HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.25.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
September 25, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the September 25, 2006, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:05 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, Ruben Hurin; Senior
Engineer, Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 11, 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 Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, concerned that because of past experience
with speculators building to the maximum without regard for the neighbor,
there is a false assumption out there that speculators are a problem, the shame
of this is that speculators now represent that they are doing the remodel for
their own use; some neighbors are so jaded that they think that any house for
sale will be bull dozed; would like this unhealthy atmosphere to cease,
Commission should insure that all development is good for the
neighborhood.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2320 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD
A TOILET IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (EDWARD AND DONNA AVAKOFF,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal recused himself from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped
down from the dais and left the council chambers.
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commission noted that there are no concerns with this
request since the toilet is not located in the cabana and there is a solid wall separating the cabana and
proposed toilet room.
This item was set for the consent calendar as proposed with no changes. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
2
2. 1404 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING
VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL (DAVID AND JANIS SPIVACK,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LARRY KAHLE, METROPOLIS ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
on site visit noticed that there is a steel bar outside the gate, how often is the driveway beyond the gate
used?
by looking at the site plan and first floor at the rear of the house, it appears that at one time the existing
playroom may have been a garage; does the play room have a concrete slab floor; does the playroom
have a battered or T-foundation; was the foundation removed at the rear window wall; if removed is
there any record which shows that a garage existed there at one time;
do not see a hardship, applicant needs to rewrite the variance findings, with this application the property
owner is enjoying all the development benefits without providing a garage on the property;
the house has a lot of square footage despite the narrow lot, applicant should explain why granting this
variance would not be grating a special privilege;
can only recall one case where a parking variance was approved for no on-site covered parking, property
was only 25 feet wide and garage was shared by two properties; may consider a variance to have
uncovered space less than 20' in length if covered parking is provided;
applicant's letter dated June 24, 2006, notes that a large portion of the lot was sold in 1936 to another
neighbor, please clarify on plans which portion of the lot was sold, how big was it and how does the area
sold relate to the frontage on Capuchino Avenue; and
if approved, would like to add a condition that the variances shall only apply to this building and shall
become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster
or for replacement.
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 7:20 p.m.
3. 711 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A CHANGE TO THE HEIGHT OF A CARPORT (KURT MEISWINKEL, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked CP to clarify what is being
required with this amendment application. CP noted that the applicant is requesting approval for a change in
the height and roof pitch of the previously approved carport. She noted that the applicant had not installed
the paved driveway as shown on the originally approved plans. The pavers shown are not installed to any
construction pavement standard so there is no access to the carport, without access the structure cannot serve
as required covered parking. In addition only half of the gate across the driveway opened as photographed
on Friday. At the Commissioner's desks, delivered today by the applicant, are pictures of the gate fully open
and the pavers placed on top of the grass.
Commissioners asked about when the permanent driveway was to have been installed. CP noted that the
condition required that the driveway as shown on the plans be installed before the final inspection. There
has been no final inspection of the improvements on this property or issuance of an occupancy permit. No
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
3
final inspection can be made and no occupancy permit issued until the Planning Commission has acted on
the amendment to the conditional use permit.
Prior to submittal for action the Commissioners required that the following be completed:
clarify the distance from the existing carport to the property line and correct plans; one site plan shows
3'-0" while another shows 1'-0" or less; all plans should be consistent;
a permanent concrete driveway shall be installed; the applicant may propose a different paving material
such as unit pavers, but the driveway from the street to the carport slab must be a permanent installation
on an excavated concrete or gravel base;
clarify how the plumbing was removed from the kitchen in the accessory structure, the pipes shall be
completely removed and the serving pipes filled with concrete and inspected by the building inspector.
Chair Brownrigg, with the consent of the commission, set this item for the consent calendar when the plans
have been corrected with the proper side setback from the carport as required and all the construction and
corrections have been made to the project site as described, the plans and corrections have been confirmed
by Planning Staff, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENT
4. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR – PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR AN APPLICATION FOR
RECONSTRUCTION OF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR PENINSULA
HUMANE SOCIETY AND SPCA (14 PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED; 38 NOTICES OF
AVAILABILITY) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the history of the
environmental review for the Peninsula Humane Society proposed Center for Compassion project located at
1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court. She noted that currently Burlingame was circulating the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. During the circulation a public hearing is held to give interested members
of the community and the Planning Commission the opportunity to comment on the draft document. The
comment period will end October 20, 2006. All the comments received will be responded to in writing in a
Response to Comment document, which will then be reviewed by the Planning Commission along with the
project.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing
was closed.
Commissioner comments:
Traffic studies should be expanded to include analysis of conflicts between large trucks and cars
including Saturdays, should include volume of each type of vehicle and real speed limits vs. posted
limits;
How will this proposed land use affect the retention of the industrial area as a viable land use; do not
feel that this is addressed adequately, concerned that this will be quite a change from the existing
industrial uses;
How many protests regarding conflicts caused by land use or services have been received at the present
facility in the last 10 years;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
4
Explain why mitigation on page 4.5-2b to restripe the parking lot is needed?
What level of study and investigation has the applicant made for the placement of the project on the
alternative site at 1575 Adrian Road?
Is the sign permit a part of this project and covered by this EIR?
Concerned about the public safety if the project does include wild life such as mountain lions and
poisonous snakes, would applicant agree never to house such animals?
Concerned about aggressive animals, page 3.0-3 notes that these animals will be retained at Coyote
Point, how would this be assured and implemented?
Has the City Council reviewed in any way the determination the Commission made regarding the
'similar use' for the SPCA/Center for Compassion in the M-1 zoning district?
How does the aviary fit into the floor area ratio variance requested?
Will the services offered at Coyote Point eventually be relocated to this site and what impact would that
have? What prevents their relocation to this facility and/or site? Will the services at Coyote Point ever
be relocated?
Should include a more complete analysis of the sewer capacity and impact of the addition of this facility
on the entire system. Want to be sure that there is no 'undue burden on the sewer system'.
Some Commissioners noted that they would submit additional comments in writing. There were no further
comments from the Commission. Chair Brownrigg closed the discussion. This item was completed at 7:50
p.m.
VIII. 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.
5a. 1517 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL, SECOND STORY ADDITION AND
A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (MICHAEL GINN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
HOLDREN-LIETZKE DESIGN, DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
5b. 3 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (LENNY
LI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LYC BUILDING DESIGN, DESIGNER) (31 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience, on staff, or on the Commission wished to call any item off
the consent calendar. There were no requests.
C. Deal 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
and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
5
IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
6. 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; JOHN AND ROSA VEGA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN PROJECT PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Wong, architect, represented the project, commented
that he would answer questions. Commissioner noted that there were a number of decorative items shown
on the design which had no dimensions such as the water table, corbels and bellyband, cannot approve a
design without the size and scale of these features being shown on the plans because there is no way of
directing the contractor what to build in order to achieve the balance and style of the design. Need to pin
those items down now. Asked what the style of the house is? Applicant noted Mediterranean because of the
true terracotta roof tiles, materials used in the trim and wrought iron. Feel choice of window type and
pattern of windows is chaotic and presents no continuity of style. On the east elevation to the right of the
door the shed roof with the windows does not fit. Best part of the design is the rear, the composition there
works, the broken arch shown there should be mimicked on the front elevation, if the broken arch were used
throughout the design would work much better; better served and would add definition if drawings reflected
better the weight and lines of the architectural features included such as the wrought iron, needs more than a
note about the size/dimension of these features proportion needs to be reflected in the plans and on the
elevations; the following items need to be addressed:
the shape of the driveway is not drawn correctly;
east side elevation the shed roof is not integrated with the roof above;
east elevation, how does the gable dormer trim and glass work;
drafting error on the east elevation? two windows without wood trim package, these should be trimmed;
Landscape plan, Sheet A-1, posts are in the public right of way, confirm allowed or move;
Clarify landscape plan show species and location of major shrubs and trees, new and existing; and
Like to see the iron gate on the driveway which is a special item, better defined with more detail.
Applicant commented that he doesn't want to go back and forth, would like to hear all the comments now.
There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Not sure what the appropriate action is here a design reviewer can only do so much;
deny or deny without prejudice? It’s the detail which makes the house, this needs to go to a design reviewer,
says it’s a Mediterranean but it is not there, has only one good elevation , the rear; east elevation does not
work at all, west elevation is a flat, two story plane which is massive, needs a lot of detail with the size
shown to scale, it is not up to the Commission or the contractor to decide the size of the details on the
design; need to clarify if there needs to be an encroachment permit for the pillars at the front; design
reviewer can help architect understand the details to include at the preliminary level of submittal; massing is
OK, issue is the details. Architect and design reviewer should both listen to the tapes of this meeting.
C. Deal made a motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction that the design reviewer, the
property owner, and the architect listen to the tapes of this meeting so that they understand the record, and
all attend the design review meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
6
Discussion on the motion: concerned that this is the second or third time this project has been reviewed, the
drawings are better, project, believe it can eventually be approved, the massing on the east elevation needs
work, the trellis does not mask the big planes, it needs more than rework of the size of the details.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to direct this project to a design reviewer for further
substantial work. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. There is no appeal to this action. The item
concluded at 8:20 p.m.
7. 62 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JACK CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGR. INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHIN-SHUI CHANG, PROPERTY OWNER)
(26 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jack Chu, the designer, represented the project. Asked to
respond to questions. Commissioners had the following questions and comments:
unusually wide driveway, with narrow shaft for light on the left, why? Applicant noted European cars
are wide, concerned would scratch the house.
Note that the proposed stone base stops 4 to 6 inches short of the dirt, makes the base look like
unfinished veneer, should continue to ground.
Using redwood for fascia and elsewhere, will it be painted? Yes. Could use paint grade material then,
would be cheaper and look the same in the end; cannot use stucco foam.
Rear elevation has 8 foot tall doors and windows with transom above, need to show a bar between the
window and transom;
Roof plan shows that you will see very little of first floor roof after this is built, off set is too small to
reduce mass; lot of mass at the front, small porch does not off set; need to see more first floor roof;
Right side elevation, roof at second floor hip is not correctly drawn;
Doors to the utility room are 8 feet tall and this height follows around with the windows, when built this
will look out of scale and mass with the existing houses with 6'-8" window heights;
Fire place protrusion is not integrated, has odd appearance;
On the detailing the gutters are not shown correctly, should extend beyond the roof;
Concerned about the style, this does not look like a Prairie style house;
Rear doors need detail;
Southeast elevation has 6 skylights, they over take the roof, too many should be toned down; and
Massing is OK, but need to work on detail, a very big looking house.
This residential area is in transition, just beginning to add second stories, existing about 1, 500 SF to 2,200
SF, this house is 4,200 SF, will look massive in the neighborhood. Agree about mass and bulk only the right
rear corner offers any relief to the two story mass; this is not in keeping with the neighborhood, big house
can be mitigated in design by such things as not having a continuous second floor plate around the building,
the rooms across the front are very wide, blank walls above the entry. Needs to go back and rework can add
a good sized porch to the master bedroom and increase the first floor roof line for example. There were no
further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
7
C. Vistica noted that the comments showed a lot of dissatisfaction with the mass and bulk of this proposal
and with what is happening in the neighborhood, not want this project as the example for the future
expansions which will happen in this transition area, move to deny this project without prejudice. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: is there an option to denial without prejudice, concerned if send back to a design
reviewer it will come back with the same mass and bulk; maybe more appropriate to deny the project. CP
noted that with a denial without prejudice it is up to the applicant to decide the extent of a proposed change,
if at all, and no fees are charged for resubmittal; with a denial the same project cannot be submitted for a
year and fees must be paid for another submittal. It was noted that this house is on a large lot and the
setbacks are greater than required, the style is not Prairie, inclined to give the designer another chance to
design, the width of the lot is important. Valid that a big house has different setbacks, but bigger house
needs more design to diminish bulk, the square footage is OK but the presentation is not good. Protest bulk
and size, not fit the character of the neighborhood, support denial. With ‘denial without prejudice’ softer
message, hate to see go though redesign process if not see a major change. Mass and bulk could be
supported by the lot if it were handled better in the design, big indicator of the problem is the eight foot tall
windows and doors, too big, need to reduce scale of those in neighborhood and add a front porch to add
human scale to the project.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice including the direction
given by the commission in the discussion. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice
vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
8. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR AN APPROVED FIRST
FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the
dais and left the Council Chambers.
Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Stewart Gunrow, designer, JD and Associates, Steve Love,
property owner, represented the project. This was an unusual structural problem. When opened up the
house and discovered it, stopped work and applied to the Planning Commission. This affects the height of
the house but not the footprint. The applicant submitted a diagram of the framing of the first and second
floor showing how the existing roof was tied in.
Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Paul Hart, 1148 Cabrillo Avenue. Pass
this house often, exemplary remodel, straight forward problem found during construction, thank the
applicant for coming forward now and not after construction was completed. Feel this house is out of
proportion with the houses on the side of the street, did the architect and engineer supervise this project as it
proceeded or did they just draw the plans, when were they contacted regarding this problem? Why do they
need three feet, to increase the insulation, looks like they added this as an after thought, can it be built within
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
8
the approved 31'-6"; live behind have lost view of trees on Cortez because of the peaked roof, with this will
loose all view of trees, have a loss of sunlight, all I will see is the house and the garage; concerned about the
tree in the backyard between house and garage, blocks about 50% of the view, will be fully exposed if it is
removed, feel that this was forced by a number of small changes asked of the contractor, would ask the
Planning Commission to deny this request. Applicant noted: additional height is only 1'-3" not three feet
from the existing 31'-9", or total height of 33 feet, e.g. the net increase is 1'-3". This 1’-3” is to the highest
point since the house is not level. The architect was engaged immediately when found the problem which
emerged from keeping the existing first floor eaves. There were no further comments from the floor. The
public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the detail showing the problem and the framing to fit is helpful, request is to add 1'-3"
to the wall to the level of the second floor windows, improves the appearance, so move to approve the
application for an increase in height of 1'-3" 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 June 29,
2005, sheets 3, 5 and G-1, as amended by the plans date stamped May 2, 2006, sheets 1-2, 4 and 6, and as
amended by the plans date stamped September 15, 2006, sheet 7, and that any changes to building materials,
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 2,
2006, , and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit; (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 Chief Building
Official's May 13, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 16,
2005, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2005, memo 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 demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth
moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (11) that the
project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires
affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet
recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a
demolition permit; and (12) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame
Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Commissioner comments: Should be clear that this is 15 inches more not three feet more in height; most of
the roof is below this highest point; this remodel is smaller than it could be.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
9
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the special permit for
height of the single family house at 1145 Cortez Avenue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal
abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
9. 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AUTO STORAGE FOR A TOWING BUSINESS AND AN AUTOMOBILE DEALER IN A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT (MARC ROCHETTE, D & M TOWING, APPLICANT; FITNESS PROPERTIES LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked
does the owner of the drainage area have an easement across the property at 1704 Rollins? It is staff's
understanding that there are no easements, a coterminous lease agreement was proposed. Is it appropriate to
allow a conditional use on the condition that it is not inconvenient for a neighboring property? Staff would
note that such a condition would probably not resolve potential problems; which would take a lot of staff
time. Was any survey information beside the sketches included provided, observe obstructions in the
driveway at 1704 Rollins and the width between buildings seems to measure in the field 20 feet 5 inches, not
the 24 feet which would justify a 12 wide driveway claimed; seems this is set up for continued conflict with
neighbor. In addition the sprinkler pipe extends 2 feet from the building so it will be impossible to use the
southern drive way on 1704 Rollins without going over on to the property at 1670 Rollins? Staff noted that
no surveys were submitted. Why was this use not stopped and removed until this hearing had occurred?
Staff suggested that the commission ask the applicant, the city has been processing various code
enforcements on this use since 2002. There were no further questions of staff from the Commission.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Nichole Rochette, daughter of the owner and manager,
represented D&M Towing, Guillermo Macalpin and Ray Genworth representing Fitness Properties, property
owner, and Terry Sterling, owner of the property at 1670 Rollins Road spoke. The applicant noted that they
thought that this issue had been resolved and it has resurfaced, can provide dates for discussions to resolve
recurring problems. Have spoken with Terry Sterling, comes with complaints from the tenants, then spoke
to tenant operations manager, last year worked it out, put up cones to mark driveway and do not block the
driveway, last year was working as smoothly as possible, tried recently to contact Terry Sterling twice, did
not reach her. Commissioner asked what can be done? Could put a fence down the middle of the driveway
or Botts Dots, there are ways to work it out. Would you be willing to enter into a roadway maintenance
agreement? Ms. Sterling did not mention that, in our letter thought we had fixed all the issues. If the
driveway at 1670 Rollins is blocked what would you do? Possibly use the other (north side) of 1704 Rollins
between 1704 and 1708; would also look at removing 18 feet of the fence at the rear of 1640 Rollins where
our office is and gain access to the drainage area from there instead of from 1704 Rollins; have not pursued
this since the property at 1640 Rollins recently changed hands and have not talked to the new owner.
Commissioner noted that access from 1640 Rollins is a better solution, your use should not be a burden on
your neighbors, it should be confined to the site you lease. Access is affected by two sea containers and a
trailer? Yes, these hold the security system and dry storage. Is there a reason you did not comply with code
enforcement and relocate these? Thought the code enforcement would move faster than it did.
Commissioners noted: on site visits saw a lot of traffic on both sides (1670 and 1704) of the driveway,
including ACME towing there today, they do not know the rules of use; if approve this use there will
certainly be a conflict between 1704 and 1670, the damage to the pavement is serious, Botts Dots will not
keep a truck confined on one side of the driveway, if fence put down the middle, trucks will not be able to
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
10
use the driveway on the south side of 1704,where is the sprinkler riser going to go? Will not be able to get
through, need to find an alternative.
Comments from the floor continued: Is there room between 1718 and 1704 Rollins Road? Applicant noted
that it is very tight could get a car but not a truck through; City of Burlingame requires D&M towing to have
a storage lot in Burlingame if they are to do the city's towing, not much place to put such a lot in the City.
Commissioner noted it is logical to have a gate at 1640 Rollins where the business is, can that be a
condition? Staff noted that more information about the feasibility and needs, including from Public Works,
would be need to be provided before it would be appropriate to make the access from 1640 Rollins to the
drain a condition of approval. Are there any agreements in place for the use of the driveway between 1718
and 1704 Rollins Road; is the use of this area practical? Applicant noted the building at 1718 is on property
line, so access/egress is only in 1704 Rollins, if the debris bins were moved the driveway would be wider.
Further comments: Property owner at 1670 Rollins noted that the 10 feet is not wide enough, continually use
her property, tow trucks are heavy and have damaged the paving, will cost $17,000 to fix, asked D&M
Towing to assist with cost of repair, they objected, there is no existing agreement on shared use, clearly they
should not be using her property and they cannot get to the drainage easement without using her property.
Commissioner noted on site visit there was a damaged Mazda parked behind 1670 Rollins, whose was it?
Many times towed vehicles are parked along 1670 Rollins and behind the building, tenants cannot get
deliveries because the access it blocked. D&M representative noted that the Mazda mini-van belonged to an
employee at 1670 Rollins, they do not park any place but in the yard in the drainage easement. How many
deliveries are made to the tow yard a day, what kind of screening for pollution are used? Three to 5
deliveries are made a day, and PIG sump skimmer screens are used in all the drains, they are inspected
regularly. Staff noted should this be approved, Public Works would require that NPDES-recognized drain
separators be installed and they would be inspected on a regular schedule by the city; and should this be
approved an inspection schedule similar to the one's used for hotels would be implemented by the city's
inspector. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: concerned about the proposed number of vehicles on the lot, would like to see the
pavement striped so can tell where vehicles are stored, how truck will maneuver onsite, and how towing and
new car storage would be separated without conflict; would like actual and accurate dimensions, do not see
a survey or an engineer's name on the plans submitted; would like to see access from 1640 Rollins, not
across a property on which the applicant is not a tenant; am okay with the use, problem with the access.
C. Osterling made a motion to continue this item until the access at 1640 Rollins Road can be developed and
recognized with a lease agreement and the site access and storage properly surveyed, with paving
delineations marked as noted by the Commission and documentation on how the two uses will operate in the
space, including truck access and turn around. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: do not need a licensed surveyor to get an accurate survey and dimensional
drawing of this site and use; in the mean time all uses on the driveway between 1704 and 1670 Rollins Road
shall cease and be abandoned immediately; message should be clear, the commission is not going to approve
the current access proposed; should there be a statement in the minutes about when the use in the drain
should stop? Prefer to set a date when the applicant will report back. Staff noted Commission can set a
mandatory date, say three meetings out, for a revised application; if one is not submitted staff will return
with the present application and the Commission can act on it. To make this schedule, submittal from the
applicant would have to be no later than 10 days prior to meeting date. Think three meetings out with the 10
day requirement is plenty of time to get accurate information on the site and the arrangement of the uses on
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
11
it, the physical ability to use the access from 1640 Rollins Road, and to get a contract with the property
owner at 1640 Rollins to cross his site. The driveway between 1670 and 1704 Rollins should not be used in
the interim, the property owner at 1670 Rollins has every right to call the police for trespass. Since have
option of using the north side of 1704 Rollins do not know it they need three meetings to respond. Would
like the application to shift the access to 1640 Rollins and will need time to negotiate with the property
owner and investigate the viability of access at that location. Would like to see the two containers and
trailer moved immediately, they pose a real access and damage problems if this area should flood. When the
project returns there should be a condition about oil separating drains, the required maintenance and
establishing a regular maintenance inspection.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to a date certain, three planning
Commission meetings from now (November 13, 2006), noting that the item would be renoticed for that
meeting and all revisions are due to planning staff at least 10 days in advance of the meeting date. The
motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. There is no appeal of this action. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.
X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 1426 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JENNIFER HAYDEN AND BILLY RYAN, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road Suite 203,
Burlingame, noted that the property owner is a chair and cabinet maker and a finish carpenter, designed this
house so that the owner can showcase his skills, house is a foursquare arts and crafts design with a lot of
woodwork; designed an attached garage so that the rear yard is maximized and so that the garage will be
used by the owners to park a car, the existing lot coverage decreased with the proposed design, the 37 foot
long wall on property line created by the existing detached garage will be eliminated, new attached garage
will be set back 4'-6", existing detached garage is now located forward of the rear 30% of the lot, two
nonconforming conditions would be eliminated with the removal of the detached garage; special permit for
declining height envelope along the sides is needed for this design style, the second story mass will be
screened by three large trees, one of the second story bump-outs is a little over 10 feet in length and almost
complies with the dormer exception to declining height envelope; the proposed attached garage wall will be
located parallel to the neighbor's garage so there should be no impact, the proposed house is not very large,
without the garage the house is approximately 2,700 SF. Commission asked if a window can be added in
the kitchen along the left side elevation to break up the wall; architect noted that if a window were added in
the kitchen it would look out onto a fence and there is not much light along this side of the house to bring in,
the entire rear wall has windows. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:
several corrections need to be made on the plans, T&G siding noted where plans show shingle siding,
brick base noted where plans show no base, painted door noted where plans show a window; please
review plans and notes and make all necessary corrections;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
12
concerned about the attached garage, do not think it is appropriate, the traditional style in this
neighborhood has houses with detached garages, only the newer houses have attached garages, with this
house style should have a greater setback between houses created by a detached garage;
understand problem with the garage, neighborhood has a mixed parking pattern of attached and detached
garages, the proposed 32 foot setback does help with the existing parking pattern in the neighborhood;
attached garage fits in with the neighborhood;
the addition is well proportioned in massing, like the design;
should consider using some type of base to give something for the house to sit on, maybe horizontal
wood siding with a water table on top; and
provide landscape plan, include larger scale trees and shrubs for screening.
C. Auran noted that the property owner completed a very nice project on Sanchez Avenue which included a
garage, addition to the house and cobblestone driveway and made a motion to place this item on the consent
calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded
by C. Cauchi.
Comment on motion: Commissioner noted that he would be voting against the project only because the
garage is proposed to be attached, feel a detached garage is more appropriate in this neighborhood. There
were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Deal dissenting). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m.
11. 1461 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (JACK MCCARTHY,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GEORGE AND ANDREA SCARBOROUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner noted that while on a site visit he spoke
with the property owner about the details of the project but not the merits. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack McCarthy, designer, 5339 Prospect Road #311, San
Jose, noted that the addition was previously approved with a 9 foot plate height, now would like to increase
the plate height to 10 feet so that it matches the existing plate height on the first floor living room, would
like to take advantage of the beautiful rear yard. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:
concerned with the mansard roof design on the addition, mansard will not work;
there is great detail on the front façade of the house, should carry the details at the front of the house to
the rear addition;
consider using a flat roof to tie the addition into the house; and
new gas fireplace should be architecturally consistent with the existing fireplace, should look like the
existing fireplace narrowing towards the top; could add architectural elements such as brick or iron or an
ornament to tie it together.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006
13
C. Terrones made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above following
revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m.
XI. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
- Summary of Permit Processing Committee Meeting of September 8, 2006.
CP reviewed briefly the direction given staff by the Permit Processing Subcommittee regarding demolition
without a permit, fees for such demolition and fees for work done without a permit. After some general
discussion the and no direction to change Subcommittee’s direction to Staff, Commission directed that the
item be brought back to the Commission on the action calendar for public hearing.
XII. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of September 18, 2006.
CP Monroe noted that the Council had reviewed the Council and Commission survey results regarding
single family residential development and design issues and suggested that the commission to look at mass
and bulk as it related to neighborhood fit and consistency in the coming year. This item was referred to the
Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission for further consideration.
- FYI: 1504 Alturas Drive – changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.
Commission had no comments on the proposed change to the roofing material on this project.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\unapproved 09.25.06.doc