HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.10.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 10, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the October 10, 2006, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Terrones and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Osterling
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erica Strohmeier;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Chief Building Official, Joe Cyr; Senior
Engineer, Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 25, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were amended page 9, line16, revise "…and the width between
buildings seems to scale from the aerial measure in the field at 20 feet 5
inches…" C. Auran made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice
vote on the motion which passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, PARKING VARIANCE AND
AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR AN ADDITION TO THE FOURTH FLOOR OF AN EXISTING
OFFICE BUILDING (ANGELINE ASKHAM, WALKER WARNER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; OUTFITTER PROPETIES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN
BROOKS
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that the project has come a long
way since originally submitted. They asked for the following to be done:
like to see the new arched window on the east elevation increased in size by 4 feet in height;
should clarify the basis for calculating the parking in lieu fee, CPI or Engineering index, provide a
copy of the Council Resolution;
clarify the variance findings proposed, not feel finding number 3 is addressed, actually not granting a
variance but accepting an in lieu fee for the parking to be provide; and
provide tear sheets for the original materials used in the building including brick veneer, mullions
and glazing and document that those being used in the remodel will be the same, concerned that the
addition will appear to be built of different materials; if not using original materials what are you
using and how will it work with the original; provide a sample board at the action meeting showing
original and proposed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
2
Chair Brownrigg set this item for the consent calendar when all the information is provided to the Planning
Staff and there is space on the agenda, providing that the materials used for the addition are the same as
those originally used; if any of the materials are different then the staff should note it in the staff report and
the commission can call the item off the consent calendar to the action calendar. This item concluded at
7:10 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.
2a. 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) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
2b. 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
2d. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO CONVERT AN
EXISTING TWO-STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND OFFICE ON THE SECOND
FLOOR (JERRY WINGES, WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MENDELL PARTNERS,
PROPERTY OWNER) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal noted that he would recuse himself from the vote on the project at 2320 Valdivia Way because
of a business relationship with the property owner.
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue noted she had a concern about the height of the second
chimney on the project at 1505 Balboa Avenue. Chair Brownrigg took the project at 1505 Balboa Avenue
off the consent calendar moving it to the Regular Action Calendar. He asked for a motion for the remaining
items 2a 2320 Valdivia Way, 2b. 1257 Laguna Avenue; 2d. 214-216 Lorton Avenue.
C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners’
comments and the findings in the staff reports with the recommended conditions in each staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the
motion to approve 1257 Laguna Avenue and 214-216 Lorton Avenue and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The vote on the project at 2320 Valdivia Way passed on a
5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining, C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 7:10 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
3
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2c. 1505 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (MICHAEL AND AMY GONG,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN STEWART, AIA, ARCHITECT) (52 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from September 11, 2006 Meeting)
Reference staff report October 10, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier 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. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, and
Michare Gong, property owner, represented the project. The fireplace is gas powered so the chimney could
be lowered 2 feet; however, as it is now designed it represents the feature required for a wood burning fire
place like others on the street.
Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, plans for this project have come a long
way, the roof line has been improved a lot; the tall chimney becomes a focal point because one chimney is
significantly taller than the other, the taller one should be lowered to match the shorter one.
There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comments: do not think the taller chimney should be lowered more than two feet, if it is
below the roof line it would look like a different object, would move approval of the project by resolution
with the added condition that the taller chimney be reduced in height by two feet and the conditions in the
staff report: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
September 27, 2006, sheets A-1 through A-5, L1.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any
changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an
amendment to this permit; that the taller of the two chimneys shall be reduced in height by two feet to match
the height of the shorter of the two proposed chimneys, and that all windows shall be simulated true divided
light windows with three dimensional wood mullions and shall contain a stucco-mould trim; (2) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 17, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's
February 21, 2006 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's February 22, 2006
memos shall be met; (3) 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; (4) 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; (5) that prior to scheduling the
foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (6)
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; (7) 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; (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 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
4
Building plans; (10) 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; (11)
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; (12) 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; (13) 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; (14) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
(15) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation
Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
application. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the amended
condition to lower the height of the taller fireplace by two feet. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1
(C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
3. 1801 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES
TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; BO AND KAREN PARKER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal noted that he would recuse himself from this item since he had a business relationship with the
property owner. He stepped down from the dais and left the council chambers.
Reference staff report October 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Bo Parker, 1801 Ray Drive, property owner, represented the
property. He noted he would be glad to answer questions. There were no questions from the Commission;
and no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Terrones noted that the proposed changes were not detrimental to the design and the builder and owner
should be commended for bringing them to the commission before they were discovered in the field during
construction, he moved approval of 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
September 8, 2006, sheets 1-7 and F-1; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building
shall require and amendment to this permit; that all windows shall be simulated true divided light windows
with three dimensional wood mullions; and that the trim on the header at the entrance be replaced with a
1x8, along with a crown mold cover; (2) that the pedestrian pathway located along the left hand side of the
property shall be maintained clear of any construction debris, such as, equipment, staging, portable
restrooms, etc and visibility at and along the pathway shall be maintained at all times so that pedestrians
using the pathway can be seen; (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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
5
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; (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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s January 11 and September 15, 2006
memos, the City Engineer’s January 13 and September 20, 2006 memos, the Recycling Specialist's January
18 and September 20, 2006 memos, and the Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinators January 19 and
September 18, 2006 memos shall be met; (9) 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; (10) that the applicant shall comply
with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
and (11) 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. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the conditions in the staff
report. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining, C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the council chambers and took his seat on the dais.
4. 1524 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE,
TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL BROWNRIGG AND MARTY BURCHELL,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Chair Brownrigg noted that he would recuse himself from this action because he owns the property. He
passed the gavel to Vice Chair Deal and stepped down from the dais and left the council chambers.
Reference staff report October 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. She referenced the letter
submitted by the applicant addressing the reasons for the changes. There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG architects, 205 Park Road, represented the
property. Reviewed briefly how it was that this number of changes were made before construction has
really begun, noted that the changes did not affect the FAR, actually reduced the lot coverage proposed for
the project, and made the house more livable for the owner. He also noted that the change to the window in
the butler's pantry was so that the property owner could install a yet-to -be selected antique window, he
would ask for some flexibility in the size of this window for that installation. Commissioner asked if the
fenestration on the windows on the front elevation was going to change. Architect noted that all the grids
were selected to match the existing grids being retained. Commissioner noted that the changes look good,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
6
noting the addition of a vent and a couple of skylights. Architect noted that the skylights were on the
originally approved plans. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to approve the amendment to the project for the proposed revisions with the added
condition that the window in the pantry be replaced with a decorative window not necessarily curved as
shown on the plans and with the changes shown on the front elevation by resolution and with the following
amended conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped June 6, 2006, sheets A1.1, A3.1 and A3.2, date stamped May 10, 2006, sheets
A2.1 and A5.1, and date stamped September 27, 2006, sheets A1.0, A1.1, A2.1, A3.1 and A3.2;that the
window in the pantry area shall be replaced with a decorative window selected by the applicant and that
the project as-built shall include the proposed changes to the front of the house; 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 all new skylights shall be tinted; (3) that a certified arborist's report documenting how
the existing street tree and all existing on-site trees will be protected during construction, to be approved by
the Parks Department, shall be prepared and implemented; the arborist's report shall be submitted at time of
building permit submittal; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or
garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
(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 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; (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; (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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 28,
2006 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's May 1, 2006 memos, and the
Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2006 memo, shall be met; (10) 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; (11) 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; (12) 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 (13) 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.
Vice-Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the design review and
project at 1524 Columbus Avenue with the amendments for the replacement of the window in the pantry
with a decorative window of a different shape selected by the applicant. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C.
Brownrigg abstaining, C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40
p.m.
C. Brownrigg returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais, resuming the gavel.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
7
5. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE-
UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MIKE PRESCOTT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND
HUNT HALE JONES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (88 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Thirty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked
staff: clarify parking code requirements when parking next to a stairwell, plans show 9' stall width because
stairwell open, if enclosed by fire rated wall would 10' width be required, if so parking stall 6 would be
affected and parking lay-out would need to be revised? Yes the parking space would need to be 10 feet
wide, but Planning staff unaware if fire rated wall is required for this particular stair. CBO Cyr note that if
the stair is a required exit would need to be enclosed with a fire rated wall. There were no other questions of
staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Michael Prescott, property owner, and Michael Plaza,
architect, 444 Spear Street, San Francisco, represented the property. Their understanding is that the stair
does not need to be enclosed, if it does will reconfigure the landing and enclose and reconfigure the parking
layout, will work with the Building Department. Summarized the changes made to the project in response to
the comments at the last meeting. Commissioners asked:
could you reduce the window size behind the bed in the master bedroom in order to make the room
work better, architect responded the window could be pushed toward the corner where the plans
show a bed stand agreed it would work better;
discussed the stone veneer, would tie in better at the corner if at least one course wrapped around the
corner, architect agreed;
what kind of windows would be used, architect noted wood clad casement windows with simulated
true divided lites; they would be aluminum on the outside;
noted that they would adjust the weight of the reveal line on the west elevation so that it was
accurately represented;
noted that would like to improve the rear common open space even more by relocating the exit stair
if possible to the narrower (13 foot) portion ;
should stub out a gas line and a sewer line to the common area so that, in the future the residents
could add improvements including a bath room to make the area more useable; and
noted that the tenants may want a lockable gate at the bottom of the rear staircase for security.
There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: Generally in favor of this project, but perhaps should put over to the next meeting
for a redrafting of the conditions of approval and a resolution about the parking layout in the basement
garage. CA noted that if the commission wished they could act on the subdivision map and it could go
forward to the City Council so that the applicant would not be held up for the map processing.
C. Vistica noted that it would be appropriate to put this item on the consent calendar if the corrections were
made and the conditions revised, but not if the parking revisions caused a substantial change, so moved this
item to be continued to the consent calendar when the parking layout and other issues raised have been
addressed, however if there is a substantial change in staff's judgment this item should be returned on the
action calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
8
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the consent calendar unless in
their judgment the staff felt that the resolution to the issues raised are substantial enough to require that the
project be placed on the action calendar. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent).
C. Auran made a motion to recommend the tentative map to the City Council for action. The motion was
seconded by C. Deal.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the tentative map to the City Council
for action. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. The two actions are not
appealable. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
6. 40 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AUTOMOBILE STORAGE FOR CAR RENTAL BUSINESS (ADAM RUDD, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-
CAR, APPLICANT; HARVEY HACKER, ARCHITECT; RILCO-EDWARDS LLC, PROPERTY
OWNER) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: how
long did the applicant use this site before this code enforcement? CA responded two months. What are the
penalties for using the site without a permit? CA noted that staff is currently exploring administrative fees
for code enforcement. How is the drainage on the site presently handled? CP noted that the site drains to
the street and is mostly paved around the buildings; to her knowledge there are no petroleum separating
drains on the site, noted that the applicant may be more aware. Why is an 8 foot fence required? CP
reviewed the history of fencing in the area, noting that when the fence requirements were established the
prevailing fence height in the industrial area was 8 feet for screening and security reasons. There were no
further questions from the commissioners.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Derrick Watts and Adam Rudd, 820 Malcolm Road
represented Enterprise Rent-a-Car. Noted that they are only using the area to store cars and do not intend to
change the existing drainage, they will not wash or repair cars on the site, no reason to provide special
drains; this is the same use as was on the site when National Rent a Car was there. Commissioner noted that
environmental requirements have changed since then and drains are required in storage areas where vehicles
can leak oil or gas. Commissioner asked if the lower fences were approved on the sides and rear of the site
would they be willing to remove the barbed wire from the top of the fence? Applicant responded that they
would have to ask the landlord’s permission to remove the wire. Commissioner asked since they are
proposing to extend the landscaping on the site would they also extend the irrigation system to the newly
planted area? Also noted that if the 8' fence at the front screened the lot from the street he did not see
much gain to put the 6 foot fence in the dumpster for the sides; asked why Enterprise needed this lot and
how often they would come to it? Applicant noted that the number of visits would depend on the time of the
year, have particular demand for storage when cycling new cars into the fleet and taking the old cars out;
will be moving cars during the middle of the day. Commissioner asked if the applicant was comfortable
with the conditions of approval. Applicant noted that they were. Commissioner asked where the trucks were
going to be parked. Applicant noted that the company has a location in San Mateo and one in San
Francisco; they would be parked at either.
Additional comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Would ask the applicant how long
they have been a tenant on this site without a permit? Would ask the owner how this use is consistent with
his recent statement in the newspaper that there is a need to upgrade the industrial area aesthetically; is this
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
9
an example of the high use he envisions for the area? Property owner wants to stop excess traffic in the
area, and have the area zoned for industrial parks rather than storage use. There were no further comments
from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: Not interested in an 8 foot fence and recycling the 6 foot fence, how do the
findings work? CA noted the purpose of the 8 foot fence is to visually screen what is being stored and
protect the neighbors from an adverse impact; this use is for automobiles which are common in the area not
construction material could be more of a visual blight.
C. Vistica noted that would like to keep the 6 foot fence but would like to see new drains in the storage area
with petroleum filtering pillows in them, also drawings should be revised to show the right number of cars
and remove the truck designation, and moved to approve by resolution with amended conditions that the
barbed wire shall be removed from the top of the fence enclosing the storage area, that irrigation shall be
extended and maintained to the new landscaped area; and that a new drainage system including petroleum
filtering drains shall be installed in the pavement in the storage area and that these drains shall be maintained
regularly by the tenant and inspected on a schedule as required by the city's NPDES field inspector and that
failure to maintain these drains shall result in the review of this permit; and with the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built and the parking shall be striped as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped September 8, 2006, sheets S1; that the barbed wire shall be removed
from the top of the fence enclosing the storage area, that irrigation shall be extended and maintained to the
new landscaped area; (2) that a new drainage system including petroleum filtering drains shall be
installed to collect runoff and carry it to the street in the pavement in the storage area and that these drains
shall be maintained regularly by the tenant and inspected on a schedule as required by the city's NPDES
field inspector and that failure to maintain these drains shall result in the review of this permit; (3) that the
applicant shall stripe the parking area on-site to accommodate a maximum of 89 rental fleet vehicles with a
maximum curb weight of 4,800 lbs; and no fleet vehicles shall ever be parked on the public right-of-way or
across the public sidewalks; (4) that this site shall only be used for storage of vehicles with a curb weight
of no more than 4,800 lbs. for a car rental business; no trucks shall be stored or parked on this storage rental
lot; (5) that no vehicle carriers shall be allowed to unload or load automobiles at this site in the storage area
or in the public right-of-way; (6) that vehicles shall not be moved during a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic
periods as defined by the city engineer; (7) that there shall be no maintenance or washing/cleaning of
vehicles on the site; (8) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo dated September 18, 2006, and the
Recycling Specialist's memo dated September 20, 2006, shall be met; (9) that any improvements for the use
shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; and
(10) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year from the date of approval (October, 2006)
and upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi
Comment on the motion: Commission noted that the motion did not include the requirements to extend the
irrigation line to the new landscaped area and to maintain the irrigation or the removal of the barbed wire
from the top of the surrounding fence. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to amend the motion
with the addition of these conditions. CA noted that the findings for granting the lower fence was that the
area was to be used for automobile storage only which would have less visual blight than other kinds of
outdoor storage and that removing the fence and replacing it with a taller fence when the storage did not
require the screening was wasteful.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
10
7. AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION
PERMIT AND TO CLARIFY PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT (PUBLISHED IN SAN MATEO TIMES) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report October 11, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe and CBO Cyr presented the staff
report noting that this amendment was not to the zoning code but the process proposed would tie the
implementation of the CEQA review, zoning/design review and the building permit together and hold
demolition permits until all these approvals had been completed. Second the ordinance addresses the issue
of penalties for doing work without a permit setting a ten times fee limit based on the hours of staff time
used to attain compliance with the code. CP noted that he Commission had reviewed the Subcommittee's
suggestions for this ordinance at the September 25, 2006, meeting, so it is being brought forward for public
hearing and action this evening.
Commissioner’s comment: Chair Brownrigg thanked the Subcommittee of Cers. Cauchi, Deal and
Terrones, for their quick action on this recommendation; commissioner asked how this would affect fast
tracking major projects; CBO noted that this proposal is consistent with the current industry standards for
review of large projects, if there is something unusual about a given project it would be considered at that
time; clarified that a demolition permit is a type of building permit. CP noted that current provisions of the
Building Code require all penalties be paid before a Building Permit can be issued
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing
was closed.
C. Deal moved that the Planning Commission recommend the proposed ordinance changes to the City
Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Comment on the motion: CA noted two technical changes that should be made before the ordinance would
go forward to the City Council.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed ordinance changes
addressing demolition permits and civil penalties for work without a permit to the City Council for approval.
The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). . This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JAY AND JANET GARCIA, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the decision for designating the
front yard, rear yard and side yards was made by staff and if it was open to change by the Commission.
Staff responded that the decision was made by Planning staff and that it may be changed or altered by the
Commission. There were no further questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
11
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road suite 203, spoke: unusually
“T” shaped lot with a wooded creek side setting; the mass of the house pushes away from 1553 Drake and
towards the creek and the woods; looked at access and parking in the previous proposal and decided to leave
the garage where it currently is, it had to be attached because it couldn’t be in the rear setback; maintaining
the existing parking pattern; project may be at maximum but it is 400 SF smaller than what was looked at
before because of the attached garage; a variance is required to replace the garage where it currently is; and
because of the “T” in the lot, 7’-0” setbacks are required.
Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Janet Garcia, property owner, Jay Garcia,
property owner. Tower element is something that is going to help define the house; designer has put
together a very good looking house; biggest problem is probably the good neighbor fence between the two
properties not block the ability to park; the project tries to deal with all things that could go wrong; architect
did a good job; delighted project was originally sent to a design review consultant because that brought
Randy Grange on board; there is no actual front to the house which is the reason for the tower; do not see a
situation where a 3-point turn could be done to get out of the driveway; if the house was moved back 20’ it
would have to be completely redesigned; neighbors at 1553 Drake have seen the plans and they are happy
with them; and the back up between the driveways in this area has never remotely been an issue. The
architect further noted that whatever you do with the garage, you still have to back a car out of a 10’ wide
space. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented:
Working with what is now on the site makes it hard to determine setback arrangement;
Would like a corner entry that addresses itself coming in from the narrow street frontage;
reconfigure porch element to create more of an entry that approaches the corner;
Tower element reinforces the idea of where the front of the house is, appropriate based on how it is
massed; if the tower element was deemphasized you would lose the front entrance area; tower
element at landing is nice;
Why ask for a 5” variance at the side setback, should take the 5” out of the house and comply;
Like upstairs windows taking advantage of views of rear yard;
Concerned with how you access the street from the driveway, could there be a safer arrangement,
concerned with driveway configuration; could move house back 20’ to have a 24’ back-up with
maneuverability from garage and would allow for extra off-street parking; if did move garage back
20’, could drive forward out of the lot; if move house over, would impose on another side setback,
but there are no neighbors to impose on if moved back; hammerhead turn around should be
considered; with concept of moving garage back, could relocate guest room and pull house back 4’;
applicant should take a look at moving the garage, do not think that moving the house is necessarily
a good solution; there are some advantages to reconfiguring the garage but do not know if it could be
pulled off;
The house is right up to the maximum allowable square footage, a wall without openings should be
built between the garage attic and house and a condition should be added that area over garage,
accessible only from the garage, can only be used for storage;
property owners have not had driveway problems for 25 years, and house is at end of cul-de-sac with
little traffic; house has been designed nicely, would like to see it remain the way it is;
the openness between the two driveways helps to maintain a view for backing up a car; not too much
concern with the driveway; and
parking really needs to be addressed, could have five drivers living in the house at one point, need
more off-street parking.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
12
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with guidance for the
applicant to consider re-orienting the garage for safety and usability. This motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
Comment on motion: is there some middle ground to which an off-street space can be oriented beside the
garage; maybe slide garage over ten feet so footprint stays the same; realize that this is an odd lot and that it
is likely that the project is going to require variances; architect should go back and come up with a plan for
better access, not just research the alternative; if house was built as is it would be a positive addition to the
neighborhood; want to see an explanation of the effort to address the garage reconfiguration; because this is
an unusual lot the City will offer considerations because the lot creates constraints; the design has come a
long way; superb job on the building; okay with size of the house and the orientation; good project, trust the
architects judgment; and overall happy with the design.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with
guidance for the applicant to consider re-orienting the garage for safety and usability. The motion passed on
a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Cauchi dissenting and C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
9. 1336 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCE TO THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
TOM LEYDEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff how much square footage
is exempted for a basement area from the FAR calculation. Staff responded up to 600 SF is exempt plus 100
SF for utilities.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue, represented the
project.
Commission commented:
like the front elevation, but uneasy with the flat portion of the roof, if the entire roof was at the
appropriate pitch it would need a 1’ variance for height; the flat roof indicates the scale of the house
is too big;
driveway side has interesting aspects, almost approaching a Colonial façade; like the elevation, but
will look very boxy and big when it is built;
left hand side façade falls apart, needs a lot of work, craftsman style disappears;
some second floor roof elements could come down a bit on all elevations; front and back are better,
falls apart on the side;
basement ceiling height is 5’-11”, could be built to 7’-6” or higher and 700 SF of basement area will
be exempt form FAR, could reduce mass by using this area;
If roof pitch and plate heights were played with, could eliminate the flat roof;
Issue with mass and bulk is not handled well in this design; curved wall along left hand side adds
mass and is not really consistent with the style; is a massive box with decorative elements attached
to it to try to make it less massive;
needs better explanation and dimensions of knee brace; knee brace looks diminutive on the front
elevation;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
13
call up material sizes and dimensions on the elevations for the window trim, knee braces and
buttress; front columns should have function;
left side elevation is not too exciting; could add detail to the front entrance;
no findings for the front setback variance, described hardship is dissatisfaction with the block
average; where would an additional 2’-5” setback hurt; this is a new house, variance is based on a
hardship, do not see the one house with a 55’ setback as a hardship for this property that does not
apply to all other properties on the block; unnecessary to apply for a variance;
have flexibility to take workroom down to the basement area;
do not want to just see a lower roof pitch; there is a lot of room to play with on the second story; and
reduce the footprint and FAR.
The applicant responded: changing the roof to a 6:12 pitch is a possibility and that on this block of Paloma
Ave all houses have a normal front setback except for one house with a 55’ front setback and they want to
remove this house from block average calculation. 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. Deal.
Comment on motion: applicants generally are happier with their project after going through the design
review process with a consultant; like the four bedroom house, one car garage approach; and there is not a
lot of flexibility on granting variances, hardship has to be specific to the particular property.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the
direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.
10. 607 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN HERMANSON, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JIM WALL,
PROPERTY OWNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Cauchi recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. He
stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. John Hermannsson, 2659 Spring St. Redwood City, and Jim
Wall, property owner, represented the project. Commission commented:
like the project overall;
a 4’ x 10’ skylight is a little over the top, concerned that skylights become night beacons to the sky,
would like to see some spec sheets on the skylights;
how are sheer walls going to be provided for the second floor; can all seismic issues be addressed;
show the second floor curved window protrusion on the left side elevation;
will all the windows be simulated true divided lites;
can master bedroom windows be re-worked along the left side, play with window heights;
the shed roof piece over the bathroom looks a little bit awkward, seems to crowd the roof on the
right hand side;
the massing of the addition is fine, the details are consistent with the existing house;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
14
the house design appears to be on the English side, could round off corners of the shed roof which
could define English style and add interest;
the window layout is a little awkward, it begs to be centered over the entrance; why not square off
the bathroom and provide a gable instead of a shed which would eliminate the shed situation; and
like the quirky configuration, needs some articulation, good to break up the roof line.
The applicant responded: the proposed skylight will be Cowell Skylights that allow only 85% of light in and
85% of light out, with a translucent insulation, placed at a slant, and will not be seen from the street or by
the neighbors, they give nice even light to a space that needs light; the shed roof doesn’t appear anywhere
else, the second story shed should be subordinate to the first floor; looking from the street, up to the house is
the view that will be seen; and this proposal has been reviewed by the neighbors. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica stated that the entry needs some changing because it is a little awkward and it needs more finesse;
made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the discussed revisions have been
incorporated into the design and plans, staff has plan checked them and there is space on the agenda.
Comment on motion: the architect is talented and did a great job on a difficult home; this house and style is
often based on symmetry; the skylights should be located so that they do not impact adjacent houses; and
would be good to include cut sheets on the skylights with the subsequent submittal. This motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
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 5-0-1-1 (C. Cauchi abstained, C. Osterling
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10
p.m.
11. 1535 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JOHN
MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GILBERT FITZGERALD AND CAROL
MURPHY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description noting that this item is a resubmittal of a previously
approved project which expired, so it needs to be subject to public review again. Commission asked if story
poles were installed as part of the original approval of the project. Staff indicated that the applicant could
indicate the extent of the story poles.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack Matthews, 3354 E. 4th Ave San Mateo, and Gilbert
Fitzgerald, property owner, represented the project and stated that story poles were installed as part of the
original application because the neighbor to the left had concerns about their view. Commission asked if the
photovoltaic panels were part of the original application and if the trimming was done on the trees in the rear
yard. The applicant responded that the photovoltaic panels have always been part of the proposed project,
that the tree approved with the tree removal permit was removed and that some trimming, but not all, has
been done to the trees in the rear yard. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with no changes required. This motion
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
15
was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with no changes
to the project and no story poles required. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
- North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee Report.
CP Monroe noted that she had included a copy of the proposed amendments to the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan with the packet for tonight's meeting to give the
Commissioners some extra time to review the plan. The amendments to the specific plan and the
remaining zoning district to implement the plan, El Camino North, will be on the next Commission
agenda. CP noted that the Commission had discussed the proposed changes to the ECN zone at a
previous meeting and that the changes to the El Camino Gateway subarea in the plan reflected those
changes. CP asked for any comments tonight or later.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of October 3, 2006.
CP Monroe reviewed the planning related actions at the October 3, 2006, council meeting.
Commissioners noted that staff could encourage applicants to submit half sized plans, it would be
easier to manage them during the meeting and on the site.
- FYI: 821 Paloma Avenue - changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
Commissioners acknowledged the changes proposed .
- FYI: 1420 Montero Avenue – requested change to a previously approved Design Review project.
Commissioners acknowledged the changes proposed
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
V:\MINUTES\unapproved 10.10.06.doc