HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.23.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
November 13, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the November 13, 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 and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 23, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with the following corrections: Page 3, first
paragraph, fourth line should read “…shall be evaluated by a licensed
certified arborist…”; page 10, item 10, line 5, change Chair Brownrigg to
Vice-Chair Deal; page 12, item 11 paragraph 2, change Chair Brownrigg to
Vice-Chair Deal; and page 13, Item XII Adjournment change Chair
Brownrigg to Vice-Chair Deal. The minutes were approved unanimously as
corrected.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 835 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JAMES
WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JUANITA LUCERO, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Several Commissioners noted that they visited the site
and commented that there is a large existing accessory structure on the property to the rear at 842 Acacia
Drive and that it spans the rear property line of this site. Commissioners asked:
Applicant notes that the additional space in the accessory structure will be used for licensed child
day care. Is the child day care use existing or proposed? If existing, how long has it been in
operation at this site?
How many children are allowed with the existing day care and how many would be allowed if the
addition to the accessory structure is approved?
Can a condition be added to limit the number of children in the day care facility?
Staff should discuss with the applicant how this addition to the accessory structure will impact any
future improvements to the house;
Clarify nature of entry into the foyer; unclear plans, show a curved opening with a rectangular
surround;
Provide details of the large door into the recreation room, looks like a garage door;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
2
Walkway from house to accessory structure is 18 inches above grade, why does it need to be so
high? Should consider a walkway at grade;
Explain why this accessory structure will not have an impact on the adjacent neighbor and the use of
their rear yard;
Explain why this action would not be granting a special privilege;
Explain why this addition and function in the accessory structure couldn't be added to the main
dwelling, either on the first or second floor; and
Concerned that as designed this appears to be a second unit.
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 7:10 p.m.
2. 1205 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION AND
INCREASE IN SEATING AREA OF AN EXISTING FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
(ORHAN KURT, APPLICANT; ARNIE GAPESIN, A&T DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER; LENCI
FARKAS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Deal 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.
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
Staff report indicates proposed exterior stairway will be metal, but material is not noted on the plans;
please clearly indicate stairway material on plans;
Review Elevation 1 on sheet A-2P, check building code and verify which portions of the stairway
need a railing; provide a detail of guardrail; verify that design of rail extensions comply with code;
Not sure exterior stairway has been fully though out, verify compliance with code, configuration
may need to change.
This item was set for the consent 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. 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR MASTER SIGN
PROGRAM FOR FOX PLAZA MALL (SIGN AND SIGN AGAIN, APPLICANT; TOLU FAMILY
TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
How would the master signage program handle the combination of two tenant spaces facing
Burlingame Avenue;
Clarify details on sheet A-3, need to see actual fonts, sizes and color schemes need to be defined,
reason for master signage program is a uniform system of signage;
Sheet A1-2 the side elevations, understand the need for height above parked cars, but signs need to
be depicted more accurately (to scale), upper signs could be moved down to be parallel to others,
these do not seem to match the square footage for the percentage over 12 feet;
Generally agree with the number and location of the signs requested, think need more graphic design
in the signs themselves. Individual tenant signs need a consistent size, type face and color; the Fox
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
3
Mall sign listing tenants is not thought out in terms of type face, spacing and color; drawings are
inconsistent, need to be cleaned up and more accurate and to scale;
Would like to see samples of the proposed signs, very important;
Dimensions are off relative to scale, A-1-2 lower sign needs to be minimum 8 feet off grade, clearly
is lower than that, A1-3 shows sign C at 40 SF, tenant is shown to take a small part of this area, will
the entire area be filled with words, if that’s the case 40 SF will look like a lot more sign
aesthetically.
Subcommittee on signs has discussed guidelines for sign heights which are less restrictive than the
current 12 foot limit, could staff share this in the staff report.
Commissioner comment: feel that the Fox Mall sign identifies a place, can it be treated differently than the
retail signage; CA noted that the courts have directed that the city can not distinguish between markers and
signs; concerned that Burlingame Avenue is about pedestrians, and the question is will this program be less
pleasant for pedestrians?
There was a consensus among the Commissioners that this item should be brought back to the commission
as an action item when the program has been fully developed and all the questions and issues identified
addressed, checked by staff and there is space on the Commission’s agenda. This item concluded at 7:30
p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt.
4a. RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 23, 2006, LETTER FROM DAVID MOUTOUX ALLEGING VIOLATION
OF BROWN ACT.
4d. 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) (94 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
4
4e. 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B-1 – AMENDED APPLICATION FOR AN
ADDITION TO THE FOURTH FLOOR OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (ANGELINE
ASKHAM, WALKER WARNER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OUTFITTER
PROPERTIES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (90 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
a. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, AND PARKING VARIANCE; AND
b. AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM MAP
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Commissioner called off item 4c 607 Concord Way because issues were not addressed
and CP Monroe called off item 4 b because of a requested change to the project. Chair Brownrigg set these
items for public hearing on the Action Calendar. He then noted that items 4a Response to October 23, 2006
letter from David Moutoux, 4d 1440 Chapin Avenue, and 4e 345 Lorton Avenue remained on the consent
calendar. He noted that with the Commission’s permission he would like to make some changes to
personalize the letter to Mr. Moutoux.
C. Osterling 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 by
resolution and with agreement to the Chair personalizing the letter to Mr. Moutoux. The motion was
seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve items 4a, the letter to Mr. Moutoux, 4d,
1440 Chapin Avenue, and 4e, 345 Lorton Avenue with the changes noted. The motion passed 7-0 on a
voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
4b. 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) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report October 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. She noted the receipt of a
letter from the neighbor at 1600 Granada (property to the rear of the project site) requesting that the roof
pitch on the addition be changed from 4:12 to 3:12, and that the original story poles showing 4:12 pitch had
been removed and replaced with story poles showing 3:12 pitch. She also noted that the plans in the packet
showed a 4:12 pitch, no plans showing a 3:12 pitch on the first floor addition have been submitted; however
this is not a design review project. Commissioners asked: what is the difference in peak height between a
4:12 and a 3:12 pitch? Commissioner noted about 15 inches. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tom Davis, 1322 Webster Street, Oakland, the applicant noted
that they agreed to reduce the roof pitch on the new addition to 3:12. There were no further comments from
the floor. The public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
5
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with and amendment to the first condition
allowing the roof pitch of the new first floor addition to be 3:12 and the following conditions: (1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
September 22, 2006, sheets Planning-1 and -2, and that the new roof over the sun room shall have a 3:12
pitch with asphalt shingles to match the existing roof over the main dwelling; (2) that any changes to the
footprint, floor area, or building envelope shall require an amendment to this hillside area construction
permit; (3) that during demolition of or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving
on the site, 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; (4) that
demolition for 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; and (5) 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. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the change in the roof
pitch on the first floor addition from 4:12 to 3:12. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
4c. 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 noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project site so would recuse himself from this action.
He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
Reference staff report October 13, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin 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. John Hermannsson, architect, represented the project.
Commissioner noted that he called the item off the consent calendar because he had three questions were not
addressed in the comments, and if they came up later would require another review by the commission
which he hoped to avoid. First was the concern about the second floor fenestration conflicting with the
ability to install shear walls as required. The architect noted that he is working with a structural engineer
who recommended a drag line at the sheer wall at the utility room on sheet A4 extended to the second floor,
he indicated that it would be enough to take the force. Second concern was the narrowness of the space
between the top of the plate and the subfloor as shown on sheet A8, concerned how the second floor will be
supported without the beam extended outside of the envelope of the house, 9 inch beams stick out through
the roof, if it is necessary to raise the roof to get the beam inside there may not be room for the windows as
shown on the plan without changing the roof. Third concern was light glow from the 40 SF skylight shown,
documents submitted indicate that depending on design, the skylight could reduce light glow/transmission
from 14% to 50%; what design are you using? Architect noted that the solar heat coefficient being used is
SHGC .15. Commissioner asked about light transmission, can it be reduced below 50%. Another
Commissioner added that he has some experience with this type of skylight and they are opaque and diffuse
the light at night so that the impact is less than a tinted skylight. There were no further comments from the
floor. The public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
6
C. Auran moved by resolution to approve the project with the added condition that the light emitted from the
large skylight shall be reduced to less than 50% of the lumens emitted from an un-tinted glass skylight of the
same size and with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 1, 2006, sheets A-1 through A-9; 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
light emitted from the large skylight be reduced to less than 50 percent of the lumens emitted from an un-
tinted glass skylight and that other skylights installed in this house now or in the future meet this same
standard for night glow; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s June 23, 2006 memo, the
Fire Marshall’s and NPDES Coordinator’s June 26, 2006 memos, the Recycling Specialist’s July 3, 2006
memo, and the City Engineer’s July 5, 2006 memo shall be met; (3) 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; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; (5) that prior to scheduling
the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide
architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown
on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or
contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; (6) that prior to 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 project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California
Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (10) that the project shall comply with the
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new
construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and (11) that
the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amended condition regarding
light emission from the skylights. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abstaining) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
C. Cauchi returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
5. 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) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal noted he would recuse himself from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant.
He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
7
Reference staff report October 23, 2006, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: if
the deck area were expanded to its current full size on this site the future it would count in FAR? Yes
because it is 5”-10” off the ground. There is a letter in support from Monte Corvino, is that within 500 feet
of this property? Monte Corvino is to the west of this property, it is not shown on aerial, if it is within 500
feet it is just barely there. Is the area under the deck counted in FAR? Only if the ceiling height is six feet
or greater. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Stewart Gunrow, designer, JD & Associates; Weyman Lee,
property owner. Susan Lee, property owner. Have two children, getting bigger and need to add a bedroom,
scope of project is small, less than 400 SF; remove existing deck to provide room for addition so will not
add bulk to the house, two of the three variances are minor modifications, would not require a public hearing
for the two; the storage area created because of the slope on the lot can be seen as a hardship for the FAR
variance. Commissioner asked staff which variances are minor modifications; CP noted the side setback
because it is an extension of existing nonconforming wall and lot coverage because the increase is less than
41%. The FAR variance is not an administrative variance and always requires a public hearing.
Commissioner asked architect at study to look at bringing the addition down to reduce the head clearance of
the area below it, why did you not consider? Discussed not good for use of space to drop it down, next to
kitchen, tripping hazard, hard to sit there, aesthetically prefer not to have steps. Commissioner noted over
FAR a few 100 feet is all that existing space under the house? Property owner noted that garage is existing
and over sized 60 to 70 SF, area under the house at 7’ or less which is too low to be habitable but high
enough to count in FAR, hardship is the slope on the lot. Commission asked if property owner could
eliminate the side setback variance, bring wall in one foot, would help articulate side elevation. Architect
noted looked at, if jog wall in one foot would result in a hip in the roof or an over hang on the roof that was
one foot deeper in that area than on the rest of the house. Basement area floods, has too low a ceiling to use,
only have 1750 SF of living space, like living in Burlingame, this is not a monster house, blends in with the
neighborhood, all the neighbors have signed a petition in support. There were no further comments from the
floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: the deck is existing, area will be enclosed, will be cleaner as an addition; 2
variances are minor modifications, there is a strong showing for the third given the slope on the lot, have
looked at alternatives; agree that the hardship is the slope on the lot and the existing structure; lot of other
lots with slope the area below the house would not be enclosed and would not count in FAR;.
C. Vistica moved to approve the project by resolution with the three variances including findings stated in
the record and noting that the hardship for the floor area ratio variance is the placement of the house on the
lot and the design of the existing house in relation to the slope of the lot; and with the added condition that
none of the area below the house without habitable ceiling height shall not be converted to living space in
the future without review of the Planning Commission and an additional variance; and should the house be
replaced or undergo a major remodel in the future the floor area ratio variance shall become void, and with
the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
October 11, 2006, sheets 1-8, F-1 and F-2, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit, and none of the area below the house, current check or any future
deck without habitable ceiling height shall not be converted to living space now or in the future without
review of the Planning Commission and granting of an additional floor area ratio variance; (2) that the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
8
variances for side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio shall only apply to this building and shall
become void if the building or floor area is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or
natural disaster or for replacement; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 8, 2006
memo and the City Engineer's, Recycling Specialist's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES Coordinator's May 8,
2006, memos shall be met; (4) 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; (5) 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; (6) 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 (7) 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. Cauchi.
Commissioner discussion: propose an amendment to require that the square footage in the lower area which
is included in the current floor area ratio but does not meet habitable ceiling height shall not ever be changed
to living area without further review by the Planning Commission and if the house is every demolished or
substantially remodeled, the replacement or remodeled house is required to conform to the allowed floor
area ratio. Cers. Vistica and Cauchi, maker and second of the motion, agreed to the amendment. It was
noted that it should be clear because of the FAR variance that the rear deck cannot be expanded in the
future.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the side setback, lot
coverage and floor area ratio variances requested with the amendment that none of the area under the house
and deck currently without habitable ceiling height shall be used for living space without approval of the
Planning Commission and that if the deck is ever expanded or the house is ever removed or undergoes a
major remodel it shall be required to conform to the mandated floor area ratio. The motion passed on a 6-0-
1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m.
6. 1404 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND FLOOR
AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL (DAVID AND JANIS
SPIVACK, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LARRY KAHLE, METROPOLIS
ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
(continued to November 27, 2006 meeting)
7. 1441-1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – AMENDED APPLICATION FOR A NEW FOUR-
STORY, 20-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER
ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES LLC C/0 LITKE
PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (139 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
a. APPLICATION FOR ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING; AND
b. AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL
PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
9
Reference staff report October 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. One hundred-two conditions were suggested for consideration which include
the mitigation monitoring plan. Commissioner asked if this project is denied, does the original approval
stand. CA responded yes. Commissioner asked if the changes to the project were considered as minor in
the context of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. CP responded yes, the addition of three dwelling units
and the traffic impacts are minor, parking is provided on the site and the foot print of the building is
essentially the same, no change is proposed to the common open space or site landscaping, each unit is
provided with private open space, arranged in a more uniform pattern. There were no further questions from
the Commission.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 857 Burlway Road, represented the
project. He described briefly the changes proposed to the project noting that there is a slight increase in
floor area on the forth floor because of the removal of the mansard roof on the rear half of the building; lot
coverage is reduced slightly; he noted that the reason for the changes to the number of units, size of units
and building are based on the changes in the residential market since they did their original market study
before applying for the original project. Noted that the rear façade can be seen from the common open
space, feel that there is sufficient articulation in the building to make up for the loss of detail on the rear of
the building, no changes are proposed to the common open space and the trees and creek provide a screen to
the rear of the building and so changes to the building would not affect use of the common open space; when
changed the number of dwelling units looked at the entire façade , decided to break up the long side walls by
removing the mansard roof so the side would look like two elements; proposed change in stone trim to
reduce the number of penetrations through the stucco and reduce the maintenance costs for future
homeowners association.
Commissioners asked: liked the continuous mansard roof and the way the building looked before, can you
do the same exterior with a new interior arrangement of 20 units? Architect noted most of the addition units
are on the third and fourth floors because gained floor space when removed the mansard roof, putting the
mansard back on would reduce at least two of the forth floor units (numbers 18 and 20). Commissioner
noted that removal of the mansard roof appears to add about 500SF. Commissioner expressed concern that
some people like smaller units but do not think that these will be any more affordable, but the quality of the
exterior of the building has been reduced, how is this better for the community? Architect commented that
from the last review heard guiding direction to increase the number of units and reduce the size, some of the
other items such as removal of stone quoins look at making the building more cost effective, need to balance
the cost of construction with the sale price of the units. Commissioner noted that additional dwelling units
are good for the community; how did you address the water proofing of the two stories below grade parking
garage, is there funding to build the necessary retaining wall and keep it from collapsing? Architect noted
worked with engineer on method of water proofing basement area, also will use zipax which is a material
used to water proof water storage tanks, have retained a water proofing consultant. Commissioner noted
originally wanted driveway relocated to the right side of the lot to give neighbors at 1435 Bellevue more
separation from the impact of this project, the mansard roof provided some reduction to the impact, now
want to remove half of that, units 18 and 20 most affected have big closets and bathrooms which can be
adjusted to accommodate the addition of the mansard roof, would suggest that put 20 units in the original
design or build original proposal. Architect noted could put 20 units in the original design with some
exterior adjustments for windows and balconies. Commissioner noted hate to see the quality of this initial
design spoiled, was not on the commission at the time of the action on the original, but would support that
project. Commissioner noted would support changing the quoins from stone to stucco, think there is little
difference in appearance and a big difference in cost, agree what like is the mansard roof with darker colored
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
10
real slate effectively hides the fourth floor from the neighbors. There were no further comments from the
floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: As understand it, if approve this revision the applicant can build either project?
CA noted until the approval for the original expires. More smaller units is an advantage to the city, not see
mansard as critical, changes on the elevations are fine, when it is built the details on either set of plans
would fit in; agree about adding more units, but design should be more in keeping with original; think that
the window and balcony arrangement is better with the second proposal but the mansard roof should extent
around the entire building.
Chair Brownrigg made motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the applicant has addressed
the following:
a mansard roof around the entire building, roofed with the same dark real slate shown in the original
proposal;
the stone quoins can be changed to stucco quoins throughout;
the project contain 20 dwelling units of the smaller sizes proposed in the second submittal;
the window pattern and balconies should be revised to match the pattern in the second proposal;
all other stone surfaces, except the quoins, should be kept especially around the entry and window
trim as shown on the original; and
the fluting around the windows (gull wing)can be done in stucco.
The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Comment on the motion: commission wants to be careful not to design the building for the architect and
over correct for the changes; to have the whole building in stucco is too much, stone accents have an impact;
willing to do away with the stone veneer on the first floor.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to a time when revised plans
have been submitted to the Planning Department, have been plan checked and there is space on an agenda.
The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The continuation includes the Tentative Map. This action is not
appealable. The item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
8. 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
Reference staff report November 13, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg noted that
he had listened to the tapes of the previous meeting for this project. Commission asked if the Planning
Department received any response from the public after the renderings were posted at the site; no comments
or inquiries were received. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. 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, noted that the color
rendering presented at the previous meeting was not accurate, after reviewing the rendering he revised it to
accurately depict the size and scale of the proposed storefront, adding larger trees and people to give it
human scale; to reduce the scale of the storefront at the front doors, a perforated metal screen was added, the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
11
color of the screen will match the color of the framing around the windows; the inside of the store will not
be a white box and therefore will not emit light and glare onto the sidewalk and street, the interior space will
consist of colored plaster and a French flea market theme, interior space will help to tone down the look of
the storefront. Commission noted that the metal screen helps to reduce the scale, but wished the applicant
went further. The wood dowels are unique, has this been done before at any other locations? No.
Commission expressed a concern with the wood dowels extending to sidewalk level, could be tempting for
children to climb on; applicant noted that there will be a mesh screen behind the wood dowels and that the
dowels will be attached with screws to a metal frame with vertical members two feet on center.
Further discussion: compliment applicant for addressing the Commissions' concerns from the previous
meeting and for revising the rendering, like the variation along the front of the building, the elevations for
the proposed façade were posted on the construction fence before the Commission action meeting. CP noted
that there have been no comments from the public as a result of the posted plans. Commission asked if the
number of resin light boxes had been reduced from the previous meeting; no, the rendering may show less
because it's an artistic representation, but the number of light boxes is accurately shown on the proposed
plans. Commission asked what is the element behind the window on the left side? Applicant noted that it is
an existing concrete beam which will be visible behind the window. Commission expressed a concern with
proposed design, feel that it does not fit in with downtown Burlingame. Commission noted that the rear of
the building will be visible from the public parking lot, what is being proposed for the rear of the building?
Will there be any signage at the rear? Applicant noted that at this time the plan was to paint the building a
neutral color and that signage would be submitted under a separate permit. Commission asked how many
Anthropologie stores there are on the Peninsula and nationwide? There are three stores on the Peninsula
(San Francisco, Palo Alto and San Jose) and 105 stores nationwide. Commission asked why was
Burlingame chosen as a location; applicant noted that Burlingame has key demographic, women 25 and over
who are affluent and have a sense of style and sophistication. Commission asked if the parking was a
consideration when reviewing Burlingame as a possible location; yes, thought parking in the area was
adequate and accessible with Lot J and available street parking close by. Commission asked if staff
discussed the downtown study and how to incorporate the Howard Avenue commercial area, there may be
an opportunity to do something with the rear of the building to make it more inviting and also benefit the
business; yes, also met with Citizens for a Better Burlingame to discuss these issues, opening the rear of the
building creates a problem with loss prevention. Commission asked the applicant to consider a way to
identify the business at the rear of the building rather than just painting the building a neutral color, maybe
the rear of the building could be cleaned up so that fire escapes are not visible, would like to see a clean
finish or other type of treatment, can work with signage; since the building extends across the entire
property, the paint chosen should be one that does not fade. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: feel that the proposed design does not relate to Burlingame, it is too contemporary;
there is no pediment to stop your eye at the top of the building as with most buildings in downtown
Burlingame. Commissioners noted that they would like to be informed of the improvements proposed for
the rear of the building.
C. Vistica noted that the storefront will work well as shown on the scaled perspective and with the proposed
improvements for the Wells Fargo building across the street and moved to approve the application, by
resolution, with the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
October 10, 2006, cover sheet, sheets C2, D1, A1 through A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A5.1 through 5.8 and date
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
12
stamped November 1, 2006, sheets A1, A3 and A5; any changes to the exterior materials shall require
review by the Planning Commission; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 6,
2006, memo, the City Engineer's October 4, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's October 2, 2006, memo, the
Recycling Specialist’s October 16, 2006, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 3, 2006, memo
shall be met; (3) 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; (4) that any changes to
the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls,
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be
subject to design review; (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 the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by
the City of Burlingame; (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; and (10) 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. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: Commission noted that once the color and exterior material have been chosen for
the rear of the building, it should be brought back as a Planner's Report. CA Anderson noted that the
applicant can work with the Public Works Department to obtain an encroachment permit for any signage
which may encroach into the public right-of-way.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Deal
dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
9. 1199 BROADWAY, SUITE 2, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION
FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INCREASE IN THE HOURS OF
OPERATION OF AN EXISTING FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (TOMMY NGAI AND
DANNY KUAN, APPLICANTS; GARBIS BEZDJIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Deal 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.
Reference staff report November 13, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
13
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tommy Ngai, owner of Joannie's Happy Days Diner, noted
that he would like to extend the hours of operation to accommodate evening customers, recently moved to
Burlingame and feels part of the community. Commission asked if four employees (two part-time and two
full-time) would be enough cover the extended hours, may need more employees for a restaurant operating
seven days a week, 18 hours a day. Mr. Ngai noted that he and his partner are currently the full-time
employees, feels there is no need to add employees. There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Terrones commended the restaurant owner for living close to his business on Broadway and that the
extended hours of operation will bring more night life to Broadway and moved to approve the application,
by resolution, with the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
January 19, 2006, sheets A-1 and A-2; (2) that this business location to be occupied by a full service food
establishment, with 700 SF of seating area, may change its food establishment classification only to a
limited food service upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment, and the
criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; (3) that the 700 SF area
of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas
within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; (4) that the parking variance
shall only apply to this 1,226 SF tenant space and the food establishment use with 700 SF of on-site seating
and shall become void if the tenant space or food establishment use is ever expanded, demolished or
destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; (5) that the full service food establishment
may be open seven days a week, from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight), with a maximum of two full-time
and two part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; (6) that
this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the
streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any
additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (7) that the business shall
provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the
business; (8) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared
food from this premise; (9) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from
any opening within 10' of the property line; (10) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use
to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use
permit shall become void; (11) that seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of
any encroachment permit issued by the city; (12) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's
November 22, 2005, memo, the Fire Marshal's and City Engineer's November 21, 2005, memos, the
Recycling Specialist’s November 23, 2005, memo and the NPDES Coordinator's November 29, 2005, memo
shall be met; and (13) 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, and that failure to comply with
these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions
shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal
abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
14
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 1535 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE
(GEOMEN AND ELIZABETH LIU TRUST, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JERRY
DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
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 chamber.
Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter of support was submitted by
Barbara Wullschleger, next door neighbor at 1537 Los Montes Drive. Commissioner noted that the
proposed project exceeds the maximum allowed FAR by 266 SF, but that 280 SF of the basement is the
attached garage, understand zoning code states that a garage cannot be exempt from FAR, what was intent?
CP Monroe noted that intent was to discourage sunken garages on flat lots; the upward slope on this lot
eliminates the sunken garage, but it is still counted in FAR. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Geomen and Elizabeth Liu, property owners, and Stewart
Gunrow, designer, JD & Associates, were available to answer questions, since last meeting have worked
with the next door neighbor and designer to design a project that will not impact the neighbor and fit in with
the neighborhood, much of the mass and bulk is now proposed below grade, eliminated the top floor to
address concerns with view blockage; would not need a FAR variance if garage in basement was exempt.
Commissioner commended the design because it reduces the mass and bulk compared to the previous
design.
Barbara Wullschleger, 1537 Los Montes Drive, noted that she reviewed the revised plans, the new design is
very nice, appreciate the height of the house being reduced. Commission complimented Ms. Wullschleger
for sharing her concerns with the project at the first meeting and attending the second meeting to express her
support of the revised project.
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project:
Front railing is proposed to be wood, should consider using a metal railing, it would work better
with the stone veneer; if choose not to use metal, the design of the wood railing should be more
ornate and in keeping with the prairie style;
Provide detail of traditional stucco mold trim around windows, note material and size of trim
proposed;
As proposed there is no trim proposed around the windows along the side elevations, only a bottom
sill, window trim should be added around these windows and should be consistent throughout the
house;
Designer should figure out a way to conceal the rainwater leaders;
Suggest adding a shadow line to the fascia and another reveal where fascia meets the corner;
Front walkway should be given some prominence, need to announce the front door, walkway or
banister should be enhanced;
Front walkway should be widened; walkway material should match the stone veneer proposed on
house;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
15
Concerned with the design of the garage door, it is very horizontal and will quickly look dated,
consider incorporating the glass elements found on the side of the house on the garage door; and
Wood panels on garage door should run vertically, will help front elevation.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions listed
above have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: Commission noted findings for the FAR variance include: the project is located in an
area which has a restriction on view blockage, the sloped nature of the site provides a good solution by
digging into the hillside to hide the mass and bulk, creates a space that and does not contribute to the visual
mass an bulk; garage in basement counts against FAR, but if it were a basement it would not count, this is a
complication in the code.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the dais.
X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
- Permit Processing Subcommittee: Report on work on Permit Expiration issues.
CP Monroe reviewed the key points of discussion by the subcommittee on the permit extension issue. A
commissioner noted the importance of educating the public about the importance of getting a final
inspection on work done on their homes or buildings. There are a lot of myths out there that need to be
corrected. CBO indicated that once these code changes are approved he will develop a series of
appropriate handouts based on them. It was noted that the CBO is doing seminars for home builders and
the construction and real estate industry members twice a year. The next one is November 14, 2006. Staff
will continue to notify the Commissioners when these are being offer. The Subcommittee will meet again
to continue to address the issues raised regarding the permit expiration regulation proposal.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- City Council regular meeting of November 6, 2006.
CP Monroe noted that the appeal hearing for the skin care clinic use as a health service was set for the
December 4, 2006, Council meeting. She also noted that the jurisdictions in the county are beginning to
meet to discuss the allocation of the County Regional Housing Needs numbers for the 2009 Housing
Element.
- FYI: 1149 Drake Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project.
There were no comments on the proposed changes to the project at 1149 Drake Avenue.
- FYI: 1613 McDonald Way – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Commissioners asked that the proposed changes to the project at 1613 McDonald Way be put on the action
calendar for a public hearing.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
16
In closing the commissioners asked if staff would report back to them on the status of the following projects:
1371 Columbus Drive;
1155 California Drive, the clock tower is not keeping time at all.
1300 Sanchez Avenue, the status of the project and the continued presence of a large contractor’s
sign.
235 Primrose Road, the status of the appliance store going into the Old Wells Fargo Bank building.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 13, 2006
17
V:\MINUTES\minutes.11.13.06.doc