HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.09.14REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 1998
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Deal called the September 14, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
MINUTES
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
FROM THE FLOOR
STUDY ITEMS
Commissioners Coffey, Keighran, Key., Luzuriaga, Vistica and
Deal
Commissioner Bojues
City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson;
City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall
The minutes of the August 24, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were corrected to read: "C. Key moved approval
for the project at 1434 Columbus with conditions in the staff
report and eselutien. " The minutes were then approved.
The applicant for item #16, 999 Howard Avenue, requested a
continuance. The order of the agenda was approved.
There were no public comments.
APPLICATION FOR FRONT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1701 CARMELITA
AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KIERAN P. & NOREEN H. O'SULLIVAN, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe described the project briefly and the commissioners had no questions. C. Key
suggested that this project be placed on the consent calendar for action.. The commissioners
agreed. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on September
28, 1998.
-1-
City of Burlingame Planting Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
APPLICATION FOR REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION
SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1260 BERNAL AVENUE., ZONED R-1. (KEN
IBARRA, APPLICANT AND RICHARD MEDEGHINI, AND WILLIAM R. AND M.A.
MEDEGHINI, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe described the project and the commissioners asked: what is the definition of "new
construction" in the California Building Code; a 3754 SF house on a 5264 SF lot is over FAR,
why do the applicant's need all that room plus a 13' rear setback exception; are there other
options which do not require a rear setback variance, would like to see the rear setback for the
second floor at the 20 feet required; see a minor hardship on the property because the corner
of the lot is clipped but the size proposed is disproportionate to the amount of hardship, explain
hardship justifying request; place story poles on the site to show the width and depth of the
second story addition so can evaluate the impact on the house on Easton; want written response
from each neighbor regarding their review of the proposed plans; what is the history of how the
porch came to be enclosed, look at old assessor's records; the site plan shows a side setback of
3' on the interior side, the floor plans scale 2.5' on that side to property line, provide survey
to show actual existing setback; cannot accept exceptional circumstances as submitted by
applicant, redo; plans do not show the elevation to establish the point of departure for the
declining height envelope, show on plans. This item was set for public hearing at the meeting
on September 23, providing that all the responses are submitted to the Planing Department in
time.
APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 3-STORY, 15-UNIT
APARTMENT BUILDING AT 518-524 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED R-3. (DIODATI
CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND ARMANDO AND GIOVACCHINO DIODATI,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
and
APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AT 518-524
PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED R-3. (DIODATI CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND
ARMANDO AND GIOVACCHINO DIODATI PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the Negative Declaration and Tentative Map to merge the lots,
noting that this was the time for the Planning Commission to make comments on the negative
declaration document since it was in its 20 day public review period. Members of the audience
should be advised that they too can comment to the Planning Department on the Negative
Declaration if they wish. Following the public review period and preparation of the response
to comments there will be a public hearing on the Negative Declaration and Tentative Map.
-2-
0
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
Commissioners commented: the landscape plan does not seem to address the sides of the building
and project adjacent to existing development, it appears all the landscaping is on the front of the
building, what is planned; there is a very dense and beautiful hedge between 516 and 518, which
property is it on and how will it be protected during construction; there seems to be a lack of
storage area within the dwelling units, this should be increased in all units to avoid abuse of the
on site parking; the north elevation appears to be inconsistent in its design in terms of what
happens above the parking garages, visually the openings and windows above do not appear to
work together; staff report indicates all parking is covered, there are 4 uncovered spaces
provided which abut property line, can this interface be treated better, provide solution with
landscape plan; a landscape element is shown inside the building at the entry, how will this
work; this site is near city hall and the newly renovated library would like to see it appear more
"historically correct" with raised relief in the stucco and similar window, and roof treatment like
the public library; feel the facade of the building facing Primrose is confused with the semi-
circular windows and the angled roof, would like to see divided light windows characteristic of
the library; think choice of materials stucco and aluminum windows is very narrow; when
combine lots the orientation of the setbacks change, would like to see how present setbacks
relate to the new ones (provide diagram) and would like to see how this correlates with the
existing setbacks on the two street frontages affected; concerned about the mass of the project.
This item was set for public hearing before the planning commission when the response to
comments are complete. The neighbors will be noticed of the public hearing.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND
ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A
COMMISSIONER, APPLICANT OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
Chairman Deal noted that there are three items on the consent calendar, 1346 Desoto Avenue,
1450 Columbus Avenue and 1470 Vancouver Avenue, he then asked if anyone on the
Commission or in the audience would like to call any items off the consent calendar. C. Vistica
commented that item #6, 1450 Columbus needs more work regarding the design and the
drawings are not quite clear, he would like to see 1450 moved to the regular calendar for public
hearing. Chairman Deal noted for the record that he would be abstaining from any discussion
or vote on 1346 Desoto Avenue.
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1346 DeSOTO AVENUE,
ZONED R-1. (JOSEPH & JENNIFER L. ADDIEGO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER).
C. Coffey moved approval of 1346 DeSoto, noting the findings in the staff report. The motion
was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 5-1-1 voice vote, (C. Deal abstaining and C. Boju6s
absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1450 COLUMBUS AVENUE,
ZONED R-1. (HUGO ARENAS, KASTROP GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND RICHARD
J. & JUDITH H. GROGAN, PROPERTY OWNERS).
C. Vistica move to continue 1450 Columbus to the next meeting for action.
Commissioner comment: applicant is seeking direction would like to take this item tonight; intent
of design is fine, little to schematic no structural input to go with design. in this case design may
result in a lot more remodel construction than applicant anticipates to execute design, would
increase cost, if continued would be a way for applicant to know up front what the costs and
alternatives may be.
The motion died for lack of a second. The item was moved to the action calendar as the first
item.
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR REVISION TO AN APPROVED PROJECT
WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED
R-1. (CHARLES J. SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER).
C. Coffey moved approval of 1470 Vancouver Avenue, noting the findings in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 5-1-1 voice vote, (C. Luzuriaga abstaining
and C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
REGULAR CALENDAR
C. Deal noted that the audience should be aware that at the applicant's request the public hearing
and action on the proposed self -storage facility at 999 Howard has been continued. There will
be another public notice when the item is brought back to the commission.
Moved from consent calendar to regular action calendar for a public hearing.
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1450 COLUMBUS AVENUE,
ZONED R-1. (HUGO ARENAS, KASTROP GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND RICHARD
J & JUDITH H. GROGAN, PROPERTY OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions
were recommended for consideration. There were no commission continents.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Hugo Arenas, architect, and Richard Grogan,
property owner spoke for the project. Do not understand why moved from consent calendar;
project not rejected, headed in the right direction, but concerned that structural loading shown
-4-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Mimaes September 14, 1998
is in center of rooms, if span wall to wall would need to install new trusses, may be all right
but it would be a lot of work to do and increase the cost, the plans are too schematic at this
point to tell; structural engineer work with told could do without affecting exterior walls, vertical
loads are on interior walls, will provide a continuous footing, feel that structural issue is taken
care of; if you feel comfortable, its OK. There were no further comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran moved approval of the design review at 1450 Columbus, applicant has done a good
job to blend the second story with the existing character of the first floor and has retained the
1920's look inside and out, he has provided a two car garage so the parking issue is addressed,
he has done a nice job with the landscaping, action is by resolution with the conditions in the
staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department date stamped September 3, 1998, Sheets A-1 through A-4; 2) that any
changes from the approved plans to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would
include adding dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, changing exterior materials and
windows or modifications to the first floor exterior walls before or during construction shall be
subject to design review; 3) that the exterior colors and materials of the second story addition
shall match the exterior colors and materials of the first story; 4) that the conditions of the Chief
Building Official's August 10, 1998 memo shall be met; 5) that the conditions of the City
Engineer's August 10, 1998 memo shall be met; 6) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City
of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Coffey.
Comment on the motion: good design job, would like to see more period homes; commend
applicant for not asking for a four bedroom house, is building what he :needs.
C. Deal called for a voice vote. The motion was approved 5-0-1-1(C. Luzuriaga abstaining and
C. Bojues absent). Appeal rights were advised.
REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT TO SELL JEWELRY AT 1111
BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (GARY KOLODZIE AND JULIE CASTRO,
PROPERTY OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions.
conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners had no questions on the staff
report.
-5-
City of ftrAngame Planning Commission Minutes Sepiember 14. 1998
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Julia Castro resident and home occupation holder
at I I I I Bayswater spoke: do not sell jewelry from the house; lot of people come to the house,
relatives, friends from high school; if you want to revoke permit it is your choice; angry about
letter from the city revoking the permit, it is the neighbors fault, they want to know what is
going on inside her house, she does not care what is going on inside their houses; she does not
want to sell jewelry any longer because people do not pay her and it makes her husband angry.
Commissioner asked: you do not want to sell anything; only if they call and pay cash, would
like to keep permit if you would let me. Her sister was there recently, she gets her mail
delivered to 1111 Bayswater and comes to pick it up.
Speaking in support of revocation: David Pollitt, 1109 Bayswater, treasurer of the Homeowners
Association of the condominium. He submitted written testimony and noted they are aware of
violations of the permit at 1111 Bayswater feel that Jennifer Jewelry has violated terms of
permit, she signed the permit that she would not have sales at 1111 Bayswater. There are three
residential condominium units in this building, the property is zoned R-4 (multiple family
residential) they have been residents since 1992 and have been subject to a number of violations
of this permit: heavy foot traffic from the street to 1111, up to 10 people a day, looking into the
windows of other units, asking for Julie; unknown people found in the common back yard
waiting for Julie; have seen customers, people exchanging money and packages on a regular
basis, see envelopes under the door mat; neighbor at 1105 have seen Julie come out to the street
to give people things, people park across driveways and in other people's driveways to come
into the building; she is conducting a retail/wholesale business and we believe she is in violation
of the Municipal Code and the permit should be revoked. Her violations affect our quality of
life. Eva Pollitt, 1109 Bayswater and Mary Alexander, 1107 Bayswater spoke in support of
David Pollitt's comments.
Others who commented were: John Wiegand, 1110 Bayswater, live across the street, President
of the condominium association, 18 units, support revocation, concerned by the traffic level, no
personal knowledge of the retail transactions but see the traffic, concerned about the residential
character of the area, its is zoned residential and want to protect; concerned about the future
precedent created with continuation of this permit with its apparent violations and what that
would mean for this and other neighborhoods.
In rebuttal Ms. Castro introduced her friend Maria Tobra who noted that she has know Ms.
Castro since 1976 she is a nice lady and she visits her often, does not see a problem. Ms.
Castro then introduced her husband, Gary Kolodzie, who noted that she would be willing to have
her permit limited but would like to retain it so that she can continue to try to collect from those
who have not paid her in small claims court; commissioner asked if had a license at time of sale
would not that cover her for collections; CA noted it should but small claims courts operate a
little differently from others, if the issue is a business license she could continue that from a post
office box until the collections were made; how long before the small claims court cases are
W
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1998
settled, don't know; does she have a business license, think so. There were no further
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: C. Vistica noted that there were plenty of violations of the conditions
of the permit noted in the staff report and testimony.
C. Key moved revocation of the home occupation permit to sell jewelry at I I I I Bayswater, the
applicant can have a business license from a post office box in order to pursue the small claims
court collections. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
Comment on the motion: the purpose of the hearing was to decide whether to revoke the home
occupation permit, it was not to provide an arena for other issues. There has been enough
discussion to support the violations of the conditions of the home occupation permit and there
have been complaints by neighbors which was also a condition.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to revoke the permit. The motion passed
6-0-1 (C. Boju6s absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT
ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW AT 508 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PETER W. & JANE G.
STEVENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four
conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Peter and Jane Stevenson, 508 Howard, represented
the project noting moved to Burlingame for the style and character of the neighborhood, as
family grows want their house to be consistent with the style and character; concerned with
maintaining a good relationship with neighbors, not want a negative impact; regarding variances
for parking, looked at a lot of alternatives, concluded that design presented really was the best
for all concerned, the front setback exception is an existing condition, all the houses on that side
of the street have the same front setback; parking variance, garage wide enough for two cars,
do store a vintage car inside, but not easy to get into, it is 27 feet long and can get car into; we
do have an automatic garage door opener, it was installed about a year ago; considered building
out toward the front on the garage but all the houses on the block have a similar look and it
would change that; the project is 33 feet outside the declining height envelope, garage ceiling
is 7'-2", need to raise ceiling height to habitable as move to rear, not like appearance of 18 inch
second story setback required to meet declining height; responded to design review, added
windows as recommended and altered their location, added landscaping, will replace common
side yard fences and share costs with neighbors; went to neighbors to review, they signed a letter
-7-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
endorsing request so it is consistent with them. There were no further comments from the floor
and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: went to site and spoke to applicant who has put a lot of thought into
the design, front setback is an existing condition and it would be a hardship to move the house
back to the 15 feet, main concern is the parking; currently able to park Z cars but have an 8 foot
door, looking to the future may not have one small and one large car, they have the option of
providing tandem parking they could move the garage forward or too the rear; the toilet in the
garage could be relocated since they are adding a full bath on that level and then move the office
and bedroom portion of the addition back 2 feet; neighbor is concerned. about sun and shadow
change, all this could be done and retain a good sized back yard. A lot is possible to make
parking better, the existing two side -by -side is a hardship, tandem is possible without altering
the design a lot, the rest is a good effort and consistent with the style of the house, the declining
height exception is a small area. If this project were not "new constriction" what would the
parking requirement be; one covered and one uncovered.
C. Luzuriaga commented that this is an unusual case where after the addition was started
realized that not want to live in mess again for second phase so did it sooner, if phased as
applicants originally planned they would not need a parking variance; willing to grant parking
variance. Declining height exception is dictated by the existing garage ceiling height so am
willing to grant, and the front setback is an existing condition consistent with the other houses
on the street, this street is unusual because all the houses on this side are so similar in
architectural style and have the same front setback, for these reasons and the reasons cited by
the other commissioners and in the record he would move to approve the front setback variance,
parking variance and declining height variance 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 August 17, 1998 Sheets 1-4 and Existing Site Plan, Floor Plans and Building Elevations
Sheets 1 and 2; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which
would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a
window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review; 3) that prior to issuance of a building permit amendment for the proposed addition the
property owner shall submit a landscape plan listing plant materials, container sizes and
irrigation to the Senior Landscape Inspector for approval and these approved plants and irrigation
shall be installed prior to scheduling the final inspection and issuing the! occupancy permit on
the work on the house; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Key.
On the Motion: discussed the alternative of a tandem garage, it would not be compatible with
the neighborhood and in the past have found that tandem garages do not work well, most often
they are not used for parking because it is not convenient.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the three variances. The
motion was passed on a 4-2-1 (C. Keighran and Vistica dissenting, C. Boju6s absent) vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR
SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE AT 2810 TIBURON WAY., ZONED R-1. (JOHN
L. STEWART, AIA, APPLICANT AND MITRA MORSHED-BERGLOFF, PROPERTY
OWNER).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four
conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the
commissioners on the staff report.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Marvin Bergloff, 945 Harenti Point Drive, they
divided the permit, already have a permit for the downstairs conversion and interior work; they
have six children, two of them have special needs and need a room where toys can be left out;
the lower area was an illegally converted laundry room with outside access only, another reason
to do the conversion was to correct the illegal work; he needed to install a new laundry; could
remove the rear deck and reduce lot coverage to 40.8 percent, this was the same as a plan
previously approved years ago but never built, this plan included an extension at the end of the
house for a bedroom; thought about increasing the ceiling height in the master bedroom to 10
feet but owner next door felt was too high and reduced to 8 feet, this would extend the ridge
from the garage over the bedroom, at the same height. Architect noted that addition would not
block views, only one side, the left, increases to 10 feet, several houses as you go up the street
have already made this same addition. Commissioner asked, now live in Redwood Shores do
you intend to move to Tiburon Way, yes like schools in Burlingame better; what special needs
are involved, two mentally handicapped children; children range in age from baby to 15 years.
Bud Harrison, 376 Lexington Way, representing the property owner at 2810 Tiburon,
commented when hillside area construction permit was adopted in many cases there was no view
blockage, but in this case the story poles tell the story, the view from his bedroom is obstructed
and to a lesser degree the view from the living room, see past the tree at the end of the street
to the side of the new roof; last June asked applicant to change the end of the roof to a hip, had
no further conversation with applicant until this application was made, roof not changed, so
appealed. Not opposed to the application, applicant needs space, want to object to the height
of the rear roof, can lower 18 inches to 20 inches without affecting the inside dimensions of the
room. Commissioner noted roof pitch on plans is 4:12, if went 3:12 would reduce the height
11- 12 inches, is that OK, yes; instead of gable end could also use hip which would slant back
and not interfere with view.
WE
M
City of Burlingame Pkgning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
Applicant responded: have discussed pitch of roof with architect, since house now 4:12 to
change part to 3:12 would not match, the transition would look odd and would save only 10
inches in height; when dropped from 10 to 8 foot ceiling went to gable so that he could take
advantage of the view on that side of his house, if he goes to hip he will loose view; also hip
costs more to build than gable. There were no further comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission continent: paid attention to letter from Mr. Berkoff, the new room is designed to
take advantage of the view, story poles demonstrate that view from house above will be lost,
about half of view, problem is that if approve request will give applicant view that is being taken
away from neighbor; have a problem with a 44 % lot coverage; goal is to protect long distant
view, view is blocked does not matter that view is of eucalyptus trees that screen water tank,
trees are a view; a good neighbor is willing to work with neighbors, could add on other side of
house, lot coverage is too much can be reduced but would not like to see the front porch
changed.
C. Coffey noted that he agreed that there is an easy remedy to the view blockage issue, would
not like to see the rear deck go, the contributes to the house and does not affect the
neighborhood; would move to approve the hillside area construction permit with the added
condition that the roof pitch of the new addition be changed to 3:12 and the gable end replaced
with a hip roof be approved by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as amended.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion
to approve with the proposed revisions to the structure only the hillside area construction permit.
The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bcju6s absent) vote.
C. Coffey moved for approval of the side setback variance and lot coverage variance for 44.2 %
based on the commissioners comments and facts in the staff report and record and that it would
not be detrimental to the neighborhood. C. Luzuriaga seconded the motion.
Comment on the motion: must vote no, feel lot coverage variance should be reduced to 40%,
reduce the mass of the bedroom and keep the deck if they wish; if approve 44 % lot coverage
does it go with the property and increase the potential for house size increase in the future, yes;
can address lot coverage just for deck with condition.
C. Luzuriaga requested an amendment to the motion adding a condition that the portion of the
lot coverage caused by the deck, 4 %, be limited now and in the future to deck and that the
house shall never be enlarged or the deck covered or enclosed to use this area. The maker of
the motion agreed to the amendment and the revised conditions for the project: 1) that the
project shall be amended from what is shown on the plans submitted to the; Planning Department
and date stamped August 14, 1998, Sheets A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 with a maximum roof
ridge height of 21'-5" as measured from average top of curb [elevation (=7'-3")], to include that
the roof pitch on the new additin be reduced to 3:12 and the gable end replaced with a hip roof;
Cuy of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
2) that the 4 % of lot coverage created by the deck shall never be enclosed in anyway or added
to the house and the deck area shall never be enclosed; 3) that any changes to the footprint,
building height, window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this
Hillside Area Construction Permit; and 4) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the
California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the side setback and lot
coverage variances with conditions amended. The vote was 5-1-1 (C. Key dissenting, C. Boju6s
absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE-STORY,
THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1424 EL CAMMINO REAL, ZONED
R-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA K.
SHAHMIRZA, PROPERTY OWNERS).
and
APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE-STORY,
THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1424 EL CAMINO REAL,
ZONED R-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA K.
SHAHMIRZA, PROPERTY OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirteen
conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked does it meet city
requirements to have two of the required eight parking spaces uncovered, yes; storm water is
being carried to El Camino, does El Camino flood in this area, no but water has to drain
someplace to the east off El Camino, there is a drain at Hillside to Mills, in a heavy rain storm
with lots of infiltration will still get some flooding east of El Camino in area where this water
will go, city is undertaking a city wide storm drain study which will give us a better
understanding of specific places which flood in the future, the applicant ,already has permission
from CalTrans to drain to El Camino; will Interceptor project on California Avenue help, will
reduce infiltration which will help but not solve the problem. CA Anderson noted that, since
the applicant did not submit them for review before, a condition should be added that the city
attorney shall review the CC and R's before a building permit shall be issued.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing on the condominium permit and the tentative map.
Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Suite 408, representing the project commented that
they had considered the commission's comments at study and looked at the design again. They
have made the following changes: the studied the front elevation considering the suggestion that
the guest parking be placed at the front and concluded to keep it at the rear because the design
change to mask the large cantilever would inhibit the access to the parking spaces; if parking
-11-
City of Bwlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14. 1998
is placed at the front then one of the spaces would have to be in the front setback and that would
add a variance and also reduce the landscaping at the front so that a variance for landscaping
would also be required, they can install signs to direct guests and deliveries to the guest parking
spaces at the rear; the structural engineer reviewed the cantilever and said that it was OK to do
it the way it was shown, there are several other buildings in town with equal cantilevers.
Commissioners asked applicant: how is the long narrow public open space next to the trash
container intended to be used, this design includes more public open space than the last, some
trees will screen the trash container area, did not have to submit landscape plan at this time; can
you shift building to the rear of the lot in order to place parking at the front, added column to
reduce visual impact of the cantilever, it would block the back -out of guest parking spaces at the
front whether they were in the front setback or just at the front of the ;tot; how hard will it be
for a guest to turn around if the two guest parking spaces at the rear are occupied, it would take
a number of maneuvers; where are the water heaters and furnaces located, in the attic space of
each unit; what does the dashed line mean on the plans, it represents the required setback lines.
There were no further comments from the applicant.
Other members of the public spoke: Sarah Langford, 1431 Capuchin Avenue, Pat Heley, 1427
Capuchino, have been at the other hearings on this project, commend reducing the project from
four to three units, concerned because of the drainage problem on Capuchino where surface
water from other developments fronting on El Camino sheets off into the :rear yards of properties
fronting on Capuchino. This site is the last left on this part of El Camino to absorb surface water
property owners at rear need to be given some consideration. Owned ;property behind for 30
years never had water in the backyard, will pump to El Camino take care of all surface
drainage; where is the sewer line, existing sewer is parallel to Capuchin and El Camino at the
rear of the sites facing El Camino, have problem with blockage from tree roots, since cleaned
no problem.
Dale Meyer, representing the applicant, commented they have noted the comments of the
neighbors and will do what Public Works requires to mitigate the drainage. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: have a lot of difficulty with the project, guest parking is not comfortable
at front or rear, put too much building on the site, built to most of the setbacks, is bulky have
three very large dwelling units so have to deal with an extreme cantilever; at study asked for
documentation of how the cantilever would work, did not supply, applicant talking to the
structural engineer is not adequate documentation; not sure this is the right project for this site;
appreciate alternative plan but it shows pavement at rear with parking at front, if reduce
footprint of building can put in parking which is useable for deliveries without a front setback
variance; there is no place for guests to park off site at the location, available guest parking is
critical, would prefer extra guest parking space next to two at rear, better than extra open space
provided; have no problem with variance in front setback for guest parking; good that reduced
-12-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Mirages September 14, 1998
from four to three bedroom units, but bedrooms very large could reduce size and reduce bulk
and mass of the structure would be better; the cantilever is extreme, from El Camino see long
drive and cantilever, will be an eyesore, could add any number of structural solutions to reduce
visual impact i.e. roof with tile, trellis, planting, of long wide driveway.
Commission discussion continued: this is a big improvement over previous application but being
"typical" of other projects is not a good basis for judging this project; would like to reduce
impact of cantilever with addition of an arch, concerned about parking if put a front and
eliminate the screen on the cantilever would make it look worse from El Camino; do not like
to barter, need to do it correctly, its still too massive reduced the number of units from 4 to 3
but only reduced the building by 10 percent; reduced the number of dwelling units but not the
mass, trellis sounds like a good solution but it won't work with the parking; not mind two
parking spaces at the front but reduce the width of the building and change the entrance, take
out walkway in side yard and exterior access to storage; need column at front don't want it
removed just reduce the bulk and the cantilever and it will work.
Chairman Deal moved to continue this item for redesign. CA Anderson suggested that it might
be better to deny without prejudice since the commission has given pretty clear direction.
Chairman Deal then moved to deny without prejudice the project and. tentative map for the
reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Key.
Comment on the motion: all systems serving to make the sump pump operable, including a back
up emergency generator, and the pump itself should be redundant so that no flooding
will occur on neighboring properties.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion
passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Boju6s absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A
CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE AT 1201 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B.
(BURLINGAME CHIROPRACTIC, APPLICANT AND 1201 HOWARD AVENUE LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four
conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the
Commissioners. Commissioners noted that condition 2 indicates that this medical office would
be open on Saturday, the applicant indicates that it will be open Monday through Friday,
condition should be corrected, staff noted correction.
-13-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Alex Podell, 1201 Howard Avenue, representing the
property owner stated this chiropractor is a use they would like to have in the building, the use
is compatible with the adjacent retail, real estate office and is similar because it is like a personal
service use where others have a similar high turn over in parking uses; the chiropractor is a less
intense use than the freight forwarding company in the suite which had 4 employees; since the
temporary library has been closed there is plenty of parking in the area. Greg Cameron, 100
El Camino Real, potential tenant spoke. He noted that they have appointments every 20 minutes
for the first hour and two each for 20 minutes in the second hour etc. for their 7 hour day, if
they have an emergency they have a patient use the extra 20 minutes in the second and
subsequent hours. Have been in the area at 100 El Camino Real a long time, 25-30% of the
patients live in the area and many walk to appointments, many elderly use public transportation
so not use a parking space. Greg Cool, Foster City, Greg Cameron has been in Burlingame for
16 years, this site is 2 blocks from his current site, area now is 2 people in 3000 SF, the new
site reduces the office size and has access to better parking. There were no further comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Coffey commented that he feels that the parking is available in the area in the public lots in
this area to meet the needs of the service provided, feels that the use will have less impact than
the previous freight forwarding use, the previous tenant, it would not be detrimental to the
public or neighborhood; it will fit into the neighborhood's commercial mix; so move for
approval of the one space parking variance and the special permit for health services in the 1047
SF, suite IOTA by resolution with conditions as stated in the staff report and with a change to
condition 2 to allow the health service use to be open Monday through Friday; the conditions
are amended as follows: 1) that the chiropractic office shall be limited to 1043 SF in Suite
IOIA, at 1201 Howard Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped August 11, 1998, Sheets Al through A3; 2) that the chiropractic office may
not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on
Tuesdays with a maximum of 5 people (employees and clients) on site at any one time; 3) that
any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the
maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4)
that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to
approve. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 ( C. Boju6s absent) vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
-14-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14. 1998
APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL
USE TO ADD A SECOND STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ABOVE A .RETAIL USE AT 1155
CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT AND
MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DBA GREEN BANKER, PROPERTY OWNER).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four
conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of staff.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Allan Coon, 535 Silven Avenue, San Bruno,
architect represented the project, he noted that the request to add a residential unit and get a
parking variance was market driven, have been negotiating leases with some high quality users
jewelry, art galleries, want to know what security is provided and want more than a security
guard, better maintenance if the provider lives on site also. The unit is so large because there
is no yard space provided, it is a noisy location and need to include an amenity to address; clock
tower was included because this is a transportation hub and it is logical location to have a time
element; the squares on the upper part of the structure are the clear story windows which let
light into the retail spaces below; feel have designed with the least impact and competition with
existing neighborhood.
Commissioners asked applicant: no section is provided, not clear how you get to the ground
floor; are the columns between the building and the parking lot, how do they work; four
columns are at the base of the clock tower and repeat along the parking lot, the clear story
windows step back from the column line and there is an open atrium 8 feet wide to allow
skylight for additional light into the retail spaces; the columns have not changed from the
original (without residential unit) to new plans (with residential unit). Have a problem with your
need for a residential unit, have tenants throughout city without on security living on the site and
cleaning the parking lot; site located on a busy section of California Drive, no on street parking,
restaurant in old train station will further impact available parking, you meet the parking
requirement for retail, what is the need for adding a residential unit which causes a parking
variance; the market demands residential provided security be provided given the number of
potential users, proximity to the freeway, dark alley at rear, it is prudent to go beyond the public
services offered by the community and tenant could also provide additional services, merchants
don't seem to maintain their sites too well and this would be helpful. 'There were no further
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: Think that the clock is inappropriate, it is what you incorporate into
a building with great prominence like the Ferry Building, if not on such a building it looks
inappropriate; clear story windows not appropriate, should echo the fire station, the design does
not come off; am aware we presently have no design of commercial buildings but can look at
design in this context; agree that parking is tight in this area and adding a parking variance will
-15-
City of B-hngame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
not do any good; do not favor a dwelling unit in this location. Agree about residence on top of
retail at this location, no need for security, maintenance firms and security services are
available, residential use would need 2 parking spaces and area is densely developed not need
more cars. No problem with mixed use, would increase pedestrian life on Broadway, if do add
then need to provide adequate parking, have a large site here, could build less building and more
parking; building needs different design if you are going to include residential uses, do not see
hardship for variance. Favor mixed use but one unit over large retail is not much mix, if want
residential need to fix parking, the dwelling unit appears to be an after thought, its a poor
location for a dwelling unit, very noisy.
C. Vistica moved to deny the request for the special permit for residential use on the second
floor and for a two space parking variance because no hardship exists on this property, the site
is big enough that the parking problem could be fixed; the request for the residential unit is
denied because there is no necessity to provide live-in building security person and for the
reasons stated by the commission and in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C.
Luzuriaga.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the special permit for residential
use in a commercial zone and for a parking variance. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Boju6s absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES
AND EQUIPMENT AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1. (HOWARD ENGINEERING,
APPLICANT AND JOHNSON LEE_ AND HUANGE LI-CHEN. PROPERTY OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions
were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked in the applicant had agreed to the
conditions, staff noted that the conditions in the staff report had been made available to the
applicant and he has not contacted staff about them.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Joel Howard, 724 Clarendon Avenue, spoke he felt
he responded from study with the things the commission asked for. Commissioner's asked if
he would want to move equipment on Saturday; applicant suggested that Saturday be added to
the conditions. Do the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, does your business begin early in the
day; applicant noted that he would prefer to begin earlier in the day, 6 a.m. and end the day at
6 p.m. The applicant concluded that he would appreciate an affirmative vote. Chairman Deal
closed the public hearing.
C. Keighran moved to grant the special permit for the outdoor storage use at 970 David Road
with the additional condition that the site be enclosed on three sides with opaque fencing, leaving
the wrought iron gate and fence at the front is acceptable, and further amending the conditions
-16-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998
for requiring full paving of the site including appropriate drainage, hours of operation from 6
a.m. to 6 p.m., and amending the days of the week in which equipment can be moved on and
off the site to Monday through Saturday, the hours of operation to apply to those days by
resolution with these amended conditions: 1) that the project shall operate on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 2, 1998, Site Plan, except
that three sides of the site shall be enclosed with opagque fencing (the wrought iron gate and
fence may be retained at the front setback and the entire site shall be paved and properly drained
to the street as required by the City Engineer; 2) that the construction equipment and vehicle
storage facility may not be open for equipment removal or parking except during the hours of
6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday; 3) that a maximum of two employees shall
be on site only to drop off or pick up equipment, and no work shall be performed at the site and
no structures on or off foundations shall be permitted on the site, and there shall be no utilities
extended to the site; 4) that all employees shall park on site, there shall be no visitors to the site;
5) that all equipment shall be washed and/or maintained or repaired off the site and in no case
shall equipment be washed, maintained or repaired within the public or railroad right-of-ways
or any adjacent privately owned parcel; and 6) that the use and any improvements for the use
shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of
Burlingame.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the use permit with amended
conditions. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL
USE, AND PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR AN 85,786 SF, THREE-
STORY BUILDING WITH A BASEMENT FOR USE AS A SELF -STORAGE FACILITY AT
999 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-2. (JOHN R. HANSEN, BURLINGAME STORAGE
PARTNERS, APPLICANT, AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY,PROPERTY OWNER).
Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twenty
conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the
Commissioners.
Chairman Deal noted that the applicant for this item requested a continuance of action for an
indefinite period at the beginning of the meeting. This item will be renoticed when it is brought
again for action before the commission.
-17-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
PLANNER REPORTS
September 14, 1998
REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1998.
CP Monroe review briefly the actions taken at the City Council meeting on September 9,
1998.
- REVISIONS TO PISCES RESTAURANT PROJECT AT 1190 C'ALIFORNIA
Commission had no comments on the memo regarding changes 1.0 the Pisces restaurant
project at 1190 California Drive, zoned Unclassified.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting by acclamation at 11:10 p.m.
MIN(TCES9.14
-18-
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary