HomeMy WebLinkAbout022805PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
February 28, 2005
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the February 28, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg (arrived 7:10 p.m.),
Keighran, Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 14, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR CP Monroe noted for anyone in the audience present to observe as a part of
applying for the Planning Commission, that there is a sign up sheet on the
table at the rear of the chambers; also there is a binder with a copy of all the
staff reports for this meeting so they can follow along with the Commission.
VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items.
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.
1A. 16 DAVIS COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; ANDREW JUROW AND BARBIE BARRETT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (36 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
1B. 1414 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (RICK SANDOR AND LISA GOOZE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; PHIL HYLAND, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
1C. 1309 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS AND PEGGY PEDERSEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
2
1D. 270 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (YAT-CHEONG AND ANN AU,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests. Commission had no questions of staff.
C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with the recommended conditions in each staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 5-0-1(C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:10 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2. 1329 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW
DETACHED GARAGE AND STORAGE AREA (ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
YANNA ABECASSIS AND MATTHEW MALONEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Auran recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. He left the
Council Chambers.
Reference staff report February 28, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, architect, 175 Spruce Avenue, Menlo Park, was
present to answer questions. Commission asked how the area at the rear of the garage will be used since
there is a sink proposed? Architect noted that the area will be used for storage, property owner would like a
wash sink to clean up after gardening. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués noted that the proposed project will reduce the amount of paving and preserve the existing garden
and pear tree behind the garage, 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
and date stamped January 7, 2005, sheets 1 and 2, and shall not exceed an overall height of 14'-9" measured
from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 8'-0" measured from above garage
finished floor; 2) that the accessory structure shall only be used as a one-car garage and storage area; shall
never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; the storage area at the
rear of the detached garage shall not exceed 145 SF in area (15'-0" X 9'-8"); and shall not include additional
utility services and/or a toilet without an amendment to this special permit; 3) that any waste line to the
accessory structure shall be limited to a maximum 2 inches in diameter and shall not be increased in size
without an amendment to this permit; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 7, 2005
memo, the City Engineer’s January 10, 2005 memo and the Recycling Specialist’s January 14, 2005 memo
shall be met; 5) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
3
exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6) 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. Osterling.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1 (C. Auran
abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
C. Auran returned to the dias.
3. 2301 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (WILLIAM RIDDLE, BEST DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
FAI LAU, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
C. Osterling recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. He left
the Council Chambers. C. Auran became Acting Chairperson.
Reference staff report February 28, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Vice Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Bill Riddle, architect, 100 Old County Road, Brisbane, was
available to answer questions.
Scott Taylor, 1369 Columbus Avenue, Michael Murray, 1367 Columbus Avenue, Dennis and Delores
Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue, expressed the following concerns with the project: live next door on
Columbus and have a concern with the proposed garage roof, increase in building height will create shadows
on property; concerned with applicant requesting a special permit for height and adding fill to a lot which is
already sloping up from top of curb, the lot can be cut so that the house sits lower on the lot and a special
permit for height may not be needed, feel that the proposed design is not consistent with the neighborhood,
house is a big improvement, but there is not enough detail in the design, do not want to see a pink stucco
house with a pink roof, house doesn't seem complete, needs more work, will have to live with this house for
a long time, appreciate the changes to the landscape plan; live diagonally across the street, concerned with
views, hope this house will not be as tall and bulky as houses on other corners; concerned with the
uncovered parking space in front of garage, do not want to see this area used for outdoor storage, such as
boats and non-operable cars, also do not want to see a carport appear in front of garage.
Commission clarified that the request to exceed the height limit is a special permit not a variance. The
difference is that a special permit does not require hardship findings to be made based on exceptional
circumstances related to the property. Applicant noted that the proposed house will be lower than the
adjacent house to the west on Hillside Drive. Commission asked the applicant if he considered grading the
lot? Applicant noted that he did not want to cut the top of the hill, proposed house sits slightly above
existing grade, some minor fill is required. There were no further comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission noted that as a result of design review this was a big improvement, but had the following
comments and concerns:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
4
• Support design, house is set back 28 feet from Hillside Drive, second floor is set back further,
special permit for height is for the peak, not the entire roof;
• Design is awkward, looks like design evolved based on adapting to the design guidelines, has no
intrinsic character, this is a prominent corner and it deserves a nice looking building;
• Would like to see the trim package be a traditional wood stucco mould, windows to have a wood
frame, provide details on plans;
• Would like to see three-dimensional, simulated true divided light windows, grids must be three-
dimension;
• Concerned with long horizontal elements on garage, would like to see vertical elements incorporated
into the garage door to break it up;
• Concerned with the orientation of the garage roof, roof ridge should be revised to run east-west,
would reduce impact on the neighbor to the south by eliminating the peak along this property line;
• Concerned with the roof slope on the north and south elevations; south elevation has long sloping
roof, north elevation has ½ the length, are there other design options;
• Would like the flat tile roof to be a dark shade.
C. Vistica noted that mass and bulk are handled well, house steps down to Hillside Drive, majority of plate
height on street emphasizes single story, second floor is contained within the roof frame, special permit for
height is appropriate given the sloping condition on the lot, and made a motion to approve the application,
by resolution, with the suggested changes. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comment on motion: Commission noted that because of the numerous changes required, the project should
be continued to the consent calendar so that the architect can revise the plans. The maker of the motion and
second agreed.
Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the project to the consent calendar
when the suggested changes have been made and plan checked. The motion passed 5-0-1 (C. Osterling
abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
Chair Osterling returned to the dias.
4. 1552 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A LOWER FLOOR ADDITION AND SECOND FLOOR DECK
(JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREG AND SERENE LIM,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report February 28, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Greg Lim, property owner, and Jerry Deal, 1228 Paloma
Avenue, designer, were present to answer questions, noted they addressed the Commissions' concerns
expressed at the last meeting, switched designers in the middle of the project, redesigned the front of the
house and front entry to make it more appealing and minimize impact on neighborhood. Commission noted
that the design is better, but have some concern with the proposed roof above the entry, beam construction
proposed for the entry is not consistent with the rest of the house, existing construction has exposed rafter
beams (spaced 4 feet on center) and the porch does not, why? Designer noted that the beam runs across to
tie in better with aesthetics, the construction will match existing and will contain exposed rafter beams, it's
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
5
just not shown on the plans. Commission expressed a concern with the height and pitch of the new roof
above the entry. The designer noted that he considered having the same pitch but was not happy with the
design, he wanted to emphasize the entrance and it was accomplished by changing the roof pitch and raising
the roof. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
February 16, 2005, sheets 1 through 8 and T-1, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and topographic
plan; 2) that the roof framing and architectural detail above the entry must match the framing system and
detail on the existing house; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and 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; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays
are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property
owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where
possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that
prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, NPDES
Coordinator, Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Fire Marshal’s memos dated November 9, 2004 shall be met;
9) that during construction 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; 10) that if
construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 1), that prior to October 15 the developer shall
implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting,
maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm
even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking
unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction
materials, fuels and other chemicals; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building
and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: Would like to see a condition added that the roof framing above the entry must
match the framing system on the existing house. Maker of the motion and second agreed.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
5. 149 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
TO MAKE CHANGES TO CONDITIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE REAR FENCE
(KURT STEIL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, DESIGNER) (56 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report February 28, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe 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 Minutes February 28, 2005
6
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kurt Steil, property owner and applicant, 911 North Amphlett,
San Mateo, spoke. After last meeting went back to try to get buyer and neighbor to agree, neighbor wanted
fence 2 feet toward the garage behind the top wall, were not interested in negotiating more; buyer of his
property offered to install and maintain landscaping in the creek area themselves, did not want neighbor on
her property doing landscaping and maintenance; neighbor installed landscaping up to the old fence which
was 12 feet on Steil's property, buyer wants most use of land and wants a fence, have filed a notice of
permissible use and no trespass to neighbor; neighbor wants fence further back from the top of wall so can
work on property at rear of 149 Occidental; if they don't want to see the new house, the closer to the creek
the better screen provided by the fence. Commissioners asked: how is Commission involved in allowing
neighbors on each other's property to maintain landscaping? CA noted in this case it was the way things
happened, neighbors need to decide resolution. How can the neighbor put in and maintain landscaping on
someone else's property along the creek? Is there a legal document? Applicant noted neighbor on Chapin
assumed their property crossed the creek to the old fence 12 feet in ward of the rear property line of 149
Occidental. CA noted city was not aware of any legal document giving the neighbor the right to improve
property at 149 Occidental. The issue of trespass would be decided by the Superior Court, not city.
Neighbors comments: Pam Ridlehuber, 146 Chapin Lane; Clifford Chang, 156 Chapin Lane; David Agard,
150 Chapin Lane; David Kornbluh, 25 Metro Drive, San Jose; Thomas Cay, 1570 Alameda, San Jose; live
adjacent to Agard's enjoy view of creek, they have maintained it well, new house clearly visible and
unattractive, if fence is placed at upper wall there is no place to put landscaping to screen view of house.
Commissioners asked: live at 146 Chapin, from how much of rear yard can you see given location of your
garage? Now exposed about 6 feet of lawn around garage. Neighbor on other side of Agard, only lived there
3 years, main reason bought was the natural beauty of the creek side setting, concerned about process,
commission allowed this to go ahead with mutual agreement on the fence, there were criteria used, if put
fence at new location it would be impossible to screen or would take a long time to develop a screen.
Commissioners asked: how much of 149 Occidental do you see from your backyard? See from inside
house, particularly since new house built. Two weeks ago were close to agreement, the issue is not about
property rights or trespass, its about aesthetics, privacy and process. The creekside environment is
something special why bought house, rare natural beauty, their isolation is threatened, thought he could
screen, steeply terraced area with flat area between each wall, if fence immediately at top, no foliage
possible, will upset balance. Privacy is radically affected, before removed old fence 25 foot tall hedge at
149 Occidental, developer removed hedge and built large tall, massive house now visible from rear yard and
every level of his house, materially damaged his property, visual impact. Only solution project on 146
Occidental uphold original agreement to put fence 11 feet from rear property line, require new owners to
provide landscaping to block view, do not want to trespass, want screening to protect view which a fence at
the wall does not do. Process is an issue, three years ago neighbors made a formal protest before the
Planning Commission regarding the impact of the fence and garage, reached a compromise with the
developer, set the fence and garage back 11 feet, Commission supported in March 8, 2004 action; now the
house is built and the developer wants out of the compromise, asking the Commission permission to renege
on the agreement made with the neighbors, hard on the credibility of the commission with public.
Further comment from the floor: This is not a property line issue, do not want access, made an innocent
mistake thought it was their property, now the issue is the location of the fence. Fence was 12 feet from
rear property line when Agard's bought their house on Chapin Lane, they spent tens of thousands of dollars
to stabilize the creek bank , part on their land and part on their neighbor's. Last year the neighbors objected
to the garage and fence at about 7 feet from property line, met with developer and arrived at solution of
relocating garage and fence 11 feet from property line with landscaping to mitigate view of the house,
neighbors supported the project at 149 Occidental. Now the builder wants to removed the condition on the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
7
fence and relocate to the top of the most inbound stone wall; we want the process in which the neighbors
were involved accepted, not taken away. If fence is moved back closer to rear property line it will screen
more of the house; new buyer willing to install and maintain landscaping to screen house, wants to use their
land. Commissioners asked: is there currently landscaping proposed on both sides of the fence? Yes if the
fence is at the top of the slope, will plant first level down. Is there a gate in the fence for access to creek
bank? Will add if needed for access. What will be planted, vines, shrubs? Whatever the Commission
wants, want to move the fence back so get full use of rear yard, no want liability from neighbors on
property or failure of slope. Confused regarding neighbor's goal, did get garage with 11 foot setback, not
about property rights or landscape maintenance, if push fence back to 11 feet and the neighbors not
maintain, how will the relocation help? Want to retain potential to plant tall things so screen view, if fence
at wall not place to plant, neighbor happy to pay for landscaping, want to preserve situation, don't know if
anyone is going to buy this property. Is the goal to screen the fence or the house? Both. Would landscaping
on other side of the fence do some screening? What shown on plans will not be dense enough to screen.
Applicant noted buyer willing to install landscaping on top terrace, landscaping is existing on lower section.
Commissioners asked: most people want to enjoy creek, why not shorter fence? Buyer wanted higher fence
for security, people not look into yard. If screen fence will screen house- would you consider different kind
of fence, cover with vines? Neighbors concern it will take time to grow, concerned about appearance of new
house, buyer would install vine right away. What kind of landscaping is proposed for the backyard? A
number of trees which will grow to 30 to 40 feet. Is there room on the creek side after place fence as
proposed? Wall is not straight, behind the garage there is a 6-7 foot deep area and meanders from there,
only part of the fence will be at the wall. Existing trees on left, large not on landscape plan? Developer did
not put there, Egards installed, concerned that they will eventually lift the garage slab. Is security key point
for buyer? Both use and security, wants to use all of the flat part of the property, concerned about neighbors
use because able to look over the fence at top of terrace. There were no further comments from the floor.
The public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling noted that the landscape plan could be revised to include additional trees at the fence, the issue
is placement of the fence not its height, moving fence back 4 feet would have little impact on sight lines or
the amount of the new house screened, there is lots of room on the lower terrace for bigger vegetation, have
added landscaping a Camphor tree and Live Oak, both relatively fast growing; believe if owner want to use
as much of the flat area of the property as possible, can add vegetation on lower terraces, larger scale shrubs,
and everyone wins, also need a gate in the fence for access to provide proper maintenance including
irrigation at the rear of the property, so move approval with these conditions by resolution. The motion was
seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on the motion: understand buyer's need for security and not wanting people to enter their
property; understand neighbors wanting screening, they want more landscaping and maintenance of it, need
a gate in the rear fence for access. Can a condition be added to action that owner not liable for neighbors
using their property? CA can only condition property where application being made; rights of access in this
case are between private property owners, not appropriate condition. It is easy to put conditions on someone
else's property, neighbors argument is weak. Children need as much yard as possible, incumbent on
applicant to address for his buyer, would like to see plans amended as discussed; think item should come
back with revisions, landscaping plan, gate in fence, irrigation.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to amend the original motion to bring this item back on the consent calendar.
Motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
8
Comment on the motion to amend: bring it back on action calendar since it is likely to be called off the
consent calendar; would like to approve tonight so process is not drawn out; would have acted on February
14 but applicant asked for continuance because close to agreement, Commission agreed, not reach
understanding, not Commission dragging this out.
C. Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to amend the original condition. The commission voted
2-4 (Cers. Auran, Bojués, Vistica, Osterling dissenting). The motion to amend was denied. The original
motion to approve with added conditions remained on the floor.
Commission discussion on the original motion: applicant never showed any landscaping on the creek side
of the lot; this appears contentious to lots of people in the room who assume that the motion is unfair to the
neighbor, want to be sure everyone will know what is going to happen; applicant wants to move the fence
which will compromise the neighbors screen, want to be sure to see on paper and know what will be done
so both parties can do their bit, that is how the community can work with the Planning Commission. Bring
the change back to the consent calendar, way to force compromise between neighbor and new owner with a
potential win-win; neighbors can input when comes back, may avoid appeal.
Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the original motion to approve the application to relocate the
fence with added conditions. The motion failed on a 3-3 (Cers Brownrigg, Keighran, Vistica dissenting) roll
call vote. No action was taken on the motion.
C. Vistica moved to direct the applicant to make the changes to the plans noted: relocate the fence 7 feet
from rear property line, landscape plan for both sides of the fence including the top and second terrace, and
placement of a gate in the fence to gain access to the rear of the lot for maintenance, and to return to the
consent calendar when the modifications have been submitted and checked by staff. The motion was
seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue until the applicant had addressed the
items indicated and staff has checked. With this process the information would be available to the neighbors
before the meeting. The motion passed on a 5-1 (C. Osterling dissenting) roll call vote. There is no appeal
for this action. Staff noted that the item would be renoticed before it is placed on a consent calendar in the
future. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
6. 711 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN
EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (KURT MEISWINKEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report February 28, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted two desk items
regarding this project. The first is a memo from the staff acknowledging that the applicant has submitted
revised plans for the location of the carport, showing it removed from side and rear property lines three feet
so that these two walls would not be required to be built as fire walls. Second is a letter from the neighbor
at 709 Linden in support of the project. Commissioners asked: was part of Carolan Avenue taken from this
property? Staff noted that some area may have been taken which would affect rear setback from accessory
structure. Should the condition addressing the covered parking include the requirement that all roof
drainage should be taken to the front of the lot. CA noted that in the case of this project where there are two
street frontages the drainage could go to either the front or rear, depending on Public Works requirements.
There were no further questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
9
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, 216 Park Road represented the applicant,
Kurt Meiswinkel, property owner, 711 Linden, and wife and child were present. This is a two bedroom and
two bath house, recently had child and in-law has come to live and help out, house too small, so making
addition to house which extended rear of the house and eliminated required 20 foot separation for two
dwelling units; applied for the addition, all departments reviewed, pulled building permit, began to build,
wanted to modify addition by extending rear one foot for bath tub, Planning Department found that building
permit issued without addressing Planning comments; stopped construction; worked with planning staff with
revision to get back on track, project has no variances for house, if positive tonight will lift red tag on house.
The conditional use permits requested are for conditions which have existed as a part of the accessory
structure for years, this action is to clean up approvals not obtained decades ago; the use permit for height
will not bother anyone, next to Carolan, same windows, existing bathroom; property owner wishes to use as
an office, sheet rocker and needs place to wash up, also hopes to use a play room; realizes if wants to bring
back as a dwelling unit he would have to come back to the Planning Commission and ask, then he would
ask for recognition of the impact of taking part of this property for Carolan. Carport was there but in poor
condition, will replace; no problem with draining to the public street, here tonight to clean up existing
conditions on the lot, so can issue building permit and remove stop work order. Commissioners asked: site
plan does not show internal fence, is it to be retained; fence blocks access if accessory structure is to be
used as a part of the house? Meiswinek responded if commission requires, can remove fence.
When first bought house people were living in accessory structure, wanted to put in spiral stair to expand
living area, found out could not enlarge upstairs so left as it was. Is the propose car port a temporary
structure, six posts and a roof? At this time this structure is all that the budget will support, code would
allow as permanent. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Auran noted that this is an existing structure that the applicant is proposing to change, with the following
additional conditions would move to approve: removing the fence which is internal to the property to
provide unobstructed access between the house and accessory structure, amending condition 6 to require that
the car port be built within 90 days and that the stove and sink also be removed within 90 days or the
application will be reconsidered by the Planning Commission, by resolution and with the following
conditions in the staff report: 1) that the accessory structure project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 10, 2005, sheets 1 through 6 and boundary
and topographic survey date stamped February 3, 2005, and that the new carport shall not exceed an overall
height of 9'-9" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 8'-0"
measured from adjacent grade; and shall meet all California Building and Fire Code requirements; 2) that
the converted garage accessory structure shall only be used as an office with a toilet, sink and shower (310
SF) and storage area (118 SF) and shall never be used for accessory sleeping purposes or as a second
dwelling unit without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the existing kitchen sink and
stove/cook top in the detached garage/accessory structure shall be completely removed from the accessory
structure ; if stove/cook top is gas operated, it must be permanently disabled and capped as required and
inspected by the Chief Building Official prior to final inspection; only an under the counter refrigerator shall
be placed in the former kitchen area of the structure and the placement of any other kitchen appliance,
plumbing or sink shall require an amendment to this permit, if this removal is not accomplished within 90
days of the Planning Commission action this use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and
any action on the accessory structure shall be reconsidered; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Official's September 30, 2004 and February 14, 2005 memos and the Recycling Specialist’s October 4, 2004
memo shall be met; 5) 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; 6) that the carport shall be built and inspected within 90 days of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
10
Planning Commission action or this use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and any
action on the accessory structure shall be reconsidered; 7) that the internal fence on the property located
between the single family house and the accessory structure and between the accessory structure and the
carport in the rear of the lot shall be removed within 90 days of the Planning Commission action or this use
permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and any action on the accessory structure shall be
reconsidered; and 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. The motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
Comment on the motion: The accessory structure can be used for accessory living purposes, office, play
room, storage, but may not be used at any time for sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions regarding the
removal of the fence around the accessory structure interior to the side property line fence and the
requirement that the stove and sink be removed within 90 days of commission action or the permits for the
accessory structure shall be reconsidered by the commission. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
7. 1120 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (CHECK CASHING) (REZA
RAZAVI, APPLICANT; CLAIRE CONSTANTINO TR ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report February 28, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted that two letters were
placed at the Commissioner's desks one from Irene Preston, Preston's Candy and Ice Cream, 1170
Broadway, and one from Louise Simson, resident; both letters were in opposition to the project. There were
no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Reza Razavi, 820 Seachase Drive, Redwood City , business
owner, represented the property. Glad to answer questions. Commissioners asked: how did you arrive at 30
to 70 customers a day? Based on activity in our busiest stores, Campbell and San Jose. Why Campbell? It
has a similar downtown location in community of about the same size. Will the customers for this store
come from Burlingame or outside? At San Mateo store customers ask if have place in Burlingame, no other
place in Burlingame for Western Union money transfer, currency exchange, money orders. Floor plans
show a lot of office space, how will it be used? One office will be owner's, new State and Federal laws
require keeping and filing a lot of paper, so one used for files, one will be used for the safe, and the other for
office machines, copies, fax etc. There is no parking on site, when increase to 90 customers a day where
will they park? There are 5 parking places in front, and a public lot on Chula Vista which seems to have a
lot of spaces all day; customer transactions are faster than a bank, maximum time is 2 to 5 minutes. What
percent of activity is check cashing vs. other business? About 70% of activity is check cashing, 20% money
transfer, the rest is currency exchange. Why does someone come to you to cash a check? People do not have
bank accounts because its hard to get good credit, need two identifications to cash a check, people put a
check on hold and pay a percentage, for some people the speed of cashing is worth paying for. People who
use this service are working people, they are good people in the community.
Members of the public comment: Maritsa Chew, 1224 Broadway; Bill Sutterfield, 1174 Broadway;
Barbara Zukowski, 1108 Capuchino Avenue; Ana Morales, 1256 Capuchino Avenue; Rich Grogan, 1450
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
11
Columbus Avenue; John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway; Elvida Schneider, 1120 Capuchino Avenue; Paulette
Sudano; Angela Koros, 2885 Hillside Drive; Garbis Bedjian, property owner on Broadway; Ken
Constantino, trustee 1120-1126 Broadway, 519 Nevada Avenue, San Mateo. It costs to be poor, and this is a
use one sees in a poor area, most commonly see in ghetto areas, merchants work hard to build up Broadway,
work with BID, should encourage this business to expand in another area, demographics here are not right,
broad sided by the smoke shop, should lift limitation on restaurants and no more nail salons on Broadway.
Opposed, most merchants asleep at the wheel when smoke shop opened, this is same path, not fit the vision
of Broadway, common at Third Street, Hunters Point; no one on Broadway use, will be used by transients to
buy drugs and drink. Growing number of businesses on Broadway are family friendly, these reflect the type
of businesses residents want, geared to young couples with children and senior citizens which is who we are;
no need for a check cashing place, let our guard down and open businesses that do not reflect our values,
don't make the same mistake twice, let this business go someplace else. Live three blocks from project; not
believe needed by people in our community, 3 or 4 banks serve this area, as police office check these kinds
of businesses in San Francisco 4 or 5 times a day; not want Broadway to become upscale like Burlingame
Avenue, but know took 6 months to close a massage parlor, store next to Il Piccolo carries porn. videos, then
the smoke shop which was to be a cigar store and now sells other things, know landlords want rents at any
cost, but people own houses and live in the area.
Comments continued: This business adds no value to Burlingame, serves people with questionable credit,
no established identification, not serve people who live in the Broadway area. Tourists are provided these
services by the hotels. Familiar with such stores in San Jose, serve itinerate workers, mobile population;
don’t approve. Some of these businesses have a lot of fraudulent checks, stolen i.d. and a lot of parolees and
sex offenders, use brings the wrong people. Lived 30 years in Broadway area, family friendly, surprised
when open smoke shop, not bad idea except for the things sold in the shop on Broadway; four banks on
Broadway why need check cashing service; businesses will cash check if make a purchase, this is a betrayal,
take a nice street, nice people and allow a business that is not needed or wanted to open. Love Broadway
and living nearby, not want workers who are cashing checks parking in front of house; take daughter to
Broadway, feel safe, even children go alone, people are well known and merchants know them, think twice
before you act. Recently made an addition to my house, big investment in the area, Broadway is not going
the way we thought, husband a police officer goes to check cashing places to make arrests, parolees use;
show how beautifully the community can work with the Planning Commission. Have three small children,
know the smoke shop and check cashing not serve us, sad to have to avoid shops, commission is the trustee
of the community, need a bakery, beauty supply store, Jamba juice, stores we have to go elsewhere to
patronize. Broadway has been improved, sidewalk beautification, nice new stores, smoke shop and check
cashing big step backward, know restrict businesses on Broadway, but gone to far, consider lift limits on
bakeries and restaurants, do what is best for the community. Own property been vacant a long time, looking
for a legitimate business, no place for check cashing business. Could have rented often, including smoke
shop, but not need on Broadway and would ruin the name. Worked at 1120 Broadway until 1993, father in
real estate on Broadway since 1949, tried for 4 ½ months to lease, 10 to 12 inquiries were for nail or hair
salons, other two where check cashing businesses, one was new with no track record in business. This
applicant has run two other check cashing businesses, visited, clean, orderly and professional. There have
been no complaints about his business; Broadway needs a legitimate business, he has been in business for 10
years, he must renew his license with the state and federal governments each year; building was
nonconforming in parking when bought in 1960's, was once a laundromat, with greater number of daily
customers than this business is proposing. Applicant noted this is a legitimate business, don't know why
compare to pornography, financial institution, do what banks do; in San Jose deal with families with
children who come in to transfer money; looked at most closely by State and Federal governments, in 10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
12
years never a problem at any location, has helped nearby businesses, people get cash and spend in the area.
There were no more comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: was at Wells Fargo and family there who could not get a check cashed, there was
no place for them to go, this would fill that need; years ago chambers filled with residents concerned about
churches letting people stay overnight, have now been doing for years without one problem; need to be
careful about stereo typing. Not right to make decision on whether the people who use service are poor, this
is the wrong location for such an intensive use, peak usage between 5 and 7 p.m., if half the customers pop
off the freeway to use this business, little parking at front and lot of traffic congestion, pedestrian priority on
Broadway want to encourage people to walk; allowed financial institutions as a conditional use for two
years so that we could evaluate impacts. Concerned about intensification caused by this use, the number of
people, 90 people a day is a lot without any on site parking, peak use hours coincide with peak commute
hours on Broadway (5-7 p.m.), not need more congestion and parking problem reason considered financial
institutions for only 2 years. 70% of business is check cashing, these are people who are unable to cash a
check at a bank because they have bad credit, there are enough financial institutions on Broadway to meet
the community's needs. This business is not pedestrian oriented; community has valid concerns about
consistency with the vision of Broadway. Intensification is a problem at this location so close to the
intersection which is congested at rush hour; reason allowed with a conditional use permit is to insure
business enhance pedestrian and downtown nature; this use does not do that. City's demographics are a
surprise 50% of the people live in rental housing on El Camino Real, a large part of the economy of Mexico
is dependent upon transfer of cash. Not enough information to judge issues: what is the catchment area for
this business, mostly people in Burlingame or people off US 101; need to watch our biases. Believe
residents in Burlingame need this service, don't know if this is the right location, concerned about the
parking.
C. Bojués noted that certain element of the community needs this service, can condition to come back to the
Commission for review if receive complaint including parking, so move approval by resolution with the
conditions in the staff report and the added condition that the permit be reviewed in 12 months and upon
complaint of violation of the conditions of approval or the municipal code. The motion was seconded by C.
Osterling.
Comment on the motion: got a lot of community input, but what about additional information; talk about
need but hard to project if there will be a problem or not, aware of increase intensity on traffic but no
measure. Would like information on other locations, what was the increase in customers over time, how did
they arrive at 90 customers in 2 years? What will be the impact on the traffic on that section of Broadway?
What will be the impact on the parking availability in that area? Little parking on this block and none across
the street. How will this use mix with the p.m. peak on Broadway? What market research has been done to
determine number of customers over time? What are the signage allowances and requirements for this site,
and what does the applicant intend to ask for?
Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit with an added
condition. The motion failed on a 2-4 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran and Vistica dissenting). The CA
noted that the motion would stand denied unless another motion was made.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to continue this item until the applicant could provide additional information
on the items mentioned including signage, parking and traffic, customer volume and growth data, and
information on the catchment area for this business; without this information cannot make this decision in a
balanced way. Motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
13
Comment on the motion: do you want to add pedestrian generation or traffic and parking studies? Yes need
a solid study by a professional; catchment area can be done by zip code of people through door at other
sites; would like to know the percentage of delinquent transactions for different sites; need a traffic and
parking study similar to Starbucks prepared by a third party.
Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue this item until the information requested
has been prepared and submitted to the planning staff. The motion passed 5-1 (C.Auran dissenting) roll call
vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m.
Chair Osterling called for a five minute break at 9:35 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
8. 1275 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES (JIM GLOVER, APPLICANT; PETER BRAUN &
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER; FRANK MURPHY, PROPERTY OWNER) (16 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report February 28, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked: do we
know the number of cars which will be delivered by car carrier? Will any be delivered by flat bed truck, if
so can a flat bed truck back into the warehouse, so able to make deliveries inside the site? CP Monroe noted
staff does not know how many cars will be delivered by car carrier, but cars cannot be transferred from a
car carrier on either the public street (Rollins Road or North Carolan) or private street (Whitethorn Way); if
a flat bed truck can back into the roll up door and unload in side the warehouse, that is OK; the objective is
that delivery be done entirely on the site and cannot be done on the public and private streets in the vicinity
of the business if the delivery cannot be done entirely on the site e.g. inside the warehouse. There were no
further questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jim Glover, 208 Robin Way, Menlo Park, represented the
business. Noted he was here to answer questions. Commissioners asked: Can flat bed delivery vehicles
maneuver into the warehouse to unload? If delivering a single car, can back in, will accept a condition to
that effect? Do you have three parking spaces outside of the warehouse on the Whitethorn side? This is
something of a problem, there is a five year least to Mr. Lapkin to use these spaces for the storage facility
across the street, but a lease agreement allows the car sales business to use these three spaces, letters in the
record regarding this issue. CP Monroe noted that a conditional use permit was granted to the storage
facility across Whitethorn Way with these three parking spaces included as a part of the required on-site
parking, the City considers these spaces committed to the storage facility and thus cannot be used or leased
to mitigate parking for this auto sales business without amending the conditional use for the storage facility.
How does your proposed business work? Want to establish an auto dealership for 100% hybrid engine
vehicles, in order to make feasible must also sell high end exotic cars. Advertise the business on the internet
and meet customers by appointment; however, not opposed to people coming without an appointment to
look at these cars so will be open on a regular basis. Will the majority of your business be by appointment,
can you give a percentage without appointment? Not too many without appointment. We are licensed to
sell in Fremont where we have a similar operation. Project to sell 50 vehicles in the first year and 75 in the
second year. How will customers find the back door and where will they park? There will be three spaces
they can use on Whitethorn, parking on Rollins Road at the front door during the day and a little parking
inside the warehouse. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
14
Commissioner comments: need to confirm that there are three parking spaces on Whitethorn Way; clear
from tonight discussion that there are not three parking spaces on Whitethorn Way for this business to use;
the applicant is requesting a parking variance for this use, think that the action should be conditioned to
have the variance voided if the use changes from what is described in this use permit or if the building is
demolished.
C. Bojués moved to approve this conditional use permit for auto-sales wholly within a warehouse building
by resolution with additional conditions to allow single car deliveries to the site using a flat bed truck only
of a size which can be backed into the warehouse area for unloading on site and that this variance shall
become void if the use as approved is modified or the building is demolished, and including the conditions
in the staff report as amended and follow:
1) that this conditional use permit at 1275 Rollins Road shall be for automobile sales only which is wholly
enclosed within a warehouse structure with no outdoor automobile display area; the use of this site shall be
configured as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 13, 2005,
sheet A-1 and A-2, site plan and floor plan; with no on-site parking provided; 2) that automobile sales
inventory at this location shall not exceed three vehicles at any given time; 3) that the hours of operation of
this business shall be limited to Monday through Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with a maximum of 5
people in this tenant space at any one time (including owner, employees and customers); 4) that there shall
be no more than three employees total including the owner or owners of the business working from this site;
5) that inventory vehicles to be sold shall be stored within the building, and are prohibited from being
parked, stored, displayed or exhibited on the street, on Rollins Road, North Carolan Avenue or Whitethorn
Way; 6) that cars may be delivered to this site individually on a flat bed truck which can be backed into the
warehouse and the car unloaded inside the warehouse; no car shall be delivered to this site by a multi-car
carrier truck, that the cars delivered by a multi-car carrier truck must be unloaded at a location approved by
the City and driven to the site during business hours; failure to have an approved unloading site or to use any
adjacent public or private street for loading or unloading cars to be sold, leased or transferred by this
business shall result in reviewed and possible revocation of this conditional use permit and parking variance;
7) that the parking variance for this auto sales wholly enclosed in a warehouse building shall become void if
the use of this site is changed or if the building is ever demolished; 8) that no banners shall be used to
advertise car sales at this locations and that the applicant shall apply for all of the necessary permits for
signage on this site as per Burlingame Title 22 regulating signs; and 9) that any improvements or changes
necessary for this use in this structure as determined by the Chief Building Official or Fire Marshal shall be
done in compliance with the provisions of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of
Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m.
9. 821 COWAN ROAD, ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES, AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (GREG WARD, ONESTOP DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; KONSTANTINOS DOKOS, PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report February 28, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Forty-one conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked how the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
15
parking variance changed. Plr noted that parking variances for total number of on-site parking spaces and
number of compact parking space were eliminated, however a parking variance for aisle width at the north
and south ends of the parking lot is still required. Commission noted that the tables showing how this
project met the Bayfront Design Guidelines were presented well in the staff report.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Greg Ward, designer, One Stop Design, Inc., 3566 Beard Road,
Fremont, and Konstantinos Dokos, property owner, were present to answer questions, intent was to upgrade
the area but not overwhelm the existing buildings, articulated the left side of the building to comply with the
setback requirements, now only the one-foot wide architectural column features extend into the setback,
parking layout was revised to comply with disabled-accessible parking requirements, project now meets the
parking requirements with the exception of the aisle widths, and added landscape fingers to the parking area;
there is a problem with drainage at the rear corner of the lot, will have to re-grade and provide a new
drainage system in the parking lot; building will contain a red, s-tile roof, building will be broken up using
two colors, an arch was incorporated over the entrance to the building; in regards to the window, can do a
raised stucco or wood trim, provided a detail for the window trim, windows will be white vinyl; this will be
a great building for businesses that have an office and also need space for light manufacturing.
Commission noted that at the last meeting there was some discussion about adding a base to the façade on
the front of the building to help articulate the blank wall, feel that other treatment is needed at the front, was
this considered? Designer noted that vines will be incorporated into the landscape design so that they grow
on the exterior walls, window details as provided will also help. Commission noted that there is no area set
aside on the ground floor for employees to use, can this be incorporated somehow? Designer noted that the
front path to the building can be enhanced with benches or seating blocks, can incorporate into the final
design. Commission noted that the narrow landscape fingers in the parking lot will not do much, should
they be eliminated for wider parking aisles? Designer indicated that he tried to meet the parking
requirement and provide landscaping in the parking area, feel that the landscaping fingers as proposed will
help to break up the long rows of parking to make the parking lot look pleasant, eliminating the landscaping
fingers would only pick up a few extra feet, not enough to eliminate the parking variance for aisle width.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the mitigated negative declaration and addendum, by resolution, find it
satisfied the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, with the mitigation measures as
outlined in the initial study for the project. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the mitigated negative declaration and
addendum. The motion passed 6-0.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
February 4, 2005, sheets T.1, L.1, T.2, A.1 through A.7 and Plat of Survey; 2) that a seating area, to be
architectural compatible with the building, shall be designed at the front entrance to the building; 3) that
vines, to grow along the front wall of the building, shall be planted and maintained by the property owner; 4)
that the windows and window trim shall be installed as shown on the detail, date stamped February 4, 2005;
5) that the parking variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever
expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for intentional replacement; 6) that
the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Fire Marshal's June 1, 2004, memos, the Chief Building Official’s
February 9, 2005, and June 4, 2004, memos, the Recycling Specialist’s June 2, 2004, memo and the NPDES
Coordinator's January 31, 2005, memo shall be met; 7) that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
16
City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline areas shall be required to
mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half of the fee is due at the
time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 8) that one-way
directional signage shall be installed and painted throughout the parking area to clearly define the vehicular
direction for employees and visitors to the site; prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/property
owner shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and markings on the
pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction; 9) that the driveway aisles in front of the roll-up
doors at the rear of the building and in the parking area shall be maintained clear and trucks shall not be
stored or parked in the driveway aisles; 10) that the paved area adjacent to parking space #15 shall be
painted "No Parking" to provide a clear, unobstructed back-up area for the disabled-accessible parking
spaces; 11) that the 53 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the customers and employees of the
businesses at this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on
this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; 12) that the landscaping noted on sheet L.1 shall be
installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does
not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; 13) that the property owner
shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan together with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of permit application; 14) that the office/warehouse building shall be built so that the
interior noise level in all areas used as office does not exceed 45 dBa; 15) that all construction shall abide by
the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and shall occur only between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; 16) that on-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to
the site in compliance with the City's exterior illumination ordinance; 17) that all parking areas should be lit
for safety at night, such lighting should comply with the requirements of the City’s exterior illumination
ordinance; 18) that the remodel/addition shall not be built with a reflective exterior finish; 19) that the
project shall obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies including:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 20) that the project design shall conform to all seismic related
requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in
effect at the time a building permit is issued and any additional seismic requirements established by the State
Architect's office; 21) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California
Building Code requirements, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and in addition to the
limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035);
22) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be
installed to meet current code standards and diameter; existing sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced
if necessary; 23) that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible
connections with the degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his approval and
inspection; 24) that in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, the site shall be
repaired as approved by the City Engineer; 25) that all site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street
frontage; 26) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements
shall be met at all times, including special additional emergency requirements; 27) that the grading plan
shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All applicable
requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 28)
that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the
developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff
by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and
immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding,
mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-
of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 29) that all applicable
San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices shall be adhered
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
17
to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the
wet season; erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to protect San Francisco Bay waters;
30) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the
plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas
to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be
protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or
immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout
areas; 31) that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or
attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control
measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of
vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions
for temporary and permanent irrigation; 32) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge
from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance; 33) that all
runoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas, shall be filtered to remove oil and
grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be installed
and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in working conditions
shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, all costs for the annual or more frequent
inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this project's property owner; 34) that the
phrase "No Dumping-Drains To Bay" shall be labeled on new storm drain inlets by stenciling, branding,
plaguing or casting; 35) that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the storm
drain will be minimal; 36) that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator;
all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods
of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site and
maintenance shall be as directed by the City; 37) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots,
driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil
filters, then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be
responsible for inspecting and cleaning (vacuuming out) sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a
regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) and
as directed by the City; 38) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site
runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 39) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas
shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from
these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 40) that no
vehicles or equipment shall be washed, cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site; 41) that methods and
procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check
dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded
areas shall be installed during construction to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control
continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 42) that the site shall be sprayed with
water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in
compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 43) that a construction
fence, including a impermeable fabric/material, shall be required around the site during construction to keep
all construction debris on site; 44) that if any trenching is proposed on the site, the applicant shall contact
the San Mateo County Health Department; if any contaminated soil is encountered, the applicant shall
follow County protocol for its disposal; and 45) that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are
discovered during grading and construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully
investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
18
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
19
Comment on the motion: Cannot approve as proposed, feel there is a lot than can be done to enhance the
project further. CA Anderson noted that the parking variance can be tied to the existing building. The
maker of the motion and second agreed to amend the motion with this requirement. The designer eliminated
two parking variances, has been open to the Commissions' ideas throughout the review process, like the way
open decks were incorporated into the second floor, adds to the design and articulation, this project is a good
start for the redevelopment of this area as encouraged by the recently approved Specific Plan.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1 (C. Vistica
dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 1149 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT MEDAN,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TOM AND LORIE WHITE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Robert Medan, architect, 1936 Los Altos Drive, San Mateo,
noted that the family needs more space for large family, special permit for height requested to match the
existing roof pitch, there is a small retaining wall at the front which raises the property above the top of curb
level. Commission noted that this site can handle the height well because there is a lot of mature
landscaping. Commission asked if the applicant considered moving the detached garage further back on the
lot? Architect noted that its not possible now because of budget constraints, would cost an additional $60K-
$80K. Commission asked why existing building elevations were not provided? Architect noted that the
existing building envelope was dashed in, thought this would be enough to compare existing and proposed,
will provide on future submittals. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment
was closed.
C. Keighran noted that the design blends in with the existing house and made a motion to place this item on
the consent calendar as proposed. This motion was seconded by C. Auran
Comment on motion: Commission expressed a concern with the second floor cantilever at the rear, left side
of the house; cantilever works well since it will create a shadow line over the window and stairway,
architect has done a nice job with this project.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is
proposed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 11:40 p.m.
11. 215 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION
(ERIKO STAUBER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE TAYLOR, PROPERTY OWNER) (50
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
20
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Eriko Stauber, architect, 501 Walnut Street, San Carlos, was
present to answer questions. Commission asked why a two-car garage is being proposed when only one
covered space is required for the two-bedroom house? Architect noted that property owner would like to
park both of his cars in an enclosed garage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
comment was closed.
C. Auran noted that the architect has done a nice job with this project and made a motion to place this item
on the consent calendar as proposed. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is
proposed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 11:45 p.m.
12. 828 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAN AND MOIRA LUCIER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (101 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Dan Lucier, property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, 1228
Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, were present to answer questions, need more space for growing family. There
were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• need to provide landscape plan for entire property before next meeting, should include large scale
plant material to screen addition.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the landscape plan has
been submitted and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:50 p.m.
13. 1416 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOE AND CHRISTINE DAMICO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jack Matthews, architect, 335A E. 4th Avenue, San Mateo, was
present to answer questions, noted that a new entry was added on the ground floor so that the front door now
faces the street, filling the empty notch in the kitchen, proposed second floor addition preserves the sloping
ceiling and is integrated into the existing architecture. Commission noted a concern with the blank wall
along the right side second story, can a window be added here? Architect noted that this area on the second
floor contains closets and would rather not place windows here, the second floor along this side of the house
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
21
has three planes which step back and articulate this side of the house. There were no other comments from
the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Bojués noted that the articulation addressed the blank portion of wall, this is a nice design and made a
motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is proposed. This motion was seconded by
C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar as proposed. The
motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This
item concluded at 11:55 p.m.
14. 1450 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STEVE AND DONNA
MURPHY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC.,
DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, and
Steve Murphy, property owner, were present to answer questions. Commission noted that the house is
articulated well with vertical and horizontal elements, like the proposed building envelope, existing houses
in the neighborhood are modest but it will not be this way forever; landscaping will be different for the
neighborhood with 100% landscaping on the corner; proposed balcony on Mills Avenue is an important
focal point, adds interest and shadows, like the details for the balconies. The Commission also expressed
the following concerns with this project:
• Neighborhood is modest and this is a visible corner, concerned with the fit of the house, need to find
ways to make house less bulky;
• Should consider making the house look smaller by reducing the number of balconies, there is a
surplus of balconies on this house; would like to see balcony cantilevered over the deck at rear
(adjacent to master bedroom) eliminated.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Keighran noted that this is a nice project and fits in to the neighborhood, is articulated well with
balconies and materials proposed, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time
when the comments have been addressed and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: can understand reason for balcony on Mills Avenue, but still concerned with the
cantilevered balcony at the rear, eliminating it would bring more sunlight to the patio below, recommend
removing rear balcony.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the
comments have been addressed and plan checked. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-2 (Cers. Bojués
and Brownrigg disenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 12:05 a.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
22
15. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (28
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Vistica recused himself from this item because of a business relationship with the property owner. He
left the Council Chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Suheil Shatara, architect, 522 Second Street, San Francisco,
and Jim Totha, restaurant operator, noted that he is not opposed to the tile base, didn't realize it was existing,
now interested in opening up to the sidewalk the corner of the building with sliding doors, will add a nice
image to downtown area, entrance doors on both frontages also shifted slightly. Architect submitted a
sketch showing a way to keep some of the tile, tile would be kept on the outer ends of the building on both
facades with full height sliding doors at the corner of the building, some of the tile can be repaired and
reused, will be difficult to match, could look at different dye lots, but may have to remove and replace all
tile, understand that tile is part of the historic fabric of the building. The restaurant operator would like to
open up the corner so that waiters have access to the seating area on the sidewalk.
Commission noted that the original application was to combine the multi-tenant spaces into one space and
bring the building back to it's original design, now changes are being proposed. Commission asked if two
sets of sliding doors are proposed, one on each façade; yes. Commission asked for clarification of the duct
work on the side of the building, does it overhang the property line? Architect noted that the drawings do
clearly show the location of the duct work, it is located on the subject property and behind a solid wall, it
does not extend beyond the property line and is required to be at least 10 feet from property line. There
were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
The Commission had the following concerns and comments:
• Would like to see tile along the bottom edge of the building retained, including on the concrete wall
on the California Drive facade;
• Existing tile should be repair/restored, those that need to be replaced should match existing as close
as possible;
• Would like to see sliding doors at corner of building eliminated; can keep sliding windows with tile
base as originally proposed;
• Applicant could come back with design of several alternatives with a tile base incorporated into the
design;
• This is a strong focal point in the community, need to seriously consider the suggestions made by the
Commission regarding the exterior design;
• Concerned with alcohol being served in public right-of-way with proposed opening at corner,
applicant needs to talk to ABC; staff should check with the Public Works Department regarding
direct access from restaurant to seating on public right-of-way;
• Concerned with access proposed that outside seating area will take over the entire sidewalk; need to
provide 6 foot wide clear aisle on sidewalk for disabled accessibility.
C. Osterling noted that if the tile base and sliding windows are kept as originally approved, and the only
change is shifting the entrance doors, the project may be placed on the consent calendar. However, if the
design differs from the original approval, the project will have to come back as a regular action item. Staff
will determine the direction based on the revised plans submitted.
C. Vistica returned to the dias.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005
23
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of February 22, 2005.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 22, 2005. She noted that the City
has applied for a Transient Oriented Development grant in the North El Camino Real area within 1/3
mile of the BART station. Commissioners expressed an interest in both the League of California Cities
Planners Institute and in the American Planning Association meeting in San Francisco. CP Monroe will
send them information on the APA meeting.
- FYI: Status Report Regarding Addition at 1449 Balboa Avenue.
Because of the late hour this discussion item was deferred to the next meeting. Staff will send out the
staff report a second time.
- FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1029 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1.
Commission acknowledged the requested changes and approved them.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 12:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\unapproved.02.28.05.doc