good design, gives us possibility for 12/12 pitches to mimic good
design from the twenties and thirties.
■ Have seen houses that are 30 feet in height that appear taller and bulkier because of design, but
agree that in this case the height could be lowered somewhat, think the design is nice, there are
elements that come down to a first floor height.
■ Main concern is height of structure and how it fits on street, would like applicant to find a way to
keep this design and reduce the height.
■ In general agree that the house is nicely designed, but share neighbor's concerns, issue is not to
make roof less steep, that is a benefit, but problem arises because 12/12 pitch now launches from a
full second floor, there is a lot of attic space, there are ways to address, launch left and right
elevations from first floor at 12/12 pitch, could achieve lower height.
Public comments:
■ Phyllis Everson,1121 Cabrillo Avenue, thanks for asking for the story poles, will be a big change to
have a two-story home on this lot, will lose privacy and late afternoon sun, feel additional height will
look out of place in the neighborhood.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, happy to see story poles when height above 30', this house as
designed mimics house to right on 1133, but that house next door sits on foundation two feet
higher. When consider the purpose of the Special Permit, it probably wasn't envisioned that more
than 200 houses would be replaced, feel that the Special Permits were put in for those homeowners
who wanted to add a second floor on an existing house to maintain existing conditions without
diminishing the existing style, not for those cases where houses are being torn down and replaced.
Plans came back without the porch on the right side, but the flat roof is still there, should look at
that.
Kathy Ward, 1133 Cabrillo Avenue, have similar comment regarding Special Permit, thought it was
for keeping architectural integrity, is this the right house for this size lot. Right side is a brick wall,
actual grade is lower. Looked at the whole block, homes are between 22' to 30' tall, curious how a
new house can be submitted at close to 36' when limit is 30'.
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
■ Jeff Demartini, 1141 Cabrillo Avenue, our house is about 28.5 feet high, can't image what our
neighbor would say if we requested another 8 feet in height, not appropriate, exception should be
for older homes on larger lots, not a new home on this small lot.
■ Jim Ward, 1133 Cabrillo Avenue, nice to see interest from neighborhood, been there a long time,
care about the neighborhood. This is a really big house, the justification for this design is because it
is next to our larger lot, we will lose sunlight, when look at the roof height, it is higher than our
house, which is on a larger lot and on the slope of a hill.
■ Robert Smith, 1137 Cabrillo Avenue, concerned about the street trees at the property, trees need to
be protected, nice tree -lined street, like to retain, have lost two trees due to storm, regarding the
height, there are three houses in a row, would like to maintain a consistent line for all three of these
properties.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Auran moved to continue the application with direction given on changes to reduce the
height.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Vice Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1-1
(Commissioner Yie abstaining and Commissioner Cauchi absent). This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
4. 2724 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A
MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; AND WAYNE PAN, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated September 22, 2008, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-one conditions were suggested for consideration.
Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue, represented the applicant. Noted that the reason for eliminating the
stone is that there is no stone being installed in back at the retaining wall, the wall will be covered with
vines, would blend nicely without the stone.
Commission comments:
■ One of elements that make it distinctive is the stone, like to see it maintained, big stucco walls are
not the right material.
■ Have no problem with the proposed changes, it is in the back and side yard, will be covered by
vegetation.
■ This elevation may be prominent piece for neighbors, large stucco wall can be unappealing, they
tend to get dirty over time.
■ Agree with not having stone on majority of back, but stone on patio makes it a nice feature, would
like to see it maintained.
■ Stone ties the back porch together with the house, hand rail becomes more prominent without it,
would like to keep the stone.
Public comments:
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
Alan Wong, 2716 Martinez Drive, want to confirm that the ridge would be raised less than 3 inches.
(Jesse Geurse - Confirmed that height is actually lower than existing.)
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, thank the applicant for filing the FYI, and thanked the Commission
for bringing the project to public hearing to hear neighbor comments, think process is working,
listening to neighbors is best it's ever been.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application except the request to change the stone to
stucco on the right and rear elevations, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 16, 2007 (sheets T.0, L1.0, DM.1, DM.2, and A.0 through A.8) and August 22,
2008 (sheets A.1, A.2, A.5, and A.7), except that the stone veneer on the right and rear elevations
shall be retained, 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 trees shown on the landscape plan for the rear -yard shall not be permitted to exceed a height
of 15-feet from the base of the lower patio, and shall be maintained at a height of no greater than
15-feet;
3. that the neighbors at 1600 Granada Drive (Thompsons) and the applicants (Pans) shall review and
agree upon the placement of the trees in the rear -yard landscape plan in order to mitigate any
future view issues;
4. that no shrubs, or future shrubs, shall be permitted to grow to a height greater than the maximum
allowable fence height permitted by the City of Burlingame, and shall be maintained at a height of
no greater than that measurement;
5. that no additional trees shall be planted in the existing airport view corridor where trees do not
currently exist;
6. that trees planted within the front -yard shall not be permitted to grow to the height exceeding the
height of the peak of the roof, and shall be maintained at a height of no greater than that
measurement;
7. that the chimney height of the kitchen vents as shown on the plans shall not exceed the
manufacturer's minimum; and that if a chimney for a fireplace, the height shall not exceed 2-feet
above all surrounding surfaces within 10-feet of the chimney (the minimum specification of the
Building Code).
8. that trees noted for removal on the landscape plan shall be removed in advance of issuance of a
building permit for the project;
9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 15, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's
December 15, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 13, 2006 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's December 13, 2006 memo shall be met;
10. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
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;
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
11. 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;
12. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys 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;
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;
16. 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;
17. 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;
18. 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;
19. 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;
20. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
21. that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve as amended. The motion passed
5-1-1 (Commissioner A uran dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
5. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
ADULT DAY CARE CENTER IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated September 22, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Ruben Hurin
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Vice Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, 851 Burlway Road, represented the applicant. Provided clarification
about the hours of operations, indicated there would be no outside activities, all activities will be inside the
facility. Regarding security, would be delayed egress alarms on the door, will be 15 second delay before
doors open. There will be one employee for each client, people will be moving around with activities and
there will be staff with them. Surveyed other facilities, there are about half a dozen on the Peninsula, two
are most similar with 50 people coming to the facility, one had 14 parking spaces plus two accessible
spaces, the other is associated with a hospital and the parking is shared with the hospital and day care
facilities, majority of people are dropped off by a caregiver, or dropped off by Redi-wheels van. Looked at
the parking layout, have the appropriate number of disabled accessible spaces, they are located at the rear
so will have direct access to the facility. ADA improvements are provided throughout the building.
Public comments:
■ Brian McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive, reviewed reports, concerned about traffic, live nearby, other uses
in this zone are non -peak uses, this will be different, traffic study conducted in August, would be
more appropriate to be done during the school year, traffic backs up on Oak Grove when high
school is in session, previous occupant of the building was asked to provide data, not sure agree
with it, never saw 50-80 people going in to that facility, would probably be closer to ten. Could
facility start with lower number of occupants so impacts can be assessed, and do a traffic study
once the business is in operation.
■ Katie Treu, 745 Neuchatel Avenue, pleased to see a user of the site has been found that doesn't
have impact on neighborhood, traffic is still a concern, should leave a provision open that it will
adjust amount of cars in the morning by adjusting the drop off and pick up times.
■ Bill Farac, 732 Neuchatel Avenue, like to thank the owner for not going through with the other
project, will be keeping an eye on this project, seems agreeable at this time. The idea of having an
adult care center sounds good, would like to work together to make sure it is compatible with the
neighborhood.
■ Tiffany Chesnosky, 716 Neuchatel Avenue, concern with traffic study, when California drive backs
up, traffic backs up into the neighborhood, this should be taken into consideration.
■ John Root, 728 Crossway Road, think it is a good use, will fit into neighborhood, while there is
traffic in the area, traffic study was done by professionals, should be adequate analysis.
Burlingame needs facilities like this, provides respite for caregivers.
Applicant Response:
!3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
Dale Meyer — Concerning the traffic study, it was reviewed by City Traffic Engineer and
found to be adequate.
Commission comments:
■ Clarified that hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., but it will be open at 7:00 a.m. for
employees to set up, and some people would be dropped off.
■ Was drop off area in front along California Drive considered? (Dale Meyer — The City's Traffic
Engineer would not allow, preferred not to use up street parking, applicant would like to consider
that option).
■ Since the reception area is further back, the drop off area can be accommodated on site.
■ Should revisit the drop off with the Traffic Engineer, especially if issues arise in the future, maybe it
could be designated for drop off only during peak times.
■ Since entrance is at side, could the accessible parking spaces be moved closer to entrance (Dale
Meyer — they will be entering through the back where there is a ramp).
■ Is it okay that people will be entering from different locations (Dale Meyer — Yes, it is best that most
people come in the side door, but it won't be a problem if the disabled use the rear entrance).
■ Support the project, like the idea that if queuing becomes an issue, that we explore using public
parking in front of building as a drop off area during peak hours.
■ This street is designed to handle a lot of traffic, should be able to accommodate this use.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the adult day care center shall be limited to 5,176 SF of the existing commercial building at 755
California Drive, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
August 11, 2008, sheets P1 through P4;
2. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to an adult day care center and shall become void if
the adult day care center changes in the clientele they serve or cease, is replaced by a permitted
use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for
replacement;
3. that the activities offered at this site for the adult day care center shall be indoor only; no portion of
the exterior of the site shall be used for adult day care center activities;
4. that the adult day care center may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; there shall be a maximum of one administrator, one activities
director and aides at a ratio of 1:8 as required by state regulations;
5. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 54 persons, including the
administrator, activities director, aides and program participants;
6. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds
the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use
Permit;
9
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
7. that drop off and pick up of adults for the adult day care center shall occur on -site and that the
applicant shall monitor the safety of the transfer of the adults; if parking during drop off or pick up
becomes a problem or if safety issues are identified a staff member shall be required to assist
adults from vehicles to the center;
8. that the 27 on -site parking spaces shall be used only for staff members and visitors at this site and
shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles on this site or by other businesses for off -
site parking;
9. that this application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a noticed information item in
two years (September 2010) to evaluate the parking and traffic circulation conditions on the site.
10. that a "Right Turn Only" sign shall be installed at the exit point on the site to clearly define the
vehicular direction for employees and visitors exiting the site; prior to issuance of a building permit,
the applicant/property owner shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required
signage and location on the property;
11. that the applicant shall request that the Traffic Engineer reconsider a drop off area along California
Drive limited to the morning peak hour drop off time;
12. that the conditions of the Traffic Engineer's September 2, 2008 e-mail, the Chief Building Official's
July 3, 2008 memo and the Fire Marshal's June 30, 2008 memo shall be met;
13. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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;
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 any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2007 Edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Support the motion, can't start a business part way, you have to know what your client base is
going to be. Previous fitness use on the site noted that there were 40 people in aerobics class at
the peak morning time. Based on amended conditions, the applicant will report back to the
Planning Commission on traffic and parking issues in two years. Would also like to ask City Traffic
Engineer to reconsider the drop off in front of the building on the street.
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 8:30 p.m.
6. 1145 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CHILDREN'S TUTORING CENTER (CLASS USE) IN AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL BUILDING (LEIZELLE PAISO AND RACHEL LEVINE, KUMON, APPLICANT; RANDY
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; AND RONALD AND STEVEN KARP, PROPERTY
OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated September 22, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Ruben Hurin
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Vice Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, represented the applicant, and indicated that representatives from Kumon
and the architect are also available. This is a difficult location, not really a part of the Broadway
Commercial Area, feel this is a good use for the location, meets a community need, has some on -site
parking, propose drop off and pick up rules, listened at study session and addressed the Commission's
concerns in resubmitted project. Concerns were with the safety of parking, and whether there is enough
parking, the lot was reconfigured with head on parking rather than angled, there are dedicated drop off
spaces, and there is plenty of parking across to street adjacent to train station. Drop off and pick up
procedures have been addressed, if customers park across the street, students will be accompanied by
parents. The facility wants to have some weekend hours, would like to add extended hours on Saturday
from 8:30 to 5:00 p.m.
Public comments:
Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road, President of Broadway Business Improvement District, property is
outside the Broadway Business Improvement District, merchants want to express support of this
project, it will be good fit for area.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, one concern about this project is the parking and the reliance on
Caltrain parking lot, even though it is not used now, one never knows what Caltrain's plans will be in
the future, may us this parking area and run a shuttle from another station site.
Applicant response:
Mark Hudak — Most of the parking will be between 3:00 and 7:00 pm, and there is other available
parking in the vicinity other than the Caltrain lot, the facility will not be relying on that exclusively.
Commission comments:
Like the use, there will be some carpooling, some students will be on bicycle or on foot, can see
that parents will likely park in the Chula Vista parking lot and shop on Broadway during the time the
students are at the facility.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that the children's tutoring center shall be limited to approximately 2,088 SF of the existing
commercial building at 1145 California Drive, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped September 9, 2008, sheet Al. 1, and date stamped August 27, 2008,
sheet A2.1;
2. that the property owner shall prepare a covenant, in a form acceptable to the City, that identifies
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
and bind the four drop-off and pick-up spaces on the adjacent parcel to the north to Kumon as long
as Kumon remains a tenant on the property at 1145 California Drive, and shall record the covenant
with the San Mateo County Clerk -Recorder before issuance of business license or building permit
for tenant improvements; should this covenant be broken, the variance should be brought back to
the Planning Commission for modification.
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
3. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance shall apply only to a children's tutoring center
and shall become void if the four designated drop-off and pick-up spaces on the adjacent parcel are
not available, the children's tutoring center changes in the clientele they serve or cease, is replaced
by a permitted use, or is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster
or for replacement;
4. that the children's tutoring center may be open Monday through Friday, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
and on Saturdays from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with a maximum of two full-time employees and 12
part-time instructors;
5. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 60 persons, including the full-time
and part-time employees and participants;
6. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees and part-time
instructors which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment
to this Conditional Use Permit;
7. that drop off and pick up of children for the tutoring center shall occur off -site on the adjacent parcel
to the north in the four, designated 15-minute drop-off and pick-up spaces; if a parent uses the
Caltrain parking lot or parks more than one block from the center, the parent must walk their child to
and from the center; the applicant shall inform parents of this policy during enrollment;
8. that a "Right Turn Only" sign shall be installed at the exit point on the site to clearly define the
vehicular direction for visitors exiting the site; prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant/property owner shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required
signage and location on the property;
9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 21, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's July 30,
2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2008 memo shall be met;
10. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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;
11. 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
12. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2007 Edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
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.
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
7. 917 LARKSPUR DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND LOT
COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARY WAGNER, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK RILOVICH, RILOVISION, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report dated September 22, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner, Ruben Hurin
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Vice Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Gary Wagner, property owner, 917 Larkspur Drive, addressed comments from study meeting.
Determined that this size building is needed because had measured out size based on what would
be stored there, need that much room for storage. Realize have created the hardship, but was
advised by contractor that because of its size, the structure did not need a permit. Put in windows
to avoid a stale smell in the structure, this is for storage of property, want it to be kept in good
shape.
Commission comments:
■ Since the applicant did not come back with revisions, it's all or nothing, hard to see how to approve
without seeing any concessions made.
■ Applicant decided not to address the Commission's concerns about the excessive lot coverage, we
have lot coverage rules to avoid sprawling, why wasn't it addressed.
■ If the applicant had applied for a building permit before construction, would have been told what you
could and could not build, hardship was created by building the structure without permits.
■ Don't think any of the concerns have been addressed, could have at least eliminated storage shed,
windows requiring Special Permits, there has been no willingness to conform in any way.
■ Can't support any of the Conditional Use Permits, think the project is detrimental to the
neighborhood.
■ Concur, would like to point out that if covered porch on new structure were removed and size of
structure were reduced by half, project would meet lot coverage requirements. There are reasons
that buildings can't cover all of the property, there is a community standard established.
Public comments:
Ken Vierra, 900 Morrell Avenue, this is difficult as a neighbor to oppose, live to the southeast, so
when exit the back of the house, what you see is this structure, there had been at least one tree
between properties and it was cut down, now there is a large white structure across fence, problem
is the eave of the structure is about six inches from back fence.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments;
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to deny the application.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
Discussion of motion:
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
This is why off -site storage facilities are provided, no justification has been given by the applicant
for the variance request.
Vice Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 6-0-1
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:14 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1457 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 — application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to a
single family dwelling (Rosa and Cheh Lee, applicants and property owners; and Nghi Thanh Le, designer)
Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier
Reference staff report dated September 22, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Ruben Hurin briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Cheh Lee, property owner, 1457 Drake Avenue, and Nghi Thanh Lee, designer, represented the applicant.
Commissioners asked the following questions:
■ Looking at foyer, creating closet, what is the space behind closet? (Cheh Lee - it will be an office
off of the bedroom where his son will compose music, closet in foyer will be moved to right to make
the closet bigger to be used as working space.)
■ Roof of addition is completely squared off, don't have sense of how it will look, what materials will
be used. (Nghi Lee - roof will match the rear of the building, original roof in back is flat, will continue
with that style.)
■ On front elevation, there is an existing wood porch off of the bedroom over the garage, it is a nice
feature and makes the front elevation, why are you proposing to fill it in and add metal railing? (Nghi
Lee - there is dry rot, propose to fill in and add steel railing to eliminate dry rot.)
■ New roof is proposed, will you use existing tiles? (Nghi Lee - No, will replace with new tile.)
Commission comments:
■ Would like to see reuse of the existing roofing material, it would be easier to remove tile, put new
membrane and replace the existing tile, it will last forever.
■ Disagree with change of look of front balcony, it should be maintained, it has detailing that is
consistent with the style, plus it's a negative space that sets up privacy from the street, don't think it
should be filled in.
■ Should reconsider the garage door, doesn't fit the look of the house, plans indicate it will be painted
white, should be stained dark or painted brown.
■ Think this project is great candidate for design review, there's a lot of work that can be done with
one of design reviewer consultants.
■ Front elevation is the key to existing design, would like to see back plane articulated in keeping with
the front elevation.
■ The elevations are a square box, more articulation is needed, the existing Spanish style can be
enhanced.
Commission comments regarding determination on floor area ratio calculations when an area is filled with
concrete to reduce the overall ceiling height so it is not considered habitable space:
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
■ Recall that in previous cases where fill was allowed to reduce habitable area, hasn't it typically been
in crawl space? — Yes.
■ Have some concerns with this particular application, in previous applications when allowed to infill,
has been sloping crawl space where not visible, this is already built out, and already contributes to
mass and bulk, should count in floor area.
■ Concur that if the space is above grade it's a cheat to fill it in, have been sympathetic with
occasions in situations with historic homes, but for the purposes of this application, the area should
count in floor area; the design reviewer could look at the overall floor area and possible solutions
that might be justification for a variance.
■ Support the determination that if the area is above grade it counts towards the FAR, can apply for a
variance and evaluate on that basis.
The applicant noted that there is substantial cost to remove and redo existing foundation, increase budget,
so it is more cost effective to add in other area, and that was what they chose to do in this case.
Public comments:
■ Daniel Chen —1453 Drake Avenue, thank you for chance to comment, this is a beautiful house, like
to see character of street maintained, concern with addition on back side, creates a 15 foot wall,
directly blocks windows in our bedroom and puts a window next to our deck.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to send this project to a Design Review consultant
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Vice Chair Terrones 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 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:37 p.m.
9. 1008 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC.,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report dated September 22, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Ruben Hurin briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Terrones opened the public comment period
James Chu, Chu Design & Engineering, represented the applicant. The tree shown to be removed has
been cut down based on the approved tree removal permit. The pole in question is a telephone pole, will
contact AT&T to see if it can be relocated, feel design fits on this block. Special permit for height is only for
the center of the home, area is labeled on the elevations.
Commission comments:
■ How old is the house being torn down? — 1922
■ Glad is a four bedroom house, should have one -car garage, could provide a bigger yard.
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
■ Appreciate seeing brick in the design, would like it to be real brick, full-size veneer.
■ Worried about two-story piece in front, would be nice if it had a base on it, maybe look at brick used
elsewhere.
■ Chimney is called out as adhered veneer, should match rest of brick, be full -wide veneer.
■ Like the way the entry sequence is set up, like stone courtyard, it helps the house flow, also like the
way the redwood trees give privacy from apartment building on El Camino.
■ Should keep the two -car garage, it provides a buffer from El Camino and the apartment building.
■ Like the courtyard and the wood planter box in front, if it was brought lower, it would help ground
that elevation.
■ Like to see articulation on front elevation two story mass, could bring window down or bring in brick
element to embellish, maybe a bay to provide articulation on front plane.
■ Applicant should work closely with neighbors to address issues with the driveway.
■ Street trees should be looked at — have arborist look at and make a recommendation, taller tree
may be appropriate.
■ The existing house is unique, is there merit to this existing design? It's different, but not special, not
stylistically consistent.
■ Interesting design, reasonable palette of materials, like that the courtyard will create negative
space.
■ Believe should be one -car garage, like to see more yard space. Two car garage adds mass and
bulk and adds forecourt area that eats up back yard.
■ Think two car garage is appropriate in this case.
■ Will the garage be used to park two cars, should rethink, also understand need for separation with
different use, but could be accomplished with reduced size garage or L-shaped garage that still
provides a screen, like to see applicant consider.
■ Concerned that with one car garage, if one is parked in garage, will second car be in street or
driveway, don't want to see the second car on the street.
■ There is a long driveway, can park several cars there, but can't dictate.
■ Concur don't need story poles in this case, small area, only two -feet over limit.
Public comments:
■ Florence Tulich, 1017 El Camino Real, apartment building next to site, protest this huge
monstrosity, beautiful home, but just too big, there is no parking on street, there is a water shortage,
why are we allowing big homes to be built, always getting notices to cut back on electricity, water,
gas, why should I have to cut back when these big houses being built.
■ John Tulich, 1017 El Camino Real, family has owned building for 44 years, carport has been there
for that time, will have to tear down, will lose parking spot, why can't they work something out to
maintain parking, the house is two stories, have balconies in apartment building will block view.
■ Robbin Sommer 1012 Balboa Avenue, live next door, concern with height already blocking view, will
block sun to kitchen, share driveway and share median strip between, want to be sure my existing
driveway is not damaged, concern with construction impact to driveway, tired of the mega
mansions, house is too big.
■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, handsome house, but too big, think since this house is sitting on a
hill, it will look high, would like to see story poles required, do like the front courtyard, it will get
used, suggest that it be trellised or covered in some fashion, that's the direction the sun hits. Since
sidewalks will have to be replaced, would like to see street trees put in.
Applicant response:
■ Disagree with request for story poles, height requested is minimal, will be 50 feet from front property
line. Prefer two -car garage, am sure new owners will prefer two car as well.
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 22, 2008
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
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 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Status Report on Peninsula Hospital Public Art Selection Process — Commissioner Brownrigg
Commissioner Brownrigg reviewed the Hospital's Public Art Selection Process, noting that he
participated in the first meeting of the selection committee held a few weeks ago. A Request for
Proposal has been sent out to the art community, did not limit it to local artists, portfolios will be
submitted in October, the pre -selection committee will winnow the proposals down to a few, then
the final proposals will be reviewed by the group.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Should review our current garage incentive regulations, rules now in place favor detached garages
to reduce mass and bulk of main house, may be a way to allow attached garages that are tucked in
and create benefits by providing more back yard.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of September 15, 2008:
There were no Planning items on the Council's agenda.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log —
Accepted.
FYI: 2015 Ray Drive — Review of required landscape changes to a previously approved design
review project —:
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Vice -Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
IN