HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.28.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
August 28, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the August 28, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erica Strohmeier;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 14, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Gironi, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Commented on 1548 Newlands, an FYI on
tonight's agenda. At last meeting commission expressed concern about the
cumulative impact on design of a number of decisions made during
construction needing a public hearing, a similar changed project on
Occidental is on tonight's agenda, concerned about the design impacts of the
changes to the porch and the removal of the kitchen door creating a blank
wall, are these changes the result of an impending sale e.g. new owner
changing house to suite after the public hearing? Chair Brownrigg noted that
the Commission cannot engage in discussion about FYI items, and that is the
reason for no response.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
Chair Brownrigg noted that before the Commissioners engage in reviewing tonight's agenda, he wanted to
confirm that all the commissioners had visited each project site during. All commissioners acknowledged
that they had visited each site under discussion.
1. 743 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE
LOCATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DAVID MELLOR,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; REMY'S QUALITY CONSTRUCTION, DESIGNER)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
ZT Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioner clarified the location of the exit
door from the garage into the rear yard. There were no further comments.
C. Deal noted that a garage had been at this location on this site since 1942, so the neighbors are adjusted to
it so this should not be an issue, he then moved to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the next
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 28, 2006
2
consent calendar when the submittal is read and there is space. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This
item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
2. 1130 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE SEATING AREA, HOURS OF
OPERATION AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RALPH T. BEHLING,
PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked:
Clarify the hours of operation, will the store be open from 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m.?
If open until midnight, how will the noise impact on immediately adjacent residential uses from the
outdoor patio be managed, especially if the outdoor area is used by a group?
How will the change in grade from the patio area into the Walgreen's parking lot be managed at the
exit area? Need a safe egress.
Does the applicant have an easement to exit onto the Walgreen's parking lot?
Provide information on the use permit for Chez Alexander, how will this use affect that business
operation and the previous conditions of approval?
How will fire safety be addressed, control the location of the tables in the rear patio area, where will
the materials now stored in the rear area be placed?
Will the exhaust fan and vent be screened from view from Broadway?
Will the Walgreen's lot be impacted by parking from this business? How will people be directed
where to park?
C. Osterling moved to place this item on the action calendar when all the information has been provided,
any revisions to plans checked and there is space. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote to place this item on the action calendar when the requested
information has been provided and checked; and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a 7-0
voice vote. The item concluded at 7:20 p.m.
3. 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AUTO STORAGE IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT (MARC ROCHETTE, D & M TOWING,
APPLICANT; ARTHUR MICHAEL TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
MAUREEN BROOKS
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked:
Access to this site presents a problem, neighbors are in disagreement, and there appears to be a
sprinkler riser which impedes the 12 foot driveway access on the 1704 Rollins site which will cause
vehicles using this driveway to cross over to the portion of the driveway on 1670 Rollins Road, how
is this going to be addressed? How will the applicant define that there is 12 feet clear the length of
the driveway access?
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 28, 2006
3
It is suggested that there be a condition that no car-carriers be allowed on this site, however D&M
Towing's letter indicates that they will occasionally have car carriers on the site? Please clarify
where car-carriers will unload if not on the drainage easement?
Clarify the difference between the regulatory standards for this use in the drainage area in the M-1
zone and in the RR zone.
How will inoperable vehicles be moved in the event of a flooding in the drainage easement?
For what reason is D&M Towing placing cars in this area, because a vehicle was in an accident or
towed for an infraction?
Understand the impacts of moving cars in and out at a certain time each day, what will be the traffic
impact (number and frequency) of moving towed cars in at any time of day? During what hours of
the day, and days of the week will towed cars be removed? How will the standards (times) given be
enforced by D&M Towing.
There is presently a trailer in the drainage area; how is it being used? Will it be removed?
C. Terrones moved to place this item on the action calendar when all the questions have been answered and
plans modified as required, including addressing access issues. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the action calendar when the
questions have been answered and the access issues addressed; and there is space on the agenda. The
motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:30 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.
4a. 1400 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE
SEATING AREA OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (CONNIE MORRIS, BROADWAY
GRILL, INC., APPLICANT; ERIC HOLM, CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; NICK KOROS/TSTN
PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
4b. 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR ANTENNA EXCEPTION
TO INSTALL WALL MOUNTED ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING BUILDING (OMNIPOINT/T-
MOBILE, APPLICANT; MSA ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING, INC., ARCHITECT; 3 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
4c. 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED IB – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE (NUMBER OF COMPACT SPACES) TO ALLOW AN
EXISTING TENT STRUCTURE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PARK AND
FLY PROGRAM AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (HYATT REGENCY SFO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER) (16 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project at 1400 Broadway so would abstain from voting on
that item. C. Terrones noted he too would recuse himself from 1400 Broadway because of a business
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 28, 2006
4
association.
C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar 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. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve item 4a, 1400 Broadway, and it passed 5-
0-2 (Cers. Deal , Terrones abstaining); and items 4b, 3 California Drive, and 4c, 1333 Bayshore Highway,
and they passed 7-0, on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
5. 1548 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK
ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; WILLIAM AND SANDRA LINDSELL, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report August 28, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg noted
that there were a number of letters regarding this project at their desks from the applicant and neighbors this
evening. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Roberts, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo; and
Sandy Lindsell, property owner, represented the project. Noted that the window change was the result of a
persuasive window representative, the project was designed by another architect and he is just following
through to the end of the project; client was incredulous that the project was shut down for this reason, and
would like to finish it as soon as possible. Commissioner asked when did the architect hear about the
window change? After the job was shut down, did have some discussion then about whether should go back
and do the job the way it was approved or wait until the end and do an 'as built' FYI. Commissioner noted
that people have been doing a lot of changes which affect the way an approved project looks, and most
people come in when they decide to make the changes and get them approved before they undertake the
work, that way they can continue construction up to the point where they need to do the change. Noted
change to the window on the front of the house, changed two separate windows to a picture window;
applicant responded that felt the front of the house would be less busy with a second window which
mimicked the living room window. Commissioners noted that this change was unfortunate, the sum of the
other changes is good. Applicant noted that all the window boxes were removed, did not intend to have 22
window boxes; they were a mistake in the architect’s use of auto cad. Commissioner noted issue with this
request is the preponderance of changes. Note that the drawing on the plans does not look like the window
in the field, the window in place looks as if it touches the eave of the porch, e.g. taller and closer to the 6x6
out-rigger, a single panel window always looks bigger than two or three. Architect noted that as built the
eaves are slightly wider than shown on the plans; it was noted that a gutter would be added to the eaves.
Windows replaced on the left side look awkward, previously was a prominent feature. For chimney
clearance is the fireplace gas; no, it is a working fireplace and is 10 feet away from the roof as required.
Architect noted the side with the box windows will be covered by a large evergreen tree.
Comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Overall a nice remodel, from across the street
the second floor windows look OK, like the way the house looks when checked out the plans, improvement
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 28, 2006
5
to eliminate the window boxes, also improvement since they would require a lot of maintenance. There
were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comments: quite a few changes to this building, am alarmed by the process followed, should
have come to the Commission before the inspector saw the problems in the field and put a stop work order
on the construction. Agree that a couple of the new windows are out of scale, but over all do not constitute a
deal breaker. Support despite the number of changes, overall the project is better, however, currently there is
a scratch coat on the exterior of the building, when the surface is finished with a smooth stucco surface all
over the building will look stark, especially with these changes; would recommend a shingle exterior finish
would look better. Important to note that the materials of the finish are important.
C. Cauchi noted that in total the cumulative changes are good, botched the window on the front, out of scale,
do not know what the tree will do for the appearance of the side of the house; message here should be 'better
to ask permission, than forgiveness', but will move for approval of the changes by resolution with
amendment to condition one to include the originally approved plans (date stamped May 5, July 26 and July
27, 2005 as originally approved) with the corrections shown on sheets 5 and 6 of the plans date stamped July
26, 2006, and with the following conditions in the staff report:
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
May 5, 2005, sheets 1,2, 2.1, 3-6 and 10-11 and date stamped July 27, 2005, sheet 1.1, as amended by the
plans date stamped July 26, 2006, sheets 5 and 6, 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 a building
permit shall not be issued until the revised plans have been stamped and signed by a licensed civil engineer;
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) 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 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; 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; 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 the conditions of the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's May 6, 2005, memos, the Chief
Building Official's, Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's May 9, 2005, memos, shall be met; 9)
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; 10) 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 11) 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. Vistica.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 28, 2006
6
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the design review with
the amended condition to include the July 2006 revisions to pages 5 and 6. The motion passed on a 7-0.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 1257 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (VADIM MELIK-
KARAMOV, VMK DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROSTISLAV POLYAK,
PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project. He left the dais and chambers.
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked that the FAR calculations
should be reviewed, the total allowed should drop by 400 SF since the garage is attached with the project
and not with the existing; with this addition attaching the garage the applicant is giving up 400 SF of FAR
for future development on this site. Staff noted that they would make the correction. There were no further
questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Vadim Melik-Karamov, VMK Design Group, represented the
project. Noted that they reduced the second floor plate height, and architecturally tied the garage into the
house, feel that the garage better conforms to the code. Commissioners asked that the following be
addressed:
vinyl windows with wood trim are all right with this project because the existing windows which are
the great majority are fairly new and vinyl with wood trim;
landscaping on the site is sparse and trees and shrubs which would grow to 12' to 15' to screen the
roof and eaves should be added to improve the site and enhance the structure, the applicant should
submit a landscape plan showing those existing trees and shrubs which will be retained and the new
trees and shrubs to be added, species and sizes of all plants (new and existing) should be noted on
the plan;
Notes should be added to the plans to accurately document the size of the rafter tails and the match
on the corbels at the ridge and eaves; notes should be added regarding the roofing material of the
new garage roof;
Should consider adding a window on the Laguna side in the dining room, would enhance the interior
and break up the blank wall on that side.
Should consider up grading the garage door to look more like carriage doors, would enhance the
entire side of the house.
There were no further comments. The public comment was closed.
C. Auran moved to bring this item back on the consent calendar when the recommended changes have been
made to the plans, the plans have been checked by the planning staff, and there is space on the agenda. The
motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: Commissioner cautioned that placing this item on the consent calendar does not
diminish the importance of the commissioner's comments and the need to make the changes to the plans
noted.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 28, 2006
7
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar after the
changes have been made to the plans, checked and when there is space. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Deal abstaining) voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
Because the City Attorney was setting up an exhibit for the Commissioner's Reports item on the lap top,
Chair Brownrigg with the consensus of the Commission moved on to the Planner's Reports.
- City Council regular meeting of August 21, 2006.
CP Monroe review the Council's actions regarding planning matters at the August 21, 2006, meeting.
She noted that the Council adopted the amendments to the Bayfront Plan and General Plan as
recommended by the Commission. Also the Mayor would appoint two council members to the
committee to work with the consultant in preparing the scope of work for the Downtown Specific Plan;
and she would ask the Chair of the Planning Commission to appoint two commissioners to the
committee. The committee would serve through the selection of the consultant to prepare the downtown
plan.
- FYI: 110 Clarendon Road - changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
- FYI: 317 Occidental Avenue - changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
- FYI: 1465 Balboa Avenue – update to a previously approved Design Review project.
- FYI: 1532 Columbus Avenue - changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
FYI items were taken as a group. Commissioners were asked if they wished to carry any item over to the
regular action calendar. All of the proposed FYI items were acknowledged as they were, and none were put
over to the action calendar.
X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
- North Burlingame Subcommittee Report on ECN zoning and plan compliance.
CP Monroe presented an overview of the staff report prepared for the subcommittee. The report included
12 items identified by the subcommittee which should be considered for amendment to the Northern
Gateway subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. It was noted that as the
subcommittee considered zoning to implement the goals, policies, land use, and design guidelines of the
plan it became clear that the direction given, in some cases, would not work or did not achieve the
'gateway' objectives of the city for the area. The twelve issues identified in the staff report were the
major areas of concern, and the subcommittee was asking for direction from the commission regarding
these before completing the work on the zoning district. To help the discussion, C. Auran had prepared
photographs of each of the street frontages in the El Camino North zoning district and documented
sidewalk widths.
The Subcommittee noted that one of the things that drove the proposed plan changes was a realization of
the amount of pedestrian activity that would be generated in the area by the new development and the
proximity of the area to BART, CalTrain, given the level of pedestrian activity, the sidewalk suddenly
became more important both as a path of travel and for activities to spill out to, this concept did not
work well with the definition of the street space/street wall described in the design guide lines. The
subcommittee is suggesting front setback variations, particularly in the areas with zero percent setback.
Commissioners noted that sidewalk width is critical to the pedestrian experience, if too narrow feel
attached to the wall as cars speed by. Through lots from El Camino to California also appear to be an
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 28, 2006
8
issue, Commissioners ask how the fixed 15 setback on California worked. Subcommittee noted that the
15' would be a front setback, or if development was on a through lot, a rear setback with active vehicular
access for the building fronting on El Camino Real. Commissioner noted that California is narrow with
a sidewalk on only one side - how would pedestrian activity work there? It was noted that the rear/front
setback areas would be required to be landscaped and fences would be set 4 feet into the lot and no more
than 4 feet in height to increase the visual perception of a wider pedestrian pathway.
Further comments: The Subcommittee noted that in the amendments the image of El Camino
development would take precedence over the California Drive frontage with the objective of making the
northern two blocks of El Camino reminiscent of the southern part of El Camino; need to look at a
feasible sidewalk on the east side of California which would connect to BART. Subcommittee members
noted had talked about adding the component of the city's bicycle plan to the California Drive planning.
There was some discussion about how on-street parking and a bicycle lane on California would work,
staff was directed to look at the bicycle plan. There was discussion about the future role of the frontage
roads on El Camino and the development of the adjacent parcels which led to how a 25 foot sidewalk
could be achieved on the east side of El Camino. It was noted that additional height allowed would
encourage mixed use. A review of the pictures provided resulted in a consensus that wider sidewalks
would enhance the area, and there was considerable need to reuse many of the parcels. Concern was
expressed that the existing large trees should be integrated into the wider sidewalks to retain the overall
appearance of the El Camino corridor though the city and to enhance the pedestrian experience. Rather
than removing all the eucalyptus they could be interplanted with the recommended street tree to insure
that there would always be a large green element along El Camino and an orderly transition from
existing to new canopy. Concerned about proper planning of closure of the slip road in front of the
shopping center to avoid angry neighbors. There were no further comments on the proposed
amendments to the plan.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary