HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.09.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
April 9, 2007
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the April 9, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Terrones and Vistica; C.
Osterling arrived at 7:02 p.m.; C. Cauchi arrived at 7:12 p.m.,
Absent: Commissioners: none
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen
Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 26, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were amended page3, paragraph 2, “Chair Brownrigg noted that
the house plans appear to be resolved completed ,… Commissioners also
noted that page 3, paragraph 5 should be amended, line 5, to read: “The
applicant submitted proposed revisions to the Commission The applicant
submitted a single copy of a reduced sheet of new proposed revisions at the
public hearing.” The minutes for the March 26, 2007 meeting were
approved as amended.
The minutes for the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting,
March 24, 2007, were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, noted concern about basements and ways to
discourage future use as second units; chimney at 1505 Balboa could be
lowered more; on Study Item on Adrian Road, feels badminton facility would
be an asset to the city.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1611 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE (INDOOR BADMINTON
FACILITY) (JEFF LEA, DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT & DESIGNER; AND JOEY LO AND
FRANCES HUANG, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Cauchi arrived at 7:12 p.m.
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked that the following items be
addressed before this item returns:
Parking
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
2
Prepare additional parking layouts one using code allowed compact parking spaces and one using
unistall parking dimensions, how would that affect the amount of parking on-site;
There is an inconsistency between the business plan included in the staff report and the staffing chart
provided for the traffic study and planning review, particularly number of employees/staff/coaches on
site during different times of day; these are not included in the parking demand study or the trip
generation study, all these people should be included as staff in these analyses;
Utility pole in the new parking area is not shown on the plans, and will affect parking layout;
Clarify how the loading dock will be used, diagram how the trucks would enter, exit and maneuver on
the site, remove any parking areas which will conflict with the truck access and loading dock access
on site;
Parking spaces are located in front of the building utility box for the site, is this allowed;
Can additional parking be located in the PUE, as the neighbor appears to do?
Because of the impact on the AM peak hour in the area, the badminton use should not begin until
9:30 a.m.;
The deficiencies in the parking and traffic study identified by staff should be addressed by the
applicant's parking/traffic consultant, city standards should be used including parking standards and
a.m. and p.m. peak hours as identified in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road and Bayfront Specific
Plans which affect the Broadway/Rollins Road intersection; the traffic study should also address the
parking and traffic impacts of badminton tournaments on the site;
ADA accessible parking should be distributed on both sides of the building, particularly close to the
ADA ramp;
Court Use
What is the maximum number of people who can use a badminton court at one time, and what is the
turn over of courts (time between uses);
Tournaments should be limited to week-ends and holidays;
Will there be bleachers or designated viewing areas inside for people to watch, will these be present
all the time or only for tournaments;
How frequently will tournaments be scheduled at this site each year, what time of year, how many
players will participate at each tournament, how many spectators will attend each tournament from
how far away will the players come (local, regional, state, international);
Site Development
The slope on the ADA ramp should be reduced to 1:15 or 1:20, to provide more useable access;
Provide a floor plan which includes the entire first floor of the building, identify where the wall
dividing the office/warehouse use from the badminton use will be located;
Description includes a gymnasium, does this mean that there will be training equipment such as
weights etc. on this premise, if so how much and where will it be located?
How will the 2,000 SF of office space be used, by whom and during what hours;
How will the future use of the office/warehouse use remaining on the site be limited to insure
compatibility with the badminton use?
Should provide a planting plan, irrigation system at the front looks good, but the plant material has
died out;
Use should be limited to badminton only, no other commercial recreation use should be allowed
because the parking demands and impacts are different;
Staff should provide the applicant with a copy of the proposed sign code regulations.
Noticing
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
3
Notice for this conditional use permit should include all property owners on Adrian Road and Adrian
Court, as well as all property owners within 300 feet as required by law.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department and the appropriate environmental document has been prepared. This item
concluded at 7:35 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
2a. 1456 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(CHIWA HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (67
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
2b. 1473 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JASON AND DENISE PAYNE,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (63
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant at 1456 Drake and would recuse himself
from voting on that item.
C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar, 1456 Drake Avenue and 1473 Cortez Avenue, based
on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff reports with
recommended conditions in each staff report and each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C.
Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. Item 2a, 1456 Drake Avenue,
passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Item 2b, 1473 Cortez Avenue, passed on a 7-0 voice
vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1605 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (CHARLES AND LARA CAMMARATA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND
SUZANNE DEHNE, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report 4/09/07, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Charles and Laura Cammarata, 1605 Quesada Way,
represented the project; discussed changes made to plans based on commission comments. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
4
Commissioners comments: prefer to see square columns on porch using 4 x 4 posts with cladding and
terminus at top and bottom with trim; specify 6x corbels above the garage; would like to see taller shrubs
such as pittosporum along the right hand side of the house; add a Bay Laurel tree between the driveway and
the walkway, can be 15 gallon size; bump out above garage could be deeper, could come out an additional 4
inches; okay to keep stone at front; findings for the variance are the unusual curvature at the front of the lot.
C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
March 27, 2007, sheets A0.0, A1.0, A2.0, A2.1, A4.0 through A4.3, A5.0, and L1.0, 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 porch columns shall be square 4 x 4 posts with cladding and terminus at the top and
bottom with trim; 6x corbels shall be used above the garage; and if the applicant chooses, the second floor
element can extend an additional 4" from the front of the house; (3) that a 15 gallon Bay Laurel tree shall
be planted at the front of the house between the driveway and the walkway to the front door; (4) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 27, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's November 29,
2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 28, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's November 27, 2006
memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 27, 2006 memo shall be met; (5) that if the structure is
demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the front setback variance as well as any other exceptions
to the code granted here will become void; (6) that the skylight above the stairwell shall be operable for
light and ventilation; (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 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 issued; (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 C. Auran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
5
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m.
4. 1141 ROSEDALE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE
AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (VINCENT C. WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND
ANDREW AND FLORENCE HASKELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report 4/09/07, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Andrew Haskell, 1141 Rosedale Avenue, represented the
project; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa spoke. Issues noted: variance requested is for roof covering, provides
better appearance overall, roof landing would provide safer exit from second floor window; commission had
requested changes to the original design that resulted in increases in floor area. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: Concern with floor area ratio variance, does not want to set precedent; difficult to
consider future changes when original project goes to the maximum FAR; agree that it is more aesthetically
pleasing; it breaks up the wall, this is not enclosed living space, can place a condition that the area
underneath the roof shall never be enclosed; roof covering facilitates safety of egress from second floor.
C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
March 28, 2007, sheets A1 through A5, 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 added roof
element at the rear of the exterior side wall shall never be enclosed to create habitable floor space; and that if
the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the floor area ratio variance granted here
will become void; (3) 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;
(4) the existing windows in the garage, dining room and living room shall remain; (5) a new window shall
be added at the second floor below the vent to the closet along the east elevation; and a built in bay type
window shall replace the pre-fabricated green house window at the kitchen; and all new windows shall be
simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions; and traditional stucco mold
shall be used on all windows except those being retained; (6) the first floor roof at the rear shall be hipped
to match the roof over the garage; (7) three landscape trees shall be added in the side yard along Rosedale
including one tree on each side of the entry walk and one closer to the driveway; (8) that prior to
scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide
architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown
on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or
contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; (9) 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; (10) 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; (11) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
6
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; (12) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 2, 2005,
memo, the City Engineer's December 15, 2005, memo, the City Arborist's December 14, 2005, memo, and
the Fire Marshal's, Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's December 5, 2005, memos, and the
NPDES Coordinator's, memo shall be met; (13) 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; (14) 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; 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 C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:12 p.m.
5. 1560 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT AND DIRECT EXIT FROM A
BASEMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT
AND CYNTHIA GILSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN &
ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Auran indicated he has a business relationship with the applicant, recused himself from the
discussion and left the chambers. C. Brownrigg lives within 500 feet of the property, recused himself, and
left the chambers. Chair Brownrigg passed the gavel to Vice Chair Deal before he left.
Reference staff report 4/09/07, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
Vice-Chair Deal opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design & Engineering, and Bob Gilson,
property owner, represented the project; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke. Issues raised: hired drainage
engineer to address drainage issues, existing fence at left and rear will be retained; concerned with future use
of a basement with outdoor egress and bathroom. There were no more comments from the floor. The public
hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: would like to see an electric gate in driveway far enough back so a car can park in
front, drainage will be required to go to the street, this will be a pleasant addition to the neighborhood.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
March 28, 2007, sheets A.1 through A.8 and L1.0, 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 an
electric gate shall be provided across the driveway at least 20 feet back from the front property line so there
is adequate room in front to park a car; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City
Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 19, 2007 memos shall be met; (4) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
7
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (5) 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; (6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor
shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (7) 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; (8) 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; (9) 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; (10) 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; (11) 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; (12) 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; (13)
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; (14) 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;
(15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (16) 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 C. Cauchi.
Vice-Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 vote (Crs.
Brownrigg and Auran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. Crs.
Brownrigg and Auran returned to the chambers and took their seats. Chair Brownrigg took the gavel back.
6. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE TITLE 22, SIGNS, TO ESTABLISH
NEW REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS - PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (20 NOTICED AND
NOTICED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES)
Reference staff report 4/09/07, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed the proposed
sign update and staff comments. Commissioners asked how news rack signage is addressed. Staff noted
that there is a separate section of the code which addresses news racks, including what can be displayed on
the news rack. Clarify that off premise advertising is currently prohibited by the existing code? Yes.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Wayne Levenfeld, representing
property at 1250 Bayshore Highway, and Dennis Zell, 1800 Ashton, spoke. Issues raised: proposed sign
code does not address all situations such as an existing pole sign advertising two properties when the
property is divided, can no longer advertise both businesses; suggest that language be added that would
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
8
grandfather such existing signs; sign at 1250 Bayshore was installed in 1960's when original hotel and
restaurant were built; be sure revised sign code addresses first amendment protected speech issues. There
were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: concerning issue of shared pole signage being limited to one business if property
is divided is a unique situation; would not want to see more clutter by adding more signs, might consider
expanding the area where pole signs are allowed to areas adjoining freeway interchanges; there appears to
be a consensus that the work done on the sign code update is well done and the current proposal should
move ahead; thank the members of the subcommittee for all the hard work they have put into this; should go
forward with ordinance and send the issue of this particular situation back for more study, including whether
a special area for pole signs should be considered near freeway off ramps.
C. Brownrigg moved to recommend approval of the negative declaration and the proposed sign code update
to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:04 p.m.
7. DETERMINATION ON THE DESIGNATION OF FRONT YARD ON CORNER LOTS WHICH CAN
AFFECT SETBACKS IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND PLACEMENT OF
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (28 NOTICED) PROJECT STAFF: LARRY ANDERSON AND
MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report April 9, 2007, with attachments. CA Anderson presented the staff report, noting two
issues to resolve: determine if a variance is required to place an accessory structure in the front setback of a
property in the area between the main entrance to the main building and the nearest lot line; and direct staff
on drafting changes to the Zoning Code to more clearly describe regulations regarding accessory structures.
Commission questions: variety of approaches in different cities some allow rear entrances, some allow
developers to choose the lot front on corner lots, and on corner lots some cities make the choice on a case by
case basis; for Burlingame on a corner lot of equal sides the initial property owner decides the primary
entrance and front setback, cannot change later, on all other lots the front is the shorter street frontage. Why
are we here, play structure does not require a building permit. CA noted that this structure was bigger and
triggered accessory structure requirements, has been reduced; concerned about precedent, not want a garage
in the front yard of a corner lot 7 feet from property line, breaking the open space line for the neighborhood
on the street frontage. There were no further questions of staff from the Commission.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dennis Zell, 1800 Ashton Drive spoke. Problem definition of
accessory structure so broad it includes play structures; permit cost discourages homeowners from
complying with the law; OK to put on the front lawn at the entrance of house (which is the long side of the
lot or side yard by city definition) but not in what is ‘commonly’ understood my side yard ( the short side of
his corner lot which is the front yard by city definition), not benefit the neighborhood; current height of
structure generally complies with code, trees will screen in future; not feel that city will create a precedent if
regulations address location of play structures only on corner lots; need hillside area construction permit, but
if not in front of house does not need conditional use permit or variance. Commissioner asked if any part of
the accessory structure would be used for ‘recreational’ purpose? Believe code is referring to living space
when making the requirement for a conditional use permit for recreational use; CA noted under current code
this structure is not in the side setback, different requirements would apply if it was. There were no further
comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
9
.
Commission comment: Feel that a play structure is a unique situation which Commission should address;
on corner lots if front is on long side and rear opposite, the resulting area available for construction will be
about 20 feet wide, a narrow house; regulation addressing structures ‘in front main structure’ was for lots
where the house was set back close to the rear property line so the garage had to be located at the front;
purpose of the design guidelines to protect the pattern of development and open space, the front of a
building does not have to include the front door; would benefit thinking through corner lots, currently
Commission believes that such construction in a front setback does require a conditional use permit and
variance, to rewrite the regulations for corner lots would be a lot of work because it would set a precedent
for the entire city; maybe the zoning should have a special consideration for play structures on corner lots;
could address practical concerns without changing the way we calculate the front of a lot or house. CA
noted could look at play structures on corner lots in the same way the Commission evaluated trellises in the
front setback; know the neighbors will not like an 8 foot to 10 foot play structure on property line, so should
not invade the side setback.
Chair Brownrigg noted in conclusion that there is a consensus that the Commission does not want to change
how the front of the house or setbacks are determined; however, the Commission should consider an
exemption for play structures on corner lots similar to regulations for trellises. This issue should be referred
to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for further consideration of how to address play structures
on corner lots including the fee structure for any required permits. CA noted that the code enforcement on
this property would be held in abeyance while the Commission considered regulatory changes. This item
concluded at 9:50 p.m.
IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 160 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; AND BRIAN AND JENNIFER BESWICK, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the project.
There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as submitted. This motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. Commissioners noted that the illustration
on Sheet 1 of the plans is for illustrative purposes only and is not to be considered a part of plans for any
future action. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
10:00 p.m.
9. 2724 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
10
ATTACHED GARAGE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING - (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND WAYNE PAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (41 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, 405 Bayswater
represented the project; Bruce and JoAnn Thompson commented. Issues noted: concerned with view
obstruction from addition of master bedroom suite, privacy. There were no other comments from the floor
and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:
because this is hillside area, have to consider views from neighboring properties, story poles will be
required to be installed and surveyed to show the impact to long distant views;
This is a hard Craftsman style in an area that does not have that style, lots of eclectic styles and ranch
styles in neighborhood, not any others like this; but think it will fit in, there are homes on Mills Canyon
that this fits in with;
Reconsider the walls along the front steps, propose massive walls, almost two feet wide, bring down in
scale, consider wood railing;
Mass of walls will be broken up by landscaping, the landscape plan shows good mix of deciduous and
evergreen;
There is area to park two cars inside the garage, but no room to park in the driveway, concerned that the
retaining wall to the left is so close, will not be able to get a car door open, driveway area is so cramped
that cars will park on the street; concur on parking;
Will be taking out a black acacia and pine in the rear, neighbor will appreciate open views, trees to be
put in should be types that will not block view, landscape plan shows new trees will be medium scale
and are spaced for enough apart so will not block views;
Give some thought to minimizing master bedroom if view is impacted; could push that wing closer to
the front; if propose different option it could be shown in story poles so not have to redo;
Staff provide contact info from Thompsons so can look at view impact when story poles are installed;
Provide a section which represents the relationship between the two properties and illustrates the view
points from adjoining property.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above
revisions have been made and plan checked and story poles have been installed and surveyed. This motion
was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed and story poles installed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
10. 1351 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING
(LYNN BETEAG, APPLICANT; TODD LEVINE, POLLACK ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; AND
STANLEY LO, PROPERTY OWNER) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
11
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Todd Levine, Pollack Architecture, 1111 Maiden Lane,
represented the project; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented. Issues noted: extent of the changes
to the façade, should spruce up, will property owner make changes if tenant does not. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:
As proposed, looks like 1950 San Joaquin Valley strip mall architecture;
Use is fine, something has to be done with fenestration to improve the storefront;
Could do something to enhance the façades; look at façades on Burlingame Avenue and do something
along those lines;
Awning being proposed replaces the same form as the roof structure that is there now, could do
something that would enhance the façade; want more than throwing up an awning and using the cheapest
storefront;
Should consider the use of exterior lighting on the façade;
Show a painted wood door for access to electrical closet right on the street, this could be changed so that
the access is from the inside;
Finish materials on blank area along Primrose are not called out;
Since the building is built right to the property line, may be limited on the finishes that could be applied,
but need to break up the painted block look; even decorative wall painting would break up the façade;
A lot of the storefronts in the area have a tile wainscot along the base below the windows, could be
carried around to the Primrose side;
Should not use the bright aluminum windows, look at other options;
Not sure if more windows are needed along Primrose, might want to look at a trellis or awning structure;
Should consider adding street trees along the Primrose frontage; and
Like the photo simulation representation of the changes, would like to see the same presentation when
the project comes back.
C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Deal.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion
passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:40 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports for review.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- City Council regular meeting of April 2, 2007
CP Monroe reviewed the actions taken by the Council at their March 26, 2007 meeting. She noted
that in approving the minutes for the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting the Council
approved the Planning Work Program for FY 2007-2008.
- FYI: 1505 Balboa Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project
Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 9, 2007
12
- FYI: 2518 Hillside Drive – changes to a previously approved design review project
Commission wished to make a comment. C. Deal, who has a business relationship with the
applicant, left the dais and the chamber. Commissioners noted that the two car garage door is
dominant on this structure, would like to see a better door including glass with mullions or a design
which is consistent with the architecture, rather than a stock roll up door.
- FYI: 904 Azalea Drive – changes to a previously approved design review project
Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
V:\MINUTES\Minutes\minutes 04.09.07.doc