HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.27.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
March 27, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the March 27, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Deal and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg (arrived 7:07 p.m.), Osterling and
Terrones
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 13, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
The minutes of the March 18, 2006 Joint City Council Planning Commission
Meeting were approved pending corrections to be submitted to staff.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK
LANDSCAPING AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MIKE PRESCOTT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND
HUNT HALE JONES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked:
Clarify the number of bedrooms in the third floor unit.
Nothing at entry to say this is where people enter and live, just garage, not in keeping with the
neighborhood; front façade should announce that this is a residence, looks industrial;
Design should not max out the development envelope, applicant should suggest where could reduce;
Right side is an 81 foot flat wall without articulation, excessive;
Little or no landscaping, only very small area at the front of real dirt to support large vegetation, explain
where the landscaping happens and add;
Street elevation does not match the character and scale of the neighborhood;
Too much building on the site, garage which covers the entire site is not acceptable;
Ten foot plate on the third floor is too high, all others are 9 feet which is appropriate;
Parking does not fit, reduce number of bedrooms in each unit;
Ramp to parking is 18 % should be reduced to 15%;
Rear elevation dominated by stairs, revise;
Right elevation window pattern is a series of three windows, pattern needs to be revised;
Guest parking should be provided in the below grade parking and designated; and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
2
Familiar with site, can be developed without variances, what are the hardships for variances and code
exceptions?
Commissioners noted: Condominium projects are held to a higher standard than rental dwellings in
Burlingame, and in this case those standards are not meet; do not see the hardship for the requested parking
variance, parking to code requirements should fit on the site; proposal is too aggressive, with too much mass
and too tall; this design includes many features which we do not encourage, buff colored with off white trim
and foam detailing pieces.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when the project has been redesigned and the information
requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
2. 347-A PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (THOMAS NEEL, APPLICANT; AND NICK DELIS COMPANY
INC., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report noting that before this location was used as a tanning
salon it was a real estate office. Commission asked staff if a conditional use permit of this type can be put
on the consent calendar. CA noted that it could. There were no other comments.
This item was set for the consent calendar when there is space. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m.
3. 1351 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (COMERICA BANK, APPLICANT; STANLEY LO,
PROPERTY OWNER; AND POLLACK ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked: if in the zoning a financial institution is allowed on Primrose is one allowed on
Howard? Staff noted in the present zoning financial institutions are allowed on Primrose but not on
Howard. Commissioner noted that for this use to be installed, all the interior walls will be removed, so the
support for the roof will go; if the roof is replaced this is a new structure which would be eligible for design
review; staff should keep a close watch on the building plans and progress of this project and require design
review if it turns out to be a new building.
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 7:32 p.m.
4. 821 COWAN ROAD, ZONED IB (INNER BAYSHORE) – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM
CONVERSION PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (ONE STOP
DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT; KONSTANTINOS DOKOS, PROPERTY OWNER; AND DOMINGUEZ
ASSOCIATES, ENGINEER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report which requested a commercial condominium conversion
of a remodeled warehouse which is still under construction. Commission asked if this was approved as a
rental. Staff noted that it was, and the project is currently under construction. He also asked if the previous
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
3
environmental impact studies still apply to this action. Staff noted that they did. There were no other
questions of staff.
Commissioners comment: no change from original approval; usually hold condominium development to a
higher standard than rental, troubled by request may not have granted variances if knew it was to be a
condominium; would the Bayfront Development Fee be different if this had been originally submitted as a
commercial condominium? Staff responded no, the Bayfront and other development fees are the same.
Does the condominium map entitle the city to more improvements? CA noted that Commission could
request a wider sidewalk at the front to comply with design guideline standards in the area, for example.
Seems the question revolves around the existing building, and the variances granted originally were based
on the retention of that building. How would parking be assigned for the condominium use because for the
rental it would be common/shared. How is it insured that the landscaping will be maintained? Owners are
aware of zoning but buyers may not be. Questions for findings seem to imply residential conversions not
commercial. Sidewalk width for Bayfront should be 8 feet, same as existing, revised plans show 5 feet.
Think need incubator space, appropriate for consent; not difficult, like to see on action to hear answers on
how transition from rental to ownership is being handled. Understand transition, CC and R's handle a lot of
those things, they are recorded with the property, so issues addressed. Do not do many condominium
conversions, good for the commission to look at one closely, like to hear from applicant.
Request revisions:
Sidewalks at the front of the site along the public right-of-way shall be 8 feet wide with improvements
consistent with the Bayfront Design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore area, to be installed by the
property owner;
Provide information on how the on-site parking spaces will be allocated among the ownerships; and
Provide information on how the property and landscaping will be maintained among the ownerships.
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 7:45 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 Auran noted that he had written requests to remove items 5A, 1416 Balboa Avenue, and 5B, 1456
Bernal Avenue, from the consent calendar. He directed that the two items be moved to the action calendar
for public hearing.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
5A. 1416 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 (CATHERINE ANDERSON, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT & EVA HUNG PROPERTY OWNERS) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2006 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
Reference staff report March 27, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
4
and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that there is a
retaining wall at the front of this property and that the proposed driveway on the plans is 10 feet wide as
measured from the face of the retaining wall. Suggested that condition 4 be amended to add wording that
the width of the driveway shall be 10 feet as measured from the face of the retaining wall along the side
property line. Commissioner asked if staff knew whose property the hedge was on. CP responded no.
There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Catherine Anderson, architect, 650 Loma Verde Avenue, Palo Alto,
represented the project. John Fulton 1412 Balboa; John Gardner, 1421 Balboa; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa,
spoke. Applicant noted that there is no intention of removing the retaining wall along property line, and
they will also retain the vines and hedge which are of concern to the neighbor. Commissioner noted that
there appears to be 9 feet plus 1.6 feet or 10.6 feet of space for the driveway. Applicant noted that the
revised plans show a 10 foot driveway, what is there, and was measured from the face of the retaining wall.
Comments from the public: measured the driveway myself, neighbors have invested a lot of time and the
applicant money in this process, do not want to be back with amendments after have begun construction, this
should be treated as a new lot; look at the right side of the property as if it were on a corner lot because a
third of it is exposed to view from the street, the ridge of the new house is 7 feet taller than the existing so
the first thing you will see is the whole length of the wall, this side has never been softened by landscaping
because the width of the driveway does not allow it; the proposed plans do not address the existing
condition; presently there are retaining walls on either side of the driveway, 9 feet wide at a height of up to 6
feet for 48 feet in length; the wall on the left holds up the front yard, the right wall is on property line, its 33
inches high and 30 feet long, there is a picket fence at the end; there is a privet along the retaining wall on
the neighbor's side; would request that the driveway be 10.5 feet with the measurement taken from the face
of the retaining wall. If necessary reduce the face of the front of the building, scale down the house to
accommodate. Has a contractor been selected for this construction? Wall was built in 1914, added bricks
on top and trees behind on my property, the picket fence is one foot inside the property line, there for dog;
do not want the wall or hedge removed and want 10 feet between the wall and the house; this house will be
175% larger than my house and there are other houses on the block smaller than my house; there should be
no variance or exception for declining height. Live across the street since 1960 before the present house on
this lot was built, concerned about the size of this house; opposed to the height exception, this house would
be an anomaly on the street, been to the Commission's past two meetings on this item, am disgusted. Is it
possible to have this lot surveyed and retain the survey markers so everyone knows where the property line
is? Commissioner noted that Charles Kavanaugh did a survey which was included in the plans, and the
property line is down the center of the wall. There were no further comments. The public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: appears from the survey map that the property line is in the middle of the
retaining wall and the wall should stay, should amend the condition as suggested by staff to keep the
retaining wall and that the plant material will be protected; driveway width should be a minimum of 9-6"
which is what the code requires, but must meet 10 feet at the front if that is what the existing wall on the
inside defines, it could be that the existing wall on the interior of the lot may need to be moved to attain
9'-6".
C. Deal moved to approve the project by resolution on the basis that the special permit for height is
necessary for the Tudor design to work, the house is well designed, may be large but has benefited by the
work with the design review consultant, with the revisions to condition 4 to retain the hedge along the
driveway and that the driveway width shall be a minimum of 9'-6" as measured from the face of the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
5
retaining wall along the property, even if this means that the inboard retaining wall must be replaced and
with the following amended conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2006, sheets A-1,A-2, A-6 and A-8,
and date stamped February 13, 2006, sheets A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7 and T-1; with wood windows with
simulated true divided lites, including an encroachment into the left side declining height envelope of 2'-6" x
19'-6" (49 SF) and a building height of 33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation (24.07'),
and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2) that the tree protection measures noted in the July 28, 2005 arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert
Company shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to commencing demolition or
construction on the subject property; 3) that all of the proposed skylights shall be tinted; 4) that the
existing hedge and retaining wall along the driveway side property line shall be retained and protected
during construction and that the new driveway shall be a minimum of 9'-6" in width as measured from the
face of the existing retaining wall along the adjacent property line, and should obtaining the minimum width
of 9'-6" require replacing the retaining wall on the inboard side of the driveway, that replacement or its
equivalent shall be required to stabilize the front yard; and planting along the property line edge between the
driveway and the house shall be limited to ground cover; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows
and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 6) 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; certifications shall be submitted
to the Building Department; 7) 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; all new windows shall be true divided
light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as
possible; 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 prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge (33'-2" as
measured from the average top of curb elevation of +24.07') and provide certification of that height to the
Building Department; 10) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall
locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11) 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; 12) 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; 13) 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; 14) that the conditions
of the City Arborist, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and
Fire Marshal’s August 2, 2005 memos shall be met; 15) 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; 16) that the applicant shall
comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance; and 17) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
6
California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
Comment on the motion: opposed, not comfortable with a minimum width driveway for a 5 bedroom house,
need adequate access; height not too tall for this style, needs a pitched roof, at the joint meeting the City
Council and Planning Commission discussed height and other issues for design review, so will be discussing
this allowance more in the future; in this case need to do more work on the driveway to be sure it is
useable; the motion is based on a 9'-6" width from the face of the retaining wall, since the other side setback
is fixed, could affect the width of the house, so they may be back before the Commission.
Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve this project with the amended condition that
the property line retaining wall and vegetation it supports be protected and the driveway be a minimum of
9'-6" in width as measured from the face of the existing property line retaining wall. The motion passed on
a 4-1-0-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting and C. Osterling and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
5B. 1456 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (TONY LEUNG, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JAMES CHU, DESIGNER) ( 66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report March 27, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe received clarification
from the designer noting that the roof over the bay window at the living room will be copper, condition #1
will be amended to reflect this clarification.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Tony Leung, applicant and property owner, was available to answer
questions.
Mary Frances Nappi, 1452 Bernal Avenue, noted that she met with the applicant to discuss the issues listed
in her letter dated March 27, 2006, feel that the issues about retaining and protecting the existing hedge and
ivy at the property line can be worked out with the applicant; there is no agreement about the proposed
balcony at the rear of the house, would like to see a decorative wrought iron balcony off the master bedroom
instead of a full balcony, feel privacy will be lost with a full balcony, will leave it up to the Commission for
direction on the balcony. Applicant noted that he would like to have the balcony as proposed since it will
add value to the property. Commission noted that the freestanding trellises, as requested by the neighbor,
would help to provide privacy to the neighbor's rear yard and pool. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Commission should not get involved with the trellises, this should be worked out
between the applicant and neighbor, concern about drainage will be addressed by the Public Works
Department at time of building permit submittal, should add a condition for protection of the existing hedge
and ivy in the neighbor's yard.
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 7,
2006, sheets A.1 through A.7, L1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that the roof material above
the bay window in the living room shall be copper; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
7
building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the existing hedge and ivy between this property
and the property at 1452 Bernal Avenue shall not be disturbed or removed before, during or after
construction; the existing hedge and ivy shall be adequately protected during construction; 3) that any
changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a
dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review; 4) 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; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) 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; all windows shall be simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood
mullions and shall contain a stucco-mould trim; 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 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; 8)
that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and
set the building footprint; 9) 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; 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 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; 12) 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. 13) that the conditions of the Recycling
Specialist's December 28, 2005 memo, the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s January 3, 2006
memos, the Fire Marshal's January 4, 2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator’s January 6, 2006 memo
shall be met; 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; 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
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and
Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
6. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK
ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
8
(CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 27 AND MARCH 13, 2006, PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING)
Chair Auran recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the property. He stepped
down from the dais and left the chambers.
Reference staff report March 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if an
encroachment permit is required for landscaping within the city's right-of-way; CP Monroe noted that in this
case an encroachment permit might be required because planting the shrubs in front of the retaining wall in
the city's right-of-way is a development requirement and condition of approval for the project. Commission
asked if the changes to the landscaping in the front yard were approved by staff; yes, the removal of the
Juniper and construction of a wall was approved administratively because there were no significant trees or
proposed landscaping removed.
Vice-chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney representing the property owner;
Con Brosnan, property owner; and Mark Robertson, designer; were available to answer questions, noted that
shrubs will be planted in front of the retaining wall, agree with what the city wants planted, can also plant
vines in front of the retaining wall on his property, do not what to come back to the Commission if an
encroachment permit is not granted. Commission noted that the original Junipers were removed at the front
of the lot, asked why there are no trees proposed in the front yard; designer noted that the revised Landscape
Plan, sheet 2, date stamped March 17, 2006, notes two new 24-inch box size trees to be planted in the front
yard. Designer apologized for not attending the previous Planning Commission meetings, there was some
confusion with what the Building Department wanted to see, Building Department wanted a separate
submittal for the retaining wall and changes to the landscaping, understood that this review is only for the
changes to the house.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, asked why the applicant waited so long to approach the Planning
Department with the changes to the landscaping in the front yard, and then waited from November, 2005 to
February, 2006 to propose the changes to the house after it was built, why was the amendment not proposed
before construction started; concerned with removal of the Junipers, rats now moved to the property next
door, removal of the Junipers is suspicious indicating a certain kind of arrogance. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: think the revisions are clear now, wasn't clear before because the applicant was not
present to answer questions, proposed changes are acceptable and consistent with the original approval.
C. Vistica 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 March 17,
2006 (revised site plan, landscape plan and front elevation), March 1, 2006 (revised front elevations),
February 14, 2006 (sheets 4, floor plans, and 5, elevations), and of April 14, 2005 (sheets 2, survey, and 6,
sections); and as amended by the designer Mark Robertson’s letters of April 18, 2005, addressing that the
roof ridge lines shall all be covered by shingles and that the windows have been upgraded to “Eagle” wood
windows with individual pane true divided light windows with doors to match; May 13, 2005, addressing
that the windows shown on the floor plans match the windows drawn on the elevations; March 1, 2006
addressing that the columns will be 6” box columns; and March 17, 2006, addressing additional landscaping
in the front yard and on the public right-of-way; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that all the provisions of the Mayne Tree Expert
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
9
Company, Inc. report (date stamped March 2, 2005) concerning the removal of the two existing Birch trees
in the rear yard of the property (one 16.4” in diameter, the other 19.1” in diameter) shall be met and
protected tree removal permits shall be obtained from the parks department; 3) that if required an
encroachment permit for the installation of shrubbery in the public right-of-way in front of the retaining wall
shall be obtained prior to the Building Division scheduling a final inspection; and if an encroachment permit
is not allowed, the property owner shall plant and maintain vines on his property at the foot of the wall
which will cover the face of the retaining wall; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or
second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 5) 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; certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; 6) 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; all new windows shall be true divided light
wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible;
7) 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; 8) 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; 9) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection
a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 10) 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; 11) 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; 12) 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.
13) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s January 31, 2005 memos, the
Fire Marshal's February 21, 2006 and February 1, 2005 memos, the NPDES Coordinator’s February 1, 2005
memo, the Recycling Specialist's February 22, 2006 and February 2, 2005 memos and the City Arborist’s
February 2, 2005 and March 15, 2005 memos shall be met; 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; 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 shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion
was seconded by C. Deal.
Vice-chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Chair
Auran abstain; Cers. Osterling and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 8:45 p.m.
Chair Auran returned to the dias.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
10
7. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PROJECT
(JIM TOTAH, APPLICANT; SFL PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER; AND SUHEIL SHATARA,
ARCHITECT) (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 27, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if an
encroachment permit will be required for the awnings and the heaters. SE Bell noted that an encroachment
permit will be required and that the Public Works Department will be reviewing the type of awnings and
heaters proposed as part of the encroachment permit. Commission asked if the proposed wall mounted
heaters can be used with an awning? Plr Hurin commented that the Fire Marshal noted that a minimum
separation is required between the heaters and the awning, the required separation depends on the awning
materials and the type of heater, these requirements will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal.
Commission asked staff if the windows extend to the ground or if the tile base was installed as required in
the original approval; Plr Hurin noted that the tile base was installed as originally approved and that the
windows extend to the top of the tile base, not to the sidewalk. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Jim Totah, applicant and Guy Limson of Western Awnings &
Canvas, were available to answer questions. Commission noted that there have been a lot of changes since
the original approval, awning detail shown on the plans does not appear to depict existing conditions, not
sure that the plans being reviewed depict what will actually be installed. Commission asked if the wood
strip above the windows will be hidden when the awning is installed; applicant noted that the awning will be
attached to the concrete wall above the wood strip, the wood strip will remain. Applicant noted that he feels
the proposed retractable awning will fit in with the building better than the fixed awning. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built with an operable steel sash window system and tile base, as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 2, 2005, sheets A1.1, A2.2, A2.2 and A3.2, and
sheets 1 and 2, date stamped February 24, 2006, and shall adhere to the color sample of the exterior
materials of the building date stamped August 9, 2005; any changes to the colors including the awnings shall
require review by the Planning Commission; 2) that the existing tile base along the bottom edge of the
building, including on the concrete wall on the California Drive facade, shall be retained, repaired and
restored as much as possible; new tile shall be chosen to match the existing tile; 3) that this conditional
use permit amendment for a full service food establishment shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission
six months after the opening date of the business to review any traffic and parking issues which may emerge
from this use; 4) that the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a baseline parking study
within six months of the effective date of the conditional use permit; within six months of the opening date
of the food establishment business on the site, the applicant shall submit a second parking study for review
by the Planning Commission. The permit shall be reviewed and the applicant required to proposed
mitigations if there is a substantial degradation in the availability and use of parking in the area attributable
to a food establishment business at this site or at any time upon complaint; 5) that any changes to the size
or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review; 6) that this business location occupied by a full service food establishment, with 1,187 SF of on-
site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon
approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall
be met in order for a change to be approved; 7) that the 1,187 SF area of on-site seating of the full service
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
11
food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an
amendment to this conditional use permit; 8) that this full service food establishment may be open Sunday
through Thursday, from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and on Friday and Saturday from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m., with a
maximum of 12 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees on site at any one time, including the
business owner and manager; 9) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by
the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to
the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
10) that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty
(50) feet of all frontages of the business, including the parking lot to the rear of the site; and that the
business shall provide on site a trash room designed and sized to accommodate all garbage, trash and
recycling from the business as required by the City and BFI; all trash/garbage shall be removed on a
schedule established with the Health Department; 11) that an amendment to this conditional use permit
shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 12) that there shall be no food sales
allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 13) that if this
site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be
replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 14) that the conditions of the City
Engineer’s March 2, 2006 and June 28, 2004 memos, the Fire Marshal's February 27, 2006 and June 28,
2004 memos, and the Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist’s June 28, 2004, memos shall be
met; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California
Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling
and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1525 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES WONG,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JOHN AND ROSA VEGA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (43
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Wong, architect, was available to answer questions.
Commission asked the architect to explain how the proposed house will fit in with the existing
neighborhood; the architect noted that this site is located in a semi-commercial/residential area close to El
Camino Real and the downtown commercial area, proposed design follows the character of houses in the
neighborhood. Commission commented:
Roof plan is not consistent with building elevations, plans are not drawn correctly, with inconsistencies
cannot be sure what the project is;
Proposed style is inconsistent with the style of the neighborhood, this neighborhood has many existing
beautiful houses, since most of the roof will be removed there is potential for this house, great
opportunity to become compatible with the neighborhood;
Project needs to be consistent in style throughout, proposal is too eclectic, need to define one style and
carry it through the entire house;
Poor integration of turret and how it is placed over the front porch, turret is out of place, a gable end
might be a better option;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
12
Large stucco wall on the Right Elevation needs articulation, this façade is too flat and the second story is
not integrated well;
Plans indicate a typical three-inch wood mold around the windows, however window details are not
drawn, don't know what type of window is being proposed, need more information, need to draw sash on
windows and put appropriate notes regarding window type and molding on plans;
New roof design needs to fit in better with the neighborhood, should stay away from 1:12 and 3:12 roof
pitches, special permit would allow extra height for a steeper roof pitch;
Second floor gable end is awkward, window in this gable end also looks awkward;
Project needs better massing, need to rethink the massing and placement of the second floor;
Not sure if stone molding trim is appropriate for this design;
Suggest that the architect carefully study the residential design guidelines, will help with this project;
Consider using a stone railing or baluster at the front of the house;
Rafter tails at the front porch is a nice design feature, however the feature is not carried throughout the
house, removes some of the existing charm of the house;
Left elevation needs to be reworked; and
Consider using a different material for the railings at the rear of the house, material and design of the
railings needs to be more elegant.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the
direction and comments given. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Terrones
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05
p.m.
9. 1801 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BO AND KAREN PARKER,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER (52 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal recused himself from this discussion because he has a business relationship with the applicant. He
stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Staff noted that a letter expressing concerns with the
project, dated March 27, 2006, was submitted by Agnes and Bernadette Lo, 1805 Ray Drive. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Fabian Bonalda, representing the property owner, was available
to answer questions. Commission noted that the designer has done a terrific job with the design of the
project, this is a good example of a house which is designed to the maximum FAR but fits in well with the
neighborhood. Regarding the concern shared by the adjacent neighbor at 1805 Ray Drive, the Commission
noted that the sunlight should not be affected because of the orientation of the houses to the sun; then also
noted that there are few windows proposed along the right side of the house so privacy should not be an
issue for the adjacent neighbor at 1805 Ray Drive. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
13
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested changes
have been made and plan checked:
Identify new skylight material, add note to indicate new skylight will be tinted;
Existing garage door should be augmented, consider a carriage style design with a row of decorative
glass across the upper portion of the door;
There is a knee brace missing on the first floor gable at the front of the house, looks awkward, consider
modifying the design to add a knee brace to balance out the gable;
Concerned with the proposed one-inch trim outlining the front porch, trim detail should be enhanced to
appear visually as if it supports the header above porch column, should be more than just a corner trim
detail, this solution may affect the need for or position of knee brace above; and
There is a well traveled pedestrian path to the left of this property, children use it to get to Lincoln
Elementary School and Ray Park, concerned with pedestrian safety during construction, direct staff to
add a condition that this pathway be maintained clear of any construction debris, equipment, staging,
portable restrooms, etc. Condition should also include that visibility at and along the pathway shall be
maintained at all times so that pedestrians using the pathway can be seen.
This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on motion: Commission asked if the conditions of approval should stipulate no demolition or
construction noise during hours children are using the pathway to get to and from school; because of the
nature of the construction, mostly sawing and hammering with no major equipment, don't feel construction
should be limited to specific hours other than those already required by the City.
Chair Auran 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 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining; Cers. Osterling and
Torrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 9:20 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the dias.
10. 1541 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KAREN AND
JAKE ODDEN, PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MCCOPPIN STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER)
(55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Ned White, architect and Jake Odden, property owner, were
available to answer questions. Commission noted that the architect has done a great job with the design and
integrating the second floor, discussed the roof over the porte cochere and how it affects the mass. There
were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: have just one suggestion, lower the roof over the porte cochere on the North
Elevation, would look better and help reduce the massing.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
14
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested changes have
been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Auran 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 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Terrones absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
11. 2209 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
MILLER DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, was available to answer questions, noted
that the massing is similar to a colonial style, but can be described as a four-square arts and crafts style,
submitted photographs of houses similar in style; reason special permit for height and declining height
envelope is because of the four foot upward slope of the lot from the front of the property to the rear.
Commission noted that the architect has done a nice job with the design, only 33% lot coverage is proposed,
the attention to detail helps soften the massing, feel that the project is compatible with the street and
neighborhood. Commission noted that this house with the details is beautiful, however the proposed design
fits in better on streets such as Bayswater Avenue or Chapin Avenue, but not on this street; a good example
of this fit issue is the modern style house on the 1400 block of Montero Avenue, it's a beautiful house on its
own but not appropriate when in context with the rest of the block. There were no other comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Commission made a good point about design style and context of the
neighborhood, however there are several houses in this neighborhood which will change in the near future,
don't think this project will stand out that much given that the character of the neighborhood will be
changing, there are several existing houses similar in style, such as Dutch colonial, on Montero Avenue and
Hillside Drive; this is a boxy design but it is mitigated with an 8'-0" plate height on the second floor,
reduced lot coverage and use of different materials on each floor, the fenestration works well around the
house.
C. Cauchi made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is proposed with no
changes. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: An important point was made regarding design and context of the neighborhood,
am persuaded that the neighborhood will look different in five to eight years, neighborhood will be
significantly improved; in this case on-site landscaping is important, the two existing Sycamore trees in the
planter strip and two proposed Michelia trees in the front yard will help this project; upward slope on the lot
is justification for special permit for height and declining height envelope, refreshing to see the design of the
house not dictated by the declining height envelope; there are many different styles in this neighborhood,
don't think this house will stand out that much.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is
proposed without changes. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal dissenting; Cers. Osterling
and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
15
concluded at 9:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
16
Chair Auran called for a five minute break. Commission reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
12. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW
STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, AND SIX VARIANCES FOR: LOT COVERAGE,
FRONT SETBACK, REAR SETBACK, PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS, DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND
COMMON OPEN SPACE MORE THAN 10' ABOVE GRADE, FOR A 25-UNIT, 7-STORY
CONDOMINIUM STRUCTURE (PAUL BOGATSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND
DAN IONESCU ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, ARCHITECT) (16 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Cers. Auran, Deal and Brownrigg noted that they had
met with the architect to discuss this project, including the sewer situation. Commission asked staff why a
driveway for a multiple family development is required to be 12 feet? Staff noted that when more than 30
cars are parked in a lot the code requires two 12 foot driveways or one 18 foot driveway in order to insure
that there is adequate space for entering and exiting given the number of trips in and out which could occur
at the same time and also in an emergency the 12 foot driveway could be used for both in ingress and egress;
when there are fewer than 30 cars, one 12 foot driveway is required because the volume of traffic is less. It
was also noted that 12 feet is a standard travel lane on a roadway; and sight lines can be a problem at corners
where driveways are much narrower. Would a building of this size and shape be allowed under the
previous
C-3/R-4 zoning? Yes, about the same, the required front setback would be a little greater, the height would
be allowed with a conditional use permit as this is, the rear setback would be 15 feet to the first floor and 20
feet to floors above. Could driveway be moved over to one side? Staff noted the applicant could answer.
Difficulty in past getting approval for a multiple family building over 35 feet, this is a change from the old
zoning, plan encourages taller buildings. When will the type of CEQA document be decided? CP noted that
the type of CEQA document would be determined after the technical studies are identified in the initial
study are completed.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Dan Ionescu, architect and Paul Bogatsky, property owner and
project sponsor, were available to answer questions, noted will not give formal presentation and will do this
the way applicants usually do it here in Burlingame. Could you explain about the sewer and the
landscaping? There is a public sewer line on this site which requires a 10 foot easement and a lot of trees on
the site, how did you balance? This neighborhood will change a lot in the next few years, look across the
street at the hospital which is a big building, did all could to save existing trees, managed to save those on
the left side and at the rear. For the sewer looked at option of sinking the garage below grade, then
discovered that the sewer line is active and must be retained in a 10 foot easement, there is a 54 inch storm
line in Trousdale which affects the depth of the sewer line, so it cannot be buried lower to accommodate a
below grade garage, there is an easement noted on paper, but none in fact; have no money to relocate
easement on adjacent properties, so dedicated 10 feet to sewer easement and put garage at grade level.
Applicant is willing to determine the quality of the sewer line after the project is approved, unwilling to
spend the money for that determination if the project is not going ahead. Tried to relocate sewer off the site,
but required 500 feet of new sewer line, too expensive. What about the trees? Saved as many as could, all
Cyprus were saved. You are asking for a number of variances, why? They are all related to the sewer line,
the site coverage is less than 50% if you take the above grade lid off the garage, have used the added area on
top of the garage lid for common open space. Setback variances, if the garage was lower the steps at the
front of the building would not be an encroachment into the front setback. Design meets the intent of the
requirements of the code, lifted the building to rise over the sewer, it improves the design by provided more
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
17
open space; steps at the front are just to access the first floor. What about parking layout? Have designed
thousands of parking stalls, the standards all over the United States are smaller than Burlingame, do not see
need for additional foot next to a wall, meet the standard 9' x 20'. Have provided a canopy over the front
entrance which is in the front setback, will remove if you wish. Building is within the height allowances,
driveways can be enlarged from 9' to 9'-6" if the trees are removed, lot coverage is increased to provide
more open space.
Commissioner's questions of applicant: Did you consider an 18 foot driveway on one side (where the sewer
is) so enter and exit from same side, what are the advantages of putting the garage underground? City
Engineer said that needed access to the manhole cover and access needs to be uncovered because of the
height of the truck which has a boom on the top. Commissioner noted Engineering staff felt that could leave
the 10 foot easement alone and build on the other side, it appears that if build outside of the easment and put
the parking in the ground, all the variances go away; it does not make sense to discuss these variances, was
told at meeting by applicant all complies, but now see that it doesn't. Applicant noted that this proposal is a
better maneuver for the truck. Commissioner asked what right the applicant has to use the sewer easement
for access. CA noted has not been involved in this particular issue, generally city must grant an
encroachment permit for use of a sewer easement, nothing can block the ability to access, this appears to be
a one way access so truck will have to back. Sr. Engineer noted that city would require the sewer capacity
study so know condition and capacity of line. CP noted that the impact of future development in the area
would have to be determined as well, so the ultimate size of the line and the service demands could be
understood. Can the angle of the sewer line be changed? Applicant noted that because of the other pipes in
Trousdale, they are stuck with the current elevation of the sewer line. Can't go under the storm main with a
sewer line because of the sewer connection on the other side. How many properties does the sewer line
serve? About 4. Commission summarized, that raising the building and the variances required help the city
get better access to our own sewer line? Sounds more as if took advantage of the sewer easement to provide
access to the garage and lift the building up. If dig down next to the sewer easement, less parking and
remove all the trees. Applicant noted 18 foot driveway at the front and a separate easement would take
street frontage for cars, would increase curb-cuts, the present proposal makes the building look nice for
people.
Commission questions continued: If garage underground, the open space would be less than 6 feet above
grade, the proposed deck is 10 feet in the air, will look over all the adjoining properties, not favor the 5 foot
rear set back variance, feel encroaching on adjoining properties. Undergrounding the garage would
eliminate this issue. Applicant noted that by using landscaping the people would not be able to walk to the
edge of the open space on the deck over the parking. Feel that the city has made the zoning flexible in this
area, but this applicant is asking even more and that is a problem.
Comments from the public: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa. Concerned about the driveway and the size of the
parking spaces, city has standard and should be met; on a previous single family application this evening
with a drive way next to a retaining wall, Commission required a wider driveway, there is always going to
be a problem, should stick to the parking standards, cars are not going to get smaller. Height is a concern,
the new Peninsula hospital is not as tall as the present hospital, they are building new structures nearby in
Millbrae which are 65 feet tall, look massive, this would be better if you took two floors off. This is a windy
place, know from experience on the Bayfront that wind can cause problems for pedestrians; the hospital is
investing a lot of money in pedestrian pathways nearby, want to be sure not making them less useable by
changing wind patterns; should do a wind study on Trousdale. Would also note that residents of the
Trousdale area were concerned recently about the height of antenna on the roof of a single story building,
should be concerned about height.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
18
Commissioners continued questions: what will the building type be? Steel frame. Will the podium be
concrete? The garage will be type I, and the building above type II. Concerned about the mass of stucco on
this building. Applicant noted that there is not much context presently in this area. Think a more modern
design would be too aggressive. Will you use EFS? No. Real stucco, stone or whatever. Will the HVAC be
central or individual? Recommend a central boiler for heat, air conditioning unit will be hidden within the
unit, don't know yet if there will be air conditioning. Applicant noted met with several groups, tried to meet
with those on the north side, told on phone no problem. FAA has approved this proposed height.
Commissioner noted a concern with the narrow corridors within the building. Would like them to be wider,
more useable, asked to have building check corridor requirements. There were no further comments from
the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission commented on the environmental issues:
Concerned about the shadow pattern caste on adjacent properties.
Concerned about the treatment of the street, TW district tries to create a pedestrian active street, with
wider sidewalks, how will raising this building off the ground impact the street and pedestrian
environment (an aesthetic question).
Use of the access easement by the city, is the design safe, what will the impact of the city's use be on the
access to the garage and safety.
Need a wind study to determine impact of height on the pedestrians.
Impact on traffic and patterns of movement.
Evaluate what the impacts are of making parking spaces 2 feet shorter and one foot narrower next to a
wall. Address the precedent issue, if allow here in a new building how deny these dimensions to all
other applicants; include evaluation of the impacts of the narrow driveways and the number of shortened
parking spaces.
Need an arborist report and analysis of the condition of the existing trees including those to be retained,
their longevity after construction e.g. at what point are they in their life span, can they be protected
during construction, and what would be required, including during replacement of the sewer line.
Discuss the sewer problem, size of line needed with the project and cumulatively (when area built out),
and how that will affect easement, trees, driveway use and blockage by public works' frequency of
access; sewer study should include relocation of the line, determining what is involved.
Environmental impact of the height of the open space deck, impact on bulk, visibility into and by from
other properties, impact on neighbors to rear and influence on properties to the rear.
In visual analysis should consider the recently approved project to the west, also would like some kind
of idea about future projects in the area and the cumulative visual effect, create visual blocks relative to
zoning to get a sense of ultimate density.
Distant views from the hills looking down on the project.
Comments: recognize that 50 units to the acre will mean taller buildings; the front canopy is a nice design
element; concerned with the number of variances especially with a new building, seems many could be
designed out; architect has done a nice job of articulating the building above the podium.
Reopened the Public Comment: Applicant noted that he understood that the sewer analysis would not be
required until the project had been approved by the Planning Commission; this is a costly study and do not
want to do it now, do not think that the size of the line would affect the trees. CA sewer issue needs to be
worked through, the initial study and environmental document will drive this resolution. There were no
other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
19
Commission comments on design:
Appearance of mass and bulk seems to be broken up enough, windows.
Concerned about the use of the podium in the design, not what expected with the TW design guidelines.
Better roof plans which show all the stuff on the roof and how it will be screened or designed into the
roof structure.
Stucco is appropriate, but unusual in a building this tall, might consider a pre-cast skin, work better.
Street frontage should be treated as a continuum from what is happening from the project to the west and
increased pedestrian activity, transition needs to be addressed.
Common open space should be provided with a functioning rest room and sink area.
Would like the variances to go away, lower the garage, conform to city's parking requirements, eliminate
the rear setback variance. No reason and findings to grant a variance for a new building.
Important to bring the building envelop down.
Want to look closely at design when the revised project returns and focus on design details at that time.
Chair Auran noted that there was no consensus to direct this project to a design reviewer and the
environmental consultant and staff had made note of the environmental issues raised. Staff noted that the
design changes should be made before the environmental document is completed so that there will not need
to be a continual series of revisions to both the site plan and the studies in the environmental report. The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of March 20, 2006.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of March 20, 2006.
- FYI – 1512-1516 Floribunda Avenue –changes to approved residential condominium project.
Commission discussed the proposed changes, concerned about the removal of the French doors which
made that corner inviting, also concerned when reviewed originally about the small size of the public
spaces, not want to see the lobby made any smaller; unit 2 has changed a lot, windows need to be looked at.
Asked the architect to address these issues and return with a letter discussion. FYI was not approved.
- FYI – 1031 Morrell Avenue –change to approved design review project.
There were no comments on this request. It was approved.
- FYI – 1216 Drake Avenue – As-built changes to an approved design review project.
There were no comments on this request. It was approved.
- FYI – Revised City Council Calendar
CP Monroe noted that C. Vistica's term is up. The regular application process will be followed. Council
has set a closing date of April 14, 2006, for applications, they will interview the following week, and
appoint at their first meeting in May. Commission chair will rotate at the Commission's first meeting in
May. City Council will have two study sessions this week, Tuesday on the platforms at the Burlingame
train station and Wednesday on the proposed Anza Point North and Rollins Road zoning.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006
20
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Deal, Secretary