HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.23.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 23, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the October 23, 2006, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones
Absent: Commissioners: Vistica, arrived at 7:05 p.m.; C. Brownrigg left at
10:05 p.m.
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson;
III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with a correction on page 11, second full
paragraph, text amended as follows: " …biggest problem is probably the
good neighbor fence between the two properties not block the ability to
park;” C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from voting on the minutes
since he was not at the last meeting. C. Deal moved to approve the minutes
as amended. The motion was second by C. Auran. The motion passed on a
voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Osterling abstaining, C. Vistica absent)
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2725 ARGUELLO DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (THOMAS BIGGS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ALBA LOPEZ,
PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that they had visited the site and
viewed the story poles from the neighbor's perspective, the initial concern was view blockage and whether
this project would set a precedent for others in the area, noted that each case is reviewed on its individual
merits, in this case the impact on views appear to be minimal.
Commissioner Vistica arrived at 7:05 p.m.
This item was set for the consent calendar with no changes requested. Commissioners asked staff to call the
neighbor at 1600 Granada Drive to let them know the item was placed on the consent calendar and the
reasons why. The item concluded at 7:07 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
2
2. 1612 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND
FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (WEYMAN LEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES,
DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal indicated that he has a business relationship with the applicant and will recuse himself from the
proceedings on this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. CP Monroe presented a
summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that there is a 340 SF area and a 185 SF utility area that
are counted in floor area, are these areas created because of the slope of the lot? Yes, the area is more than
two feet above grade and does not qualify as a basement. Commissioners asked:
• Clarify which parts of the house are being counted in the floor area calculations.
• Clarify the hardship on the property for each of the three variances;
• It appears that the required setback can be met on left side, which would improve that elevation a lot;
• Suggest to applicant that there is now a large storage area under the house which is used as storage
area, including a large area under the deck, if he were to sink the family room down a few steps, it
would make the area under it unusable as future floor area, would feel better that the area under it
could not be converted to living space later.
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 7:15 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the dais.
3. 1441-1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING AND
TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY, 20-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
(DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BELLEVUE
ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O LITKE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN
BROOKS
SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Would like an explanation from the applicant why the architecture changed so significantly;
• Concern with the rear elevation and the view from the common open space, architecture has been
watered down and detail been removed, that is a concern.
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.
4. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE #330/#350, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPLICANT;
MICHAEL NILMEYER, NILMEYER NILMEYER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; CORTINA
INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had no questions regarding the project.
Commissioners noted that in the future requests in such large buildings with sufficient parking might be
taken directly to action. This item was set for the consent calendar with no changes or information
requested. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
3
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.
5a. 1535 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT 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
5b. 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
5c. 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
5d. 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
a. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT; AND
b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP (ACTION TAKEN AT PREVIOUS MEETING – OCTOBER 10,
2006)
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests. CP Monroe noted that she would like to amend condition 8 of
item 5d. 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, to include the wording "…and the trees along the rear neighbor's property
line shall be evaluated by a certified arborist and protection measures defined and put into place before a
building permit shall be issued." Chair Brownrigg noted that he would encourage this applicant to replace
the tandem parking spaces shown on the original plans, because additional parking is always a benefit to the
future property owners. Since this is not required parking, it is the choice of the property owner.
C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners'
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and as
amended for 1459 Oak Grove and by resolution for each project. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
4
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
6. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCE 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
Reference staff report October 23, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, project architect; and Janet
Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, presented the project, noting that the neighbor to the left had submitted a letter
in support of the plan as now proposed, outlined the changes made to the plans to eliminate the side setback
variance and to increase the front setback to the garage; the front entry was turned towards the street with a
rounded porch; a garage exit study was done for different configurations as requested by the Commission,
noting constraints with placing the garage doors at a 90 degree angle to the previous proposal and exiting the
garage through the narrow driveway at the front of the lot, if garage is pushed back to meet the setback, will
create other variances at the rear of the lot and encroach into the portion of the lot adjacent to the creek.
Public comment continued: Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, representing Otto Miller who owns property on
the block; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, do not have a problem with the housing having the maximum floor area
allowed, when ask for the maximum, should be able to build without a variance, it feels like the houses are
crowded and jumbled at the end of the block because of the street layout, the solution is to set the house
back to give the feel of a cul-de-sac and slide the garage to the left; there are options to redesign the floor
plan, could relocate the office to the rear of the house next to the media room, would have better visual
approach from the street, the garage would be hidden and you could see past it to the adjacent house. There
are ways to get enough back up space for the garage, the objection seems to be to the post between the two
spaces, would be better off to have a larger door without a post, could get in and out easier, porch would be
at the side of the garage facing the street; might be helpful to see a streetscape design to help make a
decision on what would fit in best. The issue with the fence is that it blocks parking options; this fence
seems to be a dispute between neighbors, have witnessed other hearings on this block, should grant variance
for this situation.
Additional public comment: Randy Grange, project architect, and Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake, noted that the
garage post is not the only problem with backing out, it has to do with the shape of the lot, house at 1547
Drake is not constrained by the driveway width on the street like this one and the side entry garage works
well; looked at moving garage 15 feet from front property line, caused variances at the rear of the lot, one
way or another, there will be a variance required, will have to pick the best option; there used to be a fence
between 1557 and 1561 Drake, a tree came down and flattened the fence, there are many houses that have
side entry porches and main entrance at the side, that is the case for 1561 Drake, it is considered a side entry
not front entrance, so not an issue that other house is close.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: Understand it would be difficult to rotate the garage 90 degrees, but still
concerned that the garage is too close to 1561 Drake, could it be ten feet from property line, that would help
a lot, as it is proposed, it will provide shadow to front door at 1561 Drake; mass of garage faces 1561 Drake,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
5
two properties are now in same ownership, will not always be, should look at garage mass with different
roof style; this is a new house on a larger than standard lot, will have more back yard than most due to the
lot shape, have to determine the degree of variance, the lot has an odd entrance, when you drive in or back
out there has to be a lot of maneuvering; do not see need to set back the garage by 35 feet, even though we're
calling it a front it has the look of a side view, not agree with the need to reduce the mass next to 1561
Drake, it is like a side yard; can work with a garage without a post, for safety purposes, need to be able to
exit in a forward direction.
Commissioner comment continued: This is a congested street, have to use the same criteria for all houses,
when you allow houses to be built with extra bedrooms, will need more parking, there is no street frontage,
will need adequate on-site parking and turnaround, same criteria as applied on other projects on the block,
cannot approve as proposed; do not know if existing garage location is best location, creates a blunt end to
the street, learned tonight that there are configurations that can generate a great house and a better parking
configuration, convinced that there are better ways to lay the house out; proposing the maximum size house
on a 7,000 SF lot, but it is placed on a piece of the lot that is smaller than a typical lot, may have to encroach
into the "T" formation of the lot, it is possible that a variance is justified, but think there are better
configurations for parking and garage location; was in favor of current configuration, but have been
convinced that there are alternatives that will make a better project; as now proposed the garage door is a
major element; proposing to fit a large house on one-half of the lot, it does not fit, cannot approve as
presented, landscape plans need to be redone to match new design.
Further Commissioner comment: Do not have as much problem with the location of the garage, similar to
the way the existing residence is situated with a fore court and coach house, but still have a concern with the
massing of the garage, needless attic space presenting itself to the corner of 1561 Drake; do not see the need
to require more on-site parking than is required for others, do not think this house should bear the burden
because the street has a choke point, cannot create enough space to properly place the garage, didn't like the
original layout with the garage at the left rear corner of the lot; this is a workable plan if the massing can be
reduced on the right wing; think the applicant should look at pushing the house northerly adjacent to the
creek, house can extend into that area and be pleasant with a wooded setting, would give relief to the
bottleneck at the garage and driveway, house could be nestled in trees, has problems as now designed.
C. Vistica moved to deny the project without prejudice, with the direction given. The motion was seconded
by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: To clarify the intent, the garage could be put into different location, house could
encroach into area to the north, there could be leniency to the setback on the other side since there are no
houses adjacent there; there are reasons for a variance on lot, it is not the intent to make variances go away,
can be leniency in possibility of a different variance, there are plenty of options, architect is talented, can
address; if you look at aerial photo, there are no residences close by at the rear of the lot, the hardship is the
shape of the lot, house can be built in a different configuration that can relieve the congestion at the front;
will vote in favor of the motion only for reworking of the massing of the garage, not the location; oppose
motion, if just massing of the garage, could continue the item, would like to see more room between the
houses at 1557 and 1561 Drake, could increase the setback between the two houses, may be a massing issue.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a
4-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Terrones and Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:30 p.m.
7. 1404 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LOT COVERAGE
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
6
VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL AND NEW DETACHED CARPORT (DAVID
AND JANIS SPIVACK, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LARRY KAHLE, METROPOLIS
ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report October 23, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that
the proposal is for an open carport, building code requires that there be no openings within three feet of the
property line, will this comply with building code? Planning staff noted that there are no specific comments
from the Chief Building Official on this issue, but would require compliance with the building code at time
of construction. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. David Spivack, 1404 Edgehill; Larry Kahle, 900 High Street,
Palo Alto, represented the project, noting that at the last meeting gave direction to provide a covered parking
space, tried to design something that would work. When bought the house knew there were aspects that
were not ideal, want to make it into a house that can raise family in and get rid of the things which were
done improperly, would love to use that area for parking; originally applied for a parking variance because
of the unusual condition on the lot, there is only limited frontage on Capuchino, an enclosed structure would
block light and air,
Commissioners asked: there is an iron bar installed across the driveway; applicant noted that this was
installed by the previous owner and will be removed; would you consider installing an electric remote
control gate across the driveway? Yes. Did you consider putting a two-car garage forward of the dog leg
with enough space to come through the gate? Looked at that option and was an issue, if closer to the house
it would be an extension of the house and invade rear yard, having the parking parallel and adjacent to the
neighbor's garage makes more sense. Would you be prepared to accept a trade-off, with no carport and
installing an electric gate? The building code allows an open metal structure next to the property line, the
area is only 10'-3" wide, can meet code requirement with the open structure, but with walls, the interior of
the parking space would be too narrow, have not studied the two-car issue, but it would be hared to
maneuver. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Comment: proposing a carport structure with metal roofing, it will be an abomination, glad
to see that you're fixing up the property, but would rather see a structure with walls that will house a car;
what you will see from the house is a corrugated metal roof, if you had a simple structure nestled in the trees
it would be less of an eyesore; the applicant is now enjoying all the advantages of not having a garage, do
not think we have ever said not to put in a garage, think should have a garage with walls, could put in an
automatic garage door opener and would not need to have an electric gate and can try to make it look better,
if that is done, would be okay with the lot coverage and floor area ratio variances, cannot just say that
because the situation exists, you should get away with it; suggesting one car garage at end of driveway,
could have doors at both ends to provide access through to an uncovered space; need to have as much off-
street parking as possible, to have a garage out there for sake of meeting requirement does not make sense,
can have two uncovered spaces in driveway with gate; think can visualize a nice one-car garage, do not
think will be used, would rather see uncovered driveway with electronic gate used for off street parking.
C. Brownrigg moved to continue the item to allow the applicant time to redesign the project with one of the
following two options: 1) provide a single-car garage at the rear property line with an automatic door where
the carport is now proposed; or 2) provide two uncovered spaces in tandem and provide an electronic gate at
the gate (will require parking variance); with the understanding that in either case the variances requested
would be tied to current circumstances and if new construction or a substantial reconstruction to the house
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
7
or parking were proposed, the variances would go away and the project would have to comply with code
regulations in effect at that time? The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
8. DETERMINATION ON SKIN CARE CLINIC AND SPA USE AS A 'PERSONAL SERVICE'. PROJECT
PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report October 23, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report summarizing
the nature of the business requested and its consistency with the current definitions in the zoning code. She
noted that the issue here is the definition of the use. Once clearly defined, then the appropriate zoning
districts will be determined. In the end if the applicant wishes to add a new definition to the zoning code
and identify appropriate zones for that use, that is not a determination and would require separate
application to the commission to cancel the zoning code. Cers. Deal and Vistica both disclosed that they
met with or were made aware of this project by John Ward before tonight's hearing. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Ward, 792 Willborough Place, represented the applicant,
along with Jerry Winges, architect and urban designer, 1290 Howard Avenue, and Debbie Sharp of
SkinSpirit. They feel that their proposed use is a 'personal service' like a 'beauty salon' as defined in the
current zoning code; feel that they are not a medical service just because a cosmetic treatment offered
requires a registered nurse trained and under the leadership of a doctor; the number of patients actually seen
by a doctor on the site will be less than 1%, 25% of the customers see a nurse in the course of their
procedures at the site; they are not treating a disease on the site but providing a cosmetic procedure; this use
is not a lab or office, it is a skin clinic and spa, the existing definition of 'personal service' is unclear and the
fact has not been tested before. Goal in the downtown area is to encourage a turnover of parking and
provide interest and activity on the street fronts, this use includes a retail and personal service, Botox
treatments are combined with cosmetology, if it meets the goals of the downtown should be allowed without
regard for how it is labeled as a use. Have a shop in Palo Alto which would like to replicate in Burlingame,
25% of visitors are walk-in, 80% are scheduled; 5 to 7 people working daily, 6 days a week, 3 to 36
appointments a day ranging from 15 minutes to an hour, average appointment is 30-40 minutes, licensed
staff includes registered nurse, aestheticians, others include receptionist, retail sales clerk and leadership
who is a licensed physician who is on site 1 to 3 days a week. The doctor is an employee of the business
and a principal in the business, he is scheduled for training and available at client's request. Commissioner
asked is insurance required and what kind? Applicant responded registered nurse and doctor are provided
malpractice insurance, other licensed individuals are not required to have malpractice insurance, overall the
business is insured; Botox treatments average 28 per week, 2 to 5 per day. Commissioner asked how bio-
waste is handled; Botox is not a bio-waste issue to her knowledge, delivered by FedEx, stored in a
refrigerator, do not share needles used, can be done on prescription or on request as an elective. This is not
a Botox clinic, not the main purpose of the business, overall spa and beauty, registered nurse does
treatments, state requires a doctor to be a part of the business, there are others doing Botox in Burlingame
without a doctor being present;
Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Most places like this look like a beauty
shop, one on second floor of Crosby Commons and one in the 1400 block on the second floor, prefer to have
a doctor around for this treatment, might take a different tact if this is a health service can go in Subarea B,
the proposed site is adjacent to Subarea B, might look at moving the line between Subarea A and B, so use
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
8
would be allowed with a conditional use permit. Applicant noted that this applicant does not have the time
to request the relocation of the line between Subareas A and B or to add a new definition to the code, cannot
wait a year to have the study of the downtown completed. There were no further comments from the floor.
The public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: Sounds like cosmetology that is very careful and professional, what you would like
to see in such a business where surgery is included; agree sounds like cosmetology rather than health care
until discussed insurance, doctor and nurse both require medical malpractice insurance which is what is
required for a health service. Think this use is between personal service and medical, if personal service
there is no regulation of the extent of the business, someone with a Botox clinic could locate in Subarea A,
leery that there would be no regulation of such use at all. Regulation is inherent in the licensing process
with this type of use, cosmetic services being attached to it, without Botox this is a cosmetic/skin treatment
personal service. If this is called cosmetology then we will have Botox clinics all over town. If a registered
nurse is required then this does not look like a normal hair and nail care salon. This proposed use will
generate more traffic and parking than a beauty salon. Have relatives who are doctors, if need an doctor and
a registered nurse it is a health care business, can debate the classification of the business but registered
nurses consider themselves health care professionals whatever they are doing. Opposed because need
something more than a permitted use to have proper control of this use, need to provide guidelines for hours,
staffing level, intensity of use because a lot of businesses come and go, replaced by similar uses.
Chair Brownrigg made a motion to uphold the City Planners determination that this proposed use is a health
service use as defined in the Zoning Code. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to uphold the City Planner's determination. The
motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Auran, Terrones, Vistica dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
9. AMEND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND REVISE AND
RECLASSIFY THE ZONING IN THE EL CAMINO REAL NORTH SUBAREA (271 NOTICED). PROJECT
PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report October 23, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report reviewing the
background of the implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the need to
clarify the language in the plan adopted in September 2004. She noted that three zoning districts implement
the plan Trousdale West (TW) and Rollins Road (RR) already adopted and El Camino North (ECN) which
is included for review and action at the public hearing tonight. The staff report includes a summary of the
proposed amendments to the specific plan and the text of the ECN zoning district, compliance of the
amendment with CEQA including Addendum to the Negative Declaration ND533-P, and compliance with
the adopted General Plan. She pointed out that there are three questions regarding the zoning that the
commission should address tonight after the public hearing. Three communications regarding the plan were
received after the packet was delivered and are at the Commissioner's desks this evening: David Moutoux,
letter, October 23, 2006; Eileen Chow, CSE Investments, letter, October 19, 2006; Larry Anderson, memo,
October 20, 2006. Commission asked if the second letter submitted from Mr. Moutoux this evening is also
included in the correspondence; CA responded that the subject of that letter is not on the agenda for
discussion this evening. Commission asked if the portion of this planning area along El Camino Real would
be eligible to be integrated into a future El Camino Corridor plan and what would that mean to the city. CP
noted that this area could be integrated into a future El Camino Corridor Plan, and after that plan was
accepted by C/CAG and MTC a Burlingame El Camino Corridor plan would make the city eligible for
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
9
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) funds for each bedroom built within the corridor in the future. This
money would be used by the city to make the public improvements necessary to support future development
in the city. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Albert Guibara, property owner in Rollins Road area; Jim
Knapp, representing a client in the Rollins Road area; Eileen Chow, 1206-1220 Rollins Road; Pat Giorni,
1445 Balboa Avenue; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater spoke. Am a sculptor in the Rollins Road area do not
feel that animal shelters fit with industrial/warehouse/office uses or with the city's noise and odor
ordinances. Object to the proposed amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
because commission made a determination in 2005 that a veterinary hospital without boarding was similar to
an animal shelter, 40 petitions and letters from property owners were submitted that suggested that the
animal shelter use does not fit when changed zoning in 2006; now you want to amend the specific plan, have
filed a lawsuit against the city, now amend general plan for animal shelter where everyone does not want
one; feel that this use would impact the area tremendously, not realize the impact of the sound, feel you are
being fed information, wherever it comes from, that is misrepresentative, want to give you direct
information so you can be educated and realize the impact, note letter from Mr. Moutoux submitted this
evening points out that there was not proper notice of your October 10, 2006, meeting, no study to speed this
process which will result in more litigation. Is this the first reading of this ordinance before the Planning
Commission. CA responded yes. Feel Brown Act not subscribed to by limiting comments to three minutes
and fact no more staff reports for this item are available at the rear of the chambers tonight, feel Bay Area
Air Quality requirements are violated by odor with PHS application, Burlingame city ordinances are
violated with housing of wildlife in that project, and city ordinances for noise and odor are also violated
with that project so any conditions will be violations, hope all commissioners will read the PHS
environmental document including the appendixes on the enclosed disc, see that standards are being
violated. Concerned about the Southern Gateway Entrance area in Rollins Road areas: would like the
wording for this area modified to promote continuation of existing industrial uses, do not want conditional
use permits to be required for small industrial tenants, and change wording in footnote 4 on page30 to
remove words 'community approved' before gateway features since the review needed is discussed in the
text, if cannot remove the words replace 'community' with 'city'. Comments on ECN district, medical office
use should be expanded along El Camino Real and allowed on more than just the first floor, existing medical
office buildings may need to be replaced in the future and should be allowed to do so? Plan does not allow
health services on Marco Polo; does this include the land owned by the hospital? How will veterinarians be
handled in Burlingame Plaza, there is one there now, there is also a pet store in the plaza? Concern is trees
on El Camino Real, the street tree recommendations on page 47 do not include the tree species selected
since adoption for the reforestation of El Camino, they should be changed. There were no further comments
from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Chair Brownrigg apologized and noted that he had to leave and turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Deal. C.
Brownrigg left the dais and Council Chambers (10:05 p.m.).
Commissioner comment: feel that limiting health services to the ground floor is not the best use on
properties so close to the hospital; intent of ECN zone is to encourage mixed use; questions is should stand
alone office buildings be allowed; regarding animal shelters, they are called public services would public
services be expanded to include animal shelters if act tonight, appreciate comments heard, need more time to
consider and get a number of clarifications before can vote; also concerned about animal shelter is not a
veterinary hospital which is a medical type use with a different parking impact, feel should allow office use
in ECN up to two floors to encourage mixed use, existing medical offices can remain, ECN would then
allow stand alone residential uses and mixed use office and retail. CA noted that if the Commission wanted
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
10
to revisit animal shelters the plan and zoning need to be returned to the Subcommittee for study to change
the definition and amend the adopted Rollins Road zoning regulations; noted have been at the process of
planning for this area since 2002, ECN is the last implementing zoning district, there are a couple of
applications for large projects in the ECN area which need to be addressed, Rollins Road and Trousdale
West zoning ordinances have been adopted, this request tonight is clean up language to be clear what is
expected and to clear up Southern Gateway Entrance issues.
Commissioner comment continued: clarify direction to the subcommittee regarding medical office in ECN,
do not want to encourage stand alone office buildings in this area, agree that can have medical office up to
35 feet in a building (0.5 FAR); in the design guideline criteria understand that want to establish that
guidelines are not regulations, but feel that in the language the 'should' should not be changed to 'can', ‘can’
includes too many inferences; front and side zero lot line setbacks should hold to 35 feet; need to determine
if the additional setback over 35 feet on the front and sides is optional or required, and how it should be
determined, diagram 5-6 does not show the bulb outs on Magnolia at Trousdale, should be corrected. These
issues should be referred to the subcommittee.
Vice-Chair Deal noted that this item would be continued to another meeting after the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road subcommittee has met and made recommendations on the issues raised this
evening. CP Monroe noted that since this item was being continued to a date uncertain, when it is brought
back for action staff would renotice the item in a newspaper of general circulation and send post cards to all
property owners in the specific plan area as they did for this item this evening. This item was completed at
10:25 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
KENDRICK LI, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Commissioner Osterling noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the
proceedings on this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chamber.
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked what the required width of the
driveway is; 9'-6" clear width is required. There were no further questions of staff.
Vice-Chair Deal opened the public comment. Kendrick Li, 2212 Hillside and Ben Behravesh, 4 West Santa
Inez Avenue, San Mateo, project architect, presented the project, presented photographs of other homes in
the neighborhood; felt that this project would be compatible. Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater; Pat Giorni,
1445 Balboa; and Dennis and Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue spoke; noting that the applicant's
first project in Burlingame was in my neighborhood, disappointed in how it turned out, it does not relate to
the neighborhood, the details on front appear very flat, a hodge-podge of styles, it looks cheap, it was
designed from the inside out; Hillside is one of the first views of Burlingame and its charm, connects
between Freeway 280 and El Camino Real, the proposal does not fit, would be a good house for Telluride,
but not on Hillside Drive, in direct conflict with the new house going in across the street; proposing a 700
SF basement, what is to prevent this from becoming sleeping quarters, this extra 700 SF is exempted from
floor area; concerned with the Magnolia trees, on his other project the applicant did not install tree
protection, need to make sure measures are in place here before work begins; live right next door to project
facing Columbus, very concerned about the detached garage in the rear of the lot; none of the other houses
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
11
on this block have garages in the back, there is a long greenbelt of lawns to the rear of the houses that is
used for picnics and playing in yards; there is a lot of paving proposed in this project up to and beside the
garage, what prevents these areas from turning into a big parking lot; concerned with protection of the six
pittosporum trees on our lot along the property line, it is proposed that Italian Cypress will be planted along
the fence, will affect the root structure of the pittosporum trees; if the fence is damaged, it should be
replaced and painted to match; design is not compatible with the area, the tower and rooflines are a concern,
our living areas are adjacent and the new house will be four feet from that property line.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project:
• Applicant showed four examples of houses in the neighborhood, these examples do not relate at all
to the predominant development in the neighborhood, the neighborhood has changed over time,
there used to be more variation, more recent styles tend toward Mediterranean and are not the
traditional, should look at older styles in other parts of Burlingame;
• Important that the house fit into the context of the neighborhood, this does not mimic what was built
in the 1920's and 1930's;
• Applicant states that this is an updated Craftsman style, appears to be more of a neo-Prairie style,
there are not a lot of prairies in this area;
• Concerned with the amount of concrete paving, it is not environmentally friendly to have that much
impervious surface;
• Concerned with large flat north wall;
• Materials are not called out on the plans such as brackets, sill head materials, there is a lot of
inconsistency in the detailing;
• Concerned with the cornice line and the way it wraps from one side to the other;
• Unclear how the light well works down to the basement, it appears that the light well intrudes into
the 9'-6" required driveway width;
• Plans call for Sierra Pacific windows, need to specify that they will be true divided lite or simulated
true divided lite windows;
• Massing is articulated, mass and bulk pretty good except the north elevation which is long and flat;
• First floor plate height should be no more than 9 feet, reduce second floor plate height to 8'-1";
• The encroachment into declining height envelope can be eliminated, this style does not justify the
exception, the special permit is meant for architectural character, this design is not limited by the
declining height envelope;
• Style does not fit neighborhood at all, need to rethink completely;
• We generally encourage detached garages because it is the predominant pattern in Burlingame, in
this case in deference to the neighbor would like to see driveway moved to the other side of the
property;
• In this case, maybe attached garage is more in keeping with what is on Hillside Drive, not opposed
to attached if that is consistent with the predominant pattern;
• Make sure the landscape plan does not include Italian Cypress, particularly next to the neighbor's
established shrubs and trees.
C. Cauchi made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Auran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
12
Comment on motion: Need to come up with new design and design reviewer would provide assistance to
help it fit the site and be consistent with the style of the neighborhood; have concern with sending it to a
design review consultant, it is a large burden to place on the design reviewer to help with such a significant
redesign; do not agree, the design review process is meant to provide assistance in difficult cases such as
this.
C. Cauchi amended the motion to bring the project back on action with a recommendation for denial with
prejudice. C. Auran accepted the amended motion.
Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with a
recommendation for denial. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-1-1-1 (C. Vistica dissenting, C.
Osterling abstaining and C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m.
11. 220 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
FOR SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL OF AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A RETAIL USE (DAVID A. LEVY,
DAVID A. LEVY & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; ALI REZAEI, ARCHITECT; CHICKEN CHICKEN LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if this project proposes a change
to the sidewalk, yes, the applicant will be required to install streetscape improvements as outlined in the
Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Plan, this includes new sidewalks with a slight pink tone to them, will
match the sidewalks installed nearby in front of Parking Lot J. C. Terrones noted that he had occasion to see
a presentation of the project proposal at his office.
Vice-Chair Deal opened the public comment. David Levy, 345 Springside Drive, Akron, Ohio; Ken
Nemeth, Senior Development Manager for Anthropologie, 26566 Paseo Del Mar, San Juan Capistrano,
California, and Robin Ostler, 531 W. 26th Street, New York, New York, represented the project, described
the concept proposed and presented samples of the materials to be used, will create rhythm by alternating
materials since it is a 90-foot long street frontage, the face of the building recedes and comes forward and
creates visual and spatial texture; bench will be placed where the façade steps back, windows open into the
store, can see what is inside; to enhance the pedestrian scale, a smaller window wraps around the corner
adjacent to entry; propose a screen set forward from the face of the building made of Ipê wood dowels and
copper backed by a hog wire screening, a manmade material which will give a cloudy feel, will be
illuminated from the back with a low level of light so the wall will glow.
Commissioners asked: will the copper tubing maintain its patina or is the intention to let it oxidize? The
intention is to allow the copper to oxidize, the Ipê wood will also weather over time, but it take its time to
age, the copper tubing will be denser near the top, any runoff from the oxidizing copper will be caught by
wood dowels lower on wall. What is the environmental classification of Ipê wood, is it sustainably
harvested? It is not endangered; do not know the classification for sustainability.
Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater, and Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston Avenue, spoke regarding the project, likes
the project a lot, hope that not too many resin insets are placed in the concrete, they will be like jewels, so
should be sparse, agree that the scale is big and could be brought down at the entry; concern with the overall
size, will incorporate three stores into one, will dominate the entire block, is there a way it can be broken up.
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
13
• Design works well, is broken up into pieces, will read like different store fronts, the materials are
rich, the built-in bench is wondrous, works well with the two small windows.
• Very handsome design, concern is with the scale, some elements are ten feet tall, could something be
introduced at the entry and along windows at the eight foot line to provide a human scale; add some
nice horizontal element to bring down the scale.
• Façade is 90 feet long, there is a lot of glass with large panes, concerned with the size of windows
• Would like to see some kind of treatment for the large expanses of glass and address how much light
comes out of them at night; could add sun screen to reduce energy gain.
• Like the design, except do not see it in Burlingame, does not have anything that tells me it's
Burlingame; also, as it goes up to the top, it does not have anything to stop your eye as most
buildings do in Burlingame.
• Recommend that the design plans and materials be posted either in the City hall lobby or on the site,
applicant should provide a press release to the newspapers to let people know what is proposed.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Terrones made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions
listed above have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Deal dissenting, C. Brownrigg
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:50
p.m.
X.COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
- There were no Commissioner's Reports for review.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of October 16, 2006.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of October 10, 2006, noting that Council
discussed commission and board attendance requirements, noting the differences between Commissions
and asked that in the future all minutes reflect the attendance, late arrival and early departure of
Commission members. She also noted that a subcommittee of the City Council met with a representative
of Safeway to discuss a process for gaining input for a future project. CA handed out a handy reference
guide in procedure and ethics prepared by the League of California Cities for the Commissioners to use.
- FYI: 110 Clarendon Road – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Commission had no comments on this change to the project.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary V:\MINUTES\minutes 10.23.06.doc