HomeMy WebLinkAbout041204PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
April 12, 2004
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the April 12, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Keele, Osterling, and
Brownrigg (arrived at 7:25 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners: Vistica
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan; Engineer,
Doug Bell
III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 29, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with the following amendments: Page 6,
paragraph 3, line 8, “…the larger basement at 8 feet will not affect drainage
because the ground water is lower than 8 feet most of the year, major affect
on flow will be during storms.”; and correct page 12, paragraph 2, line 1,
with strike out “C. Brownrigg moved to deny the application for design
review amendment without prejudice.”
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that Item 6, 1704 Rollins Road, was incorrectly placed on
the action calendar when it should have been placed on the consent calendar.
Chair Bojués stated that he has some questions on that project that he would
like to discuss and requested that it remain on the action calendar. There were
no other changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1117 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING
HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WINGES ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HECTOR SALDANA, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. She noted that although this is a single family dwelling
it is not subject design review because it is located in an R-3 zoning district. The Planning Commission had
no questions.
This item was set for the consent calendar at the next available agenda. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
2
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
2A. 312 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM AND TRISH NICHOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; ROBERT MEDAN, ARCHITECT) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
2B. 1125 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(MAURISSA HEFFRAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL MOYER, ARCHITECT)
(32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
2C. 1608 MONTE CORVINO WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELIZABETH QUINTO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
BEVERLY CHEN AND S.J. XIONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
2D. 1080 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE (FOOD ESTABLISHMENT) (RINO BETTI,
APPLICANT; NORTHBAY RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT & DESIGN, DESIGNER; CITY OF
BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran noted that he would abstain on the vote on item 2D, 1080
Howard Avenue.
C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion. The
motion passed 5-0-2 (Crs. Brownrigg and Vistica absent) on items 2A, 2B and 2C. The motion passed
4-0-1-2 (C. Auran abstaining, Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent) on item 2D. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1544 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KATHY
PHENGRASAMY, JAIDIN CONSULTING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PETER LIP, PROPERTY
OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report April 12, 2004 with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there is a
required front setback for fences. Staff responded that fences in the front setback can be located at the front
property line and if an encroachment permit is obtained they can extend on to the public right-of-way.
Fences in the front setback can be up to five feet tall. There were no other questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
3
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Kathy Phengrasamy, Jaidin Consulting, 205 13th Avenue, San
Francisco, was available to answer questions. The Planning Commission had no questions for the applicant.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April
1,2004, Sheets A0.0 through A4.3, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) 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; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed
surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department;
7) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Fire Marshal’s memos dated January
21, 2004 shall be met; and 8) 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.
Commission discussion on the motion: nice job, addition blends well with the existing house, applicant
answered all of the Planning Commission’s questions, no more concerns with view blockage; went to
neighbor’s house at 1547 Los Montes to view story poles from both the first and second floor, saw no
obstruction of view; went to 1540 Los Montes next door house beautiful view of bay out front on this side
see roof and street, do not feel any distant views are obstructed, and there are no additional concerns by the
residents regarding view blockage.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs.
Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:21 p.m.
C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:25 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
4
4. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT A AND LOT B, ZONED R-1 (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRISTINE MUNDING, PROPERTY OWNER) (82
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
a. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT A - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
b. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT B - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
c. APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT
Reference staff report, April 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report which
addresses the proposed houses for both lots and the division of the 12,000 SF lot into to two lots, reviewed
criteria for action including those from the Municipal Code for division of property, and staff comments,
noting that action on this item should include a recommendation to City Council on the division of the lot.
Twenty-four conditions were suggested for consideration for Lot A, and twenty-five for Lot B, a creek side
lot. Commissioners asked how the action on the parcel map is handled. CP noted that Commission would
make a recommendation to City Council, but the Council makes the final decision on such maps. Usually
the arborist reports are complete including recommendations for tree protection and maintenance, that is not
the case with this arborist report, noted in field that there is disease on one tree and concerned about the
condition of the Magnolia on Lot A, and what the impact of construction would be on this tree, all the
pruning up to ANCI standards should be done before construction. CP noted that she would advise the City
Arborist who can require these protection steps be included in the arborist’s report before it is approved and
a building permit is issued.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, represented the project;
Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; Ario Gregori, 1258 Balboa; Christine Munding, property owner 1261 Balboa;
spoke. Architect noted the project has changed since the original submittal, for comparison also looked at
proposed regulations for development on creek side lots; the project on Lot B as now proposed meets them
with only 30% lot coverage of the 85% of the lot above the 100 year flood flow limit (Lot B). On Lot A,
although this is not an emerging lot, looked at the emerging legal lot requirements could not revise project
to comply since full basements, the corner stone of that regulation for reducing lot coverage, are not
permitted at this time; but did remove a bedroom and bath reducing the structure by 250 SF and adjusted the
one story elements to reduce mass and bulk as well as pushed the second story to the rear; the design is
bungalow style with the flared eaves taken from the house across the street. On Lot B picked a craftsman
style with a low slung nature, common style in Burlingame, narrow with articulation which slips into the lot,
removed 251 SF by creating a Great Room e.g. no formal living or dining room, pulled back the second
floor to create more rear yard, lot has more open space than most, 50% is soft scape; oriented the house to
the creek with a private setting.
Public comments on the project: Represent neighbor at 1600 Sherman, who is opposed to the project;
because of the siting of his house on a corner he does not have the rear setback to separate him from the new
house next door, both will be close to property line. Tried unsuccessfully to talk to developer, would like
added screening trees along the shared property line with Lot A and a decent fence in keeping with the
quality of the fence in place, sent a letter to Mrs. Munding requesting this but did not hear back. Would ask
the commission to add a mitigation for additional trees along the side property line between 1600 Sherman
and the new house next door and for full fencing similar in size and quality to what is there now. Live
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
5
across the street, is this division of this site into two lots legal and will both be buildable, my understanding
is yes they are buildable; property owner brought plans to show him and his wife, have prominent view from
inside house of this poorly maintained lot and house, th is is an improvement, done their best to fit in; is
building to meet current space demand, otherwise people will remodel to get bigger houses they want; am
sure developer will protect trees, she loves them; when the Oak tree is removed will there be protection to
the neighbors from the flight of termites which will occur, will the house be fumigated before it is removed
for the same reason. Want to respond to attorney for neighbor, tried to contact neighbor, objected to terms
of letter received, have planned around the neighbor at 1600 Sherman’s laundry room which is close to
property line. Commissioners asked if opposed to installing screening trees along property line and
replacing fencing with same quality? Applicant responded not a problem. There were no further comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: like project, the architecture on the two houses is well done, concerned about the
arborist’s report, would like the revision of the report as approved by the City Arborist to come back to the
Commission as an FYI including the removal of one Oak tree; overall the architecture fits and it will be a
good addition to the neighborhood; reduced Lot A, 270 SF and one bedroom, like orientation of house on
Lot B the creek side lot where conformed to proposed regulations when not need to.
C. Osterling made a motion to approve the design review for the two houses, the special permit for an
attached garage on Lot B, and to recommend to the City Council approval of the parcel map by resolution
for the reasons stated and with the following conditions for 1261 Balboa Lot A and Lot B:
1261 BALBOA AVE, LOT A
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
February 13, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5 and L1.0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of
the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
first or second floors, or detached garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an
arborist report for the protection and preservation of all existing protected sized trees on this lot as well as
trees bordering this site; tree protection measures for the protected-sized trees described in the arborist
report shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be
complied with during construction, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as
directed by the arborist report; 4) that the property owner of Lot A install a 6 foot solid board with one
foot of lattice fence along the property line between Lot A and 1600 Sherman Avenue and plant screening
trees within the side yard as approved by the City Arborist prior to final inspection of the construction on
Lot A;
5) that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist
who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning
Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 6) that the
applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist report detailing a three year
protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing the protected-sized
trees prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for
three years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive
the three-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the
three-year period; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and the Fire Marshal's December 1, 2003
memos, the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2003 memo, and the City Arborist's January 16, 2004,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
6
memo shall be met; 8) 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; 9) that prior to final inspection,
Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials,
window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building
plans; 10) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details
shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11) that prior to
scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the
building footprint; 12) 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; 13) that prior to
underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the
various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14) that clearing, earth moving activities and
the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be performed only during dry weather (April 15 through
November 14th ); 15) 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; 16) that
during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the
applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water
Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 17) 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; 18) 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; 19) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall
be diverted around exposed construction areas; 20) that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are
installed around the construction site as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the storm
drain; 21) that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from
drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be protected from
drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall
be covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly
cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a spill cleanup plan; 22) that landscape areas shall be
designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers,
herbicides and pesticides; 23) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District; 24) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
7
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 25) 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.
1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT B
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
April 5, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5 and L1.0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first
or second floors, or detached garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an
arborist report for the protection and preservation of all existing protected sized trees on this lot as well as
trees bordering this site; tree protection measures for the protected-sized trees described in the arborist
report shall be approved and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit; and all
protection requirements shall be complied with during construction; 4) that the required tree protection
measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction
site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection
measures are in place and requirements are being met; the project arborist shall probe for and based on root
location, identify the proper locations and design for the house and accessory structure foundations, as well
as any grading; this work shall be completed, reported to in writing and reviewed by the City Arborist prior
to issuing a grading permit for any grading on the site; 5) that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist
for approval a Certified Arborist report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction
guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing the protected-sized trees prior to building permit issuance;
the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees during construction and for three years
after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the three-
year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the three-
year period; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and the Fire Marshal's December 1, 2003 memos,
the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2003 memo, and the City Arborist's January 16, 2004, memo shall
be met; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 8) that prior to 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; 9) 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; 10) 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; 11) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection
a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 12) that prior to
underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the
various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13) Applicant shall provide a hold harmless
agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney that provides as follows: a) Owner agrees and
understands that the construction proposed in the application is adjacent to a creek that drains a large part of
Burlingame. The Owner has obtained professional analysis of the effects that the construction, maintenance,
and use of the project may have on the Property and its relationship to the creek and the soils, vegetation,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
8
and topography of the Property. b) Owner agrees and affirms that Owner is relying solely on Owner’s own
knowledge and the representations of Owner’s own experts and consultants in designing and constructing
the project and in no way relying on any representations or analyses of the City or any of its officers or
employees in proceeding with the construction and use. c) Owner agrees that Owner shall defend and
indemnify the City, its officers and employees against, and will hold them and each of them harmless
from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or properties, penalties, obligations, and liabilities,
including any attorneys fees or associated costs, that may be asserted by any person arising from the
approval, design, location, methods, installation, operation, and existence of the project approved by the
City. d) This Agreement shall be recorded by the City in the Official Records of the Recorder of San Mateo
County. 14) that clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be
performed only during dry weather (April 15 through November 14); 15) 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; 16) that during demolition of the existing residence, site
preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management
practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff; 17) 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; 18) 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; 19) that off-site runoff shall be
diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction
areas; 20) that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site as a
barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the storm drain; 21) that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants
and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage by structures such as berms and roof
covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment
stored outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected for property
functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a
spill cleanup plan; 22) that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote
surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 23) that demolition of the
existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 24) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
25) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: would like to be sure that the screening trees and replacement fencing are installed
between 1600 Sherman and the new development on Lot A, would propose an added condition that the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
9
property owner of Lot A install a 6 foot solid board with one foot of lattice along the property line between
Lot A and 1600 Sherman Avenue and plant screening trees within the side yard as approved by the City
Arborist prior to final inspection of the construction on Lot A. The maker and second of the motion agreed
to the amendment to the conditions for Lot A. Nice job with the houses was concerned originally,
appreciate the architects efforts including looking at the proposed creek side regulations and conforming to
them in his re-design; houses are nicely articulated especially on Lot B perfect use of the creek setting;
appreciate reducing both houses a good amount and increasing the rear setbacks and rear yard. Will vote no,
appreciate work done and adherence to the creek side lot development regulations and increase in rear yard,
but believe that there is a commercial element in developing creek lots, when divide a parcel on gets
increased capital gain from taking one lot and making it two, want the neighborhood to get back something
and want to see much smaller houses on these lots, one story houses which step up to a two story house on
the adjacent lot, not a four bedroom house abutting a creek. The attached garage on Lot B, the creekside lot,
is appropriate since it reduces lot coverage and the amount of impervious surface on this lot, contributing to
maintenance of the natural, creek dominated setting, valuable to the neighborhood.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the design review for two houses one on
Lot A and one on Lot B, for a special permit for an attached garage on Lot B, and to recommend to the City
Council the parcel map which would create Lots A and B. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg
dissenting, C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
5. 1861 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
FITNESS AND WEIGHT LOSS CENTER (CHARLOTTE HOLLAND, APPLICANT; STEVE AND
MERRY-LEE MUSICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (11 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
Reference staff report April 12, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Charlotte Holland, 141 Glasgow Lane, San Carlos, project
applicant was available to answer questions. The Planning Commission had no questions for the applicant.
There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: in the staff report the applicant answered the many questions raised at the study
meeting, think this project is fine as proposed.
C. Keighran 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
February 10, 2004, site plan and floor plan; 2) that the tenant space shall be 2,578 SF used for a women’s
fitness and weight loss center, including a reception area, office space, child’s area, circuit training space,
cardio space, free weight and stretching area and locker room with dry sauna, and two massage rooms, any
change to this configuration or use of space shall be reviewed by the Planning Department, including adding
class room space or designated area for group instruction, and may required additional review by the
Planning Commission; 3) that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 35 persons;
4) that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 5) that the
conditions of the Fire Marshal’s, Chief Building Official’s and Recycling Specialist's February 19, 2004
memos shall be met; and 6) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
10
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers.
Vistica). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
6. 1704 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PARKING VARIANCE AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE
(BATTING CAGES) (TERRY WHITFIELD, APPLICANT; PETER VALENTI, PROPERTY OWNER)
(12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report April 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the
bathrooms will be required to be ADA accessible. Staff noted that during the review of the building permit
application that this issue will be addressed by the Building Department. Commission expressed concerns
with traffic flow to and from the site, with carpools dropping kids off concerned with pedestrian safety, are
there any traffic calming devices that can be installed, can Public Works comments. SE Monaghan, stated
that the fewer vehicles parked at the curb adjacent to the driveways the better the visibility, looks like there
are 2-3 on-street parking spaces between the driveways, SE could not require the removal of the spaces at
this time, would have to defer issue to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. CP Monroe noted that
the spaces on-site have 18’ of back-up space to the right-of-way sidewalk.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Terry Whitfield, 849 Clearfield Drive, Millbrae, project applicant
was available to answer questions. Noted that people of all ages will be using the facility, and also have a
machine that can pitch to people in wheelchairs. Commission noted that applicant is affiliated with
Primetime Athletic Club, can customers use the Primetime parking lot? Mr. Whitfield noted that he is
leasing the space from PrimeTime but is not directly affiliated with them, however they only use the rear of
the building at 1704 Rollins Road for storage so his customers can use entire site for parking. Primetime
also owns Royal Athletic Club and has stated that if there are parking spaces available in either of their lots
that the batting cage customers can use them. Commissioner stated that they like this project but concerned
with parking. How many people will be waiting for use of the batting cages? The applicant stated that often
times there are teams of kids dropped off, then picked. Will try to get a system down where people call
ahead to reserve space, will be putting up signs to ask people to call ahead for reservations. In the last
location there were 10 cages, this one will have only 5 cages, 3 of the cages will be reserved rentals and the
other 2 will be for walk-in customers. At the other locations people would sign up their baseball teams to
come in, and then bring in half the team at a time. Most of the customers are younger than driving age, but
there are also a lot of high school students, not too many college students. Have been to the site at night and
most of the occupied parking was from Royal Athletic Club north, no one parked in area where 1704 is
located. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran 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 March 12,
2004, sheets A-1 and A-2; 2) that the batting cage facility may not be open for business except during the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week, with a maximum of 3 full-time employees, including
the owner; 3) that the batting cage facility shall be limited to five batting cages and a training area, a "Beat
the Pro" putting machine and a "Pop-A-Shot" basketball hoop, a small snack area with vending machines
(378 SF) and business office (210 SF) near the entrance; any change to the operation of the business,
including expanding hours of operations or services offered shall be brought to the Burlingame Planning
Commission for approval; 4) that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
11
employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this
conditional use permit; 5) that the conditions of City Engineer's and Chief Building Official’s February 17,
2004, memos, and the Fire Marshal's February 19, 2004, memo shall be met; 6) that there shall be no more
than 25 people on-site at any one time, including the owner, instructors and customers; 7) that all existing
landscape areas will be irrigated regularly and will require ongoing maintenance including weed control and
replacement of plant materials as necessary to maintain the landscape design; 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: in favor of this proposal, when it was approved in 1989 it also needed a variance
and we received no complaints regarding the parking at the larger location, good history with this applicant,
previous site was 16,000 SF where this site is 7,000 SF, there are 10 on-site parking spaces, 65% of the
customers base is under driving age; support the project but would like to have the traffic engineer review to
see if there is a better alternative to address drop-off and pick-up for traffic circulation.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. CA Anderson noted that this approval is for batting cages only in
7,686 SF at this location within the building and the approval would need to be amended if the use on the
site changes in the future to any other commercial recreation use. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 39 HUMBOLDT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY DETACHED GARAGE WITH RECREATION ROOM
(ROBERT BROWN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOHN SCHLENKE, ARCHITECT)
(63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked the height of the existing house?
Staff noted that they request that information from the applicant. Commission asked the reasoning behind
the code restrictions on the 15’ height on accessory structures and also why use permit for bathrooms. Staff
responded that the height restriction is in place to limit the mass and bulk of accessory structures and the
bathroom regulation is in place because of the concern about converting these areas into living units.
Commission asked what the area across the street is zoned. Commission asked if the circular stairs are
permitted by code. Staff noted that the circular stairs are strictly regulated under the Building Code and will
be reviewed with the building permit. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Robert Brown, property owner, 39 Humboldt Road, was
available to answer questions. He noted that across the street is City of San Mateo and that the area is zoned
for residential use. When designing this garage looked at using a pitched roof and a flat roof. The
neighbors that will be most affected by this project have reviewed it and are o.k. with the flat roofed
proposal. The location of the garage will be moved forward from the location of the existing garage so the
neighbors will get more light. Need additional space for children. Commission asked how tall the house is?
Mr. Brown estimated that is about 15-18 feet tall. Commission asked the applicant if there are other houses
in the area that have two story garages and has the applicant considered adding a second story on the house
for more living space? Applicant note that there is only one house in the area with a two story garage. He
just remodeled this house, this proposal is the second phase of construction, thought it was a good
alternative to do a recreation room, if added a second story on the house would have to tear out the new roof
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
12
and skylights that we just installed. Commission noted that south elevation of the garage is a blank wall,
was this done intentionally to preserve the privacy of the neighbor? Mr. Brown stated that the south wall
was designed to preserve the privacy of the neighbors as well as to comply with the City code regulations
regarding windows close to property line. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
comment was closed.
Commission discussion: some of the Commissioners decided that they are not quite comfortable with two
story accessory structure, but determined that if there are changes made to the project they may be able to
deal with the two story garage; CA Anderson noted that if the project is approved the Commission can
conditional it so that no more square footage could be added to the site; Commission decide to send the
project on to a design reviewer with direction.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• Concerned with future property owners converting the second story or entire garage area to living
space and renting it out as a dwelling unit;
• Concerned that if this two story accessory structure is approved and then, at a later date, a second
story is added to the house it will be too much for the lot;
• Have sympathy for the applicant, this is a corner lot and the garage would look as if it was an
attached portion of the house, hard to create space within the house without drastically changing a
nice looking bungalow, corner lots are less flexible, would like to see architecture of house
preserved;
• Concerned with the height of this structure, towering effect, would like to know the height of the
house in relation to the proposed structure;
• Could half bath be moved to the lower floor of the garage, would there still be the required parking
dimensions;
• Stands out on the street, doesn’t blend with the neighborhood;
• Feel that the landscaping between the house and the garage breaks up the mass and creates a soft
transition;
• The proposed garage speaks to the house next door rather than to the main house on 39 Humboldt
Road;
• Provide scaled elevation drawing across the property, measured from average top of curb, include
garage, main house and adjacent house;
• Recreation room will have impact on living space of adjacent neighbors;
• Too many conditional use permit requests (5) with the proposal, the number should be reduced a lot
; and
• South elevation needs work, needs to be more interesting, windows or articulation.
C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on
a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.
This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
13
8. 1332 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT
COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHARLES BONNICI,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; THUAN DUC TRAN P.E., DESIGNER) (77 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked why the pool is considered a
structure. Staff explained the code requires that anything over 30 inches above grade is counted toward lot
coverage. Commission asked if there is any recent building permit history on this property. Staff noted that
they would research the permit history and report back. Commission noted that they would like to see the
existing rear elevation. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Chuck Bonnicci Jr., 1332 Capuchino Avenue, property owner,
was available to answer questions. Stated that this is only a 10 foot extension at the rear to add a bedroom
and a bathroom and extra room at the rear of the garage for children’s toys. Have a boy and girl, 6 and 4,
who are currently sharing a room, getting older and need separate rooms soon. Will be tearing down rear
accessory structures with the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Osterling.
Comment on motion: modest proposal, not excessively large house, even though the pool and deck are
counted as lot coverage, hard to consider pool as permanent structure on this lot.
Chair Bojués 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 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of April 5, 2004.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of April 5, 2004, noting that the City Council
approved the Bayfront Specific Plan and amended it to the General Plan. The provisions of the plan become
effective immediately and the next step is to adjust the zoning for the area to reflect the plan directives.
Council also referred the ordinances on emerging legal lots and creek side lot development requirements
back to the Planning Commission for additional public notice and hearing. Staff will set these for the April
26, 2004, meeting.
Commission’s action at 1428 Cabrillo was appealed to City Council and the hearing was set for April 19,
2004. Since, Council has received appeals for the Commission’s actions on 1537 Drake and 2711 Martinez.
Council will set these hearings at their next meeting. City Planner gave the Commission copies of the
Reports on Resistograph Evaluation of 11 Eucalyptus Trees on El Camino Real prepared by Christopher
States for CalTrans and the Inspecting Arborist’s Reports for 1537 Drake.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004
14
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Auran, Secretary