HomeMy WebLinkAbout052404PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
May 24, 2004
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the May 24, 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
Vistica (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg,
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 10, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were amended to correct the spelling of C. Brownrigg's name on
page 1 and approved.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 344 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR
NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE
(ELIZABETH YOST, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TRICIA HAGEY, ARCHITECT)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the May 24, 2004, staff report. Chair Osterling asked and noted that all
commissioners had made a site visit.
Commissioners asked: staff should check the numbers in the staff report summary table to be sure that they
are consistent with the verbal description; is the width of the new garage 16 feet or 11 feet; seem to be
hardships related to the dimension and size of the property with this site, item should be placed on the
consent calendar.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the next available consent calendar when the information
required is completed. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Brownrigg and Vistica absent) This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
2. 1440 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TANDEM GARAGE (JAMES BREEN,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RANDY GRANGE, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the May 24, 2004, staff report.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
2
Commissioners asked: in the special permit application the applicant notes that there are similar structures
on a number of nearby lots, can applicant provide pictures of these structures; can the plate be reduced to 9
feet so that it is within the code; project has a lot of conditional use and special permits, why not reduce the
width, reduce the plate height, reduce the square footage and make the conditional use and special permits
go away.
Chair Osterling directed this item to the next available action calendar when the requested information has
been completed and checked by staff. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m.
3. 1409 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (JOSE DOS RAMOS, PRUDENTIAL REALTY, APPLICANT;
KEVIN CULLINANE ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the May 24, 2004, staff report. Commissioners asked no questions.
This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the
Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
4A. 2505 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DALE MEYER,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIKE AND SHARON CALAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
4B. 415 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-1/R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT TO ADD A COLUMBARIUM TO AN EXISTING CHURCH (ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL
CHURCH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. C. Keele noted that he would abstain from action on 2505 Hayward because he lives
within 500 feet of the project. There were no requests to remove either item. Commissioners noted that
while on site visits they had spoken to the owners at 2504 Hayward Drive which is across the street from
2505 Hayward and the owners did not feel that the proposed project would affect their view.
C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the
motion to approve 2505 Hayward Drive and it passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Keele abstaining, Cers. Brownrigg and
Vistica absent) The voice vote on the motion to approve 415 El Camino Real passed 5-0-2 (Cers.
Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
3
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
5. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 2, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A
NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DEREK CHUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER; MICHAEL JUNG, ABR ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER (CONTINUED FROM MAY 10, 2004 MEETING)
Reference staff report May 24, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting the
driveway slope had been increased to 15 feet, the plate heights for first and second floor reduced to 9 feet,
and the retaining wall on side property line reduced in height by about 2 feet, she reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Twenty-six conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that an email was received
from Mike Stallings, 1512 Alturas Drive, noting that he was in support of the proposed project. There were
no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Michael Jung, architect, 4075 Papazian Way, Fremont, was
available to answer questions. Commission asked the architect to verify that stone veneer and vines will be
used on both sides of the retaining wall; architect confirmed that stone veneer will be installed and vines
planted on both sides of the retaining wall, and also will be placed on the front and back of all retaining
walls, notes are provided on the architectural drawings. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Bojués noted that the applicant had made the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and 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 May 12, 2004, sheets A1.0
through A5.0, topo, C-1 and L1.0, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building elevations, grading and drainage
plan, and landscape plan; showing a 15% slope driveway with 9’ plate heights on both the first and second
floors and driveway retaining walls at 9’6” and 8’ maximum; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of
the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s, Fire Marshal’s, Chief Building Official’s and
the City Engineer’s November 17, 2004 memos shall be met and the conditions of the City Arborist’s
December 11, 2004 memo shall be met along with the approved arborist’s report date stamped January 6,
2004; 4) that 43” Coastal Live Oak and the 47” Coastal Redwood located on Lot #2 shall not be removed
and the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures ,
prior to any grading or demolition on the site. The tree protection measures, as defined in the applicant’s
arborist report by the Green Jeannie (date stamped January 6, 2004) which has been reviewed and approved
by the City Arborist, shall be maintained on site until after the final inspection and the City Arborist
authorizes their removal; the contractor shall call for the City Arborist to inspect the protection measures
installed before a grading permit shall be issued, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after
construction as directed by the certified arborist's report; failure to continually provide the tree protection
and implementation of any of those requirements in the arborist’s report shall result in the property owner
paying for an independent inspection of the site by an arborist selected by the City; 5) that a certified
arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the
designated tree protection zones, and that a certified arborist 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 of the conditions of approval are being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored
material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and that a certified arborist shall be given written
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
4
authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and
all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and
the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection,
conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 6) that prior to demolition or construction the 43” Coastal
Live Oak located on right side of Lot #2 shall be trimmed, raising the fringe only six feet over the existing
roof line, this shall be done under the direct supervision of a certified arborist at a time during the project
determined by the City Arborist; 7) that prior to demolition or construction 6” of mulch shall be placed 10’
around the trunk of the 43” Coastal Live Oak located on the right side of Lot #2, but shall not be placed
directly against the trunk; 8) that prior to demolition of the rear deck temporary barrier fencing shall be
placed at 8’ on the southwest side of the 43” Coastal Live Oak, and 28’on the northeast side of the trunk; 9)
that after the demolition of the rear deck, but prior to the construction of the new homes, protective barrier
fencing shall be placed as close to the drip line of the 43” Coast Live Oak as possible and shall remain in
place throughout the construction of both houses on Lot #1 and Lot #2; 10) that prior to demolition or
construction the 47” Coastal Redwood located on the left side of Lot #2 shall be pruned over the existing
roof line to the existing gutter line so that tree limbs growing over the roof clear 6’ over the roof; 11) that
prior to demolition or construction the ivy around the trunk of the 47” Coastal Redwood located on the left
side of Lot #2 shall be cut away; 12) that prior to demolition or construction protective barrier fencing shall
be placed 5’ from the trunk of the 47” Coastal Redwood on the south side and 15’ from the trunk on the east
and west side, there is already fencing on the north side in the form of a neighboring boundary fence, all
protective fencing shall remain in place until the completion of construction; 13) that all trenching within the
drip line of the 47” Coastal Redwood and the 43” Coastal Live Oak, shall be performed by hand labor under
the supervisions of a certified arborist, should roots of a 4” diameter or larger encountered during hand
digging under the drip line, work shall stop immediately and the certified arborist shall evaluate further
digging and consult with the City Arborist prior to resuming work; 14) that the protective barrier fencing
shall be a minimum of 4 feet high, and shall be made of pig wire, snow fence, or cyclone fence, with steel
stakes or pipes as posts; there shall be no storage of materials or equipment, unnecessary trenching, grading
or compaction within the protective barrier fencing; encroachment into these areas is forbidden; 15) Tree
Maintenance: The developer shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work
on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the 43” Coastal Live Oak and the 47” Coastal
Redwood, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall
be founded upon the recommendations of the January 6, 2004 Green Jeannie report as well as such
additional recommendations as the developer shall receive from a certified arborist; 16) that for purposes of
these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as
an arborist; 17) 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; 18) 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; 19) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate
the property corners, set the building envelope; 20) that prior to under floor 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; 21) 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; 22) 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; 23) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
5
etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 24) 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; 25) that the applicant
shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance; and 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;
26) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 27) that the retaining walls on both sides of the site shall be clad
with stone veneer and vines shall be planted with irrigation along the front and back sides of the retaining
walls so that they would grow to cover the retaining walls. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: Commission suggested that condition #27 be added to include stone veneer and
requiring vines to be planted on the front and back sides of the retaining walls. The maker of the motion and
second agreed.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m.
C. Vistica arrived at 7:30 p.m.
6. 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, ONE-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES
CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN (continued from May 10, 2004 meeting)
Reference staff report May 24, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the condition of
approval regarding the pruning height along the neighbors' fence will show on the title report? CA
Anderson noted that the resolution is recorded with the property, but cannot confirm that the title company
would pick up the pruning restrictions and conditions of approval. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Denise Balestrieri, 414 Costa Rica Drive, San Mateo, and James
Chu, designer, represented the project and were available to answer questions, noted that the project was
continued because of concerns brought up by the neighbor at 2731 Summit Drive regarding potential view
blockage, installed additional story poles towards the front of the house to allow this neighbor to view the
proposed project, spoke to the neighbor after the story poles were installed and he indicated that the new
house would not have an impact on his views, the neighbor requested that the landscaping to be planted
along his property be kept down so that it would not impact his views.
Greg Cosko, 6 Hillview Court, noted that he was confused on the proposed landscaping near his property
and asked for clarification; Commission noted that the conditions of approval which require that the planting
along his property line be trimmed so that it does not exceed the top of the fence and the elimination of the
taller growing pittosporum trees addresses his concerns. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
6
C. Keighran noted that she spoke with the adjacent neighbor at 2731 Summit Drive and confirmed that the
proposed new house would not have an impact on views from the adjacent properties after the story poles
were installed, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 15,
2004, sheets A.1 through A.6, L1.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, with the exception of the
chimneys in the living room and master bedroom which shall not be installed as part of the project; and that
any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and
amendment to this permit; 2) that the three Pittosporum Undulatum trees shown along the southeast property
line on the Landscape Plan dated stamped April 15, 2004, shall be eliminated from the landscape plan and
that no trees or shrubs shall be planted along this property line whose natural growth tendencies would cause
them to grow taller than the property line fence or a maximum of seven feet; vines on the fence whose
height can be maintained by property owners on both sides are an acceptable alternative; 3) that shrubs
planted along the fence on the southeast property line between the subject property and the property at 6
Hillview Court shall be maintained by the property owner so that its height does not exceed the top of the
fence or a maximum of seven feet as measured from adjacent grade on the 2725 Summit Drive side of the
fence; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first floor or 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation
inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6) 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; 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 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 the
conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's, and Recycling Specialist's March
22, 2004, memos shall be met; 12) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of
Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 13) 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; 14) 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; 15) that the project shall be subject to the state-mandated water
conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landscape
and irrigation plans at time of permit application; and 16) that the project shall meet all the requirements of
the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:42 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
7
7. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE
TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JOHN F. BRITTON, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; RONALD A. PERNER, ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report May 24, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that this property was
recently purchased by the owner and asked if he would have been aware that the property was
nonconforming in FAR at time of purchase? CA Anderson noted that it is unlikely that it was disclosed as
nonconforming in FAR. CA also noted that in regards to granting the variance, the Commission should take
into consideration that the existing house is being preserved, which was a concern when the property was
sold; also pointed out that the existing carport extends over the rear property line into the public utility
easement and that the carport would be removed with the project. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. John Britton, applicant and property owner, noted that he was
concerned with condition #2 which voids the floor area ratio variance if the house is ever demolished,
destroyed or damaged, would like the option to rebuild the existing house if it is demolished or destroyed,
asked the Commission to reconsider this condition. CA noted that the Commission can revise the condition
so that it allows essentially a replica of the existing house to be built, Commission may not want to see a
different large house built. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran noted that the nonconforming floor area ratio was created earlier with the removal of one of the
lots, that the existing house is being preserved by the owner which was an important community concern
expressed at the time the lots were separated, that there are extraordinary circumstances on this property
which do not apply to properties in the general area, and 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 and date stamped April 29, 2004, sheets A.1, E.1 and Boundary and Topographic
Survey, and date stamped May 17, 2004, sheet A.2, with the garage door pattern as shown on the North
Elevation, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to
this permit; 2) that if the detached garage or single family dwelling on this site is ever expanded, the floor
area ratio variance shall become void and a new application shall be submitted for Planning Commission
review; if the detached garage and/or single family dwelling is ever demolished or destroyed by catastrophe
or natural disaster, the property owner shall be allowed to rebuild the existing detached garage and/or single
family dwelling at the same location, with the same footprint, floor area, setbacks, height, finished floor and
plate heights, and exterior materials as the existing house and garage; 3) that the conditions of the City
Engineer’s and the Recycling Specialist's April 12, 2004, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall
comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected
demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling
requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition
permit; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on the motion: fortunate to have a property owner willing to renovate the existing house and not
tear it down, house needs additional garage space and it is being provided, thanked the owner for his efforts
to save and renovate the existing house, it's an asset to the community. CA noted suggested that the
Commission consider revising condition #2 to allow a replica of the existing house to be built if the existing
house is demolished or destroyed. The maker of the motion and second agreed. CA noted that a variance
would be required for a new or revised configuration of the house.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
8
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m.
8. 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)
(64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report May 25, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. In her presentation she suggested an
amendment to condition 2 that the accessory structure shall never be used as a second dwelling unit or
sleeping quarters and shall not include a kitchen or cooking element. CP also noted that the design reviewer
had noted that he worked with the applicant on the design of the accessory structure but that the number of
exceptions in the case of the particular lot was a policy matter. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Robert Brown, 39 Humboldt Road, represented the project. He
noted that he would answer questions on the revised plans. Commissioners asked the house has distinctive
windows, did you consider replicating any of these on the garage to make it seem more a part of the same
property. Applicant noted would be willing to put in divided lights to match the house and that the curved-
frame window on the porch by the front door could be installed on the second floor at the front of the
garage. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: concerned about the precedent created by the two story nature with new
recreation room second floor and the number of exceptions to the code for this project; CA noted that should
the property be demolished (house and garage or just garage) the application could be conditioned that the
conditional use permits and special permits for the addition would be voided. Architect done a nice job
harmonizing the garage structure with the house, but the larger issue is the number of exceptions and setting
a precedent with that number and a second floor; am OK with the two story recreation room and garage,
reasonable use of space, not crowd the neighborhood, corner lot so hard to have rear yard/patio and garage.
CA noted that it is not easy for a situation like this to blend with design review so commission has review,
do not have a policy at present for no two story garages, these approvals will only be voided should the
house and garage or garage be demolished in the future if a condition is added to that effect.
C. Bojués moved to approve based on the fact that the house is located on a corner, there is sufficient space
between the houses on the block so that it will have no impact on the neighborhood, while concerned about
the precedent with the number of exceptions, think addressed by a condition that use permits will be voided
if the garage or the house and garage are ever demolished in the future and that there be no kitchen or
cooking element in the garage, 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 May 5,2004, site
plan, floor plans, and building elevations; 2) that the accessory structure shall only be used as a one-car
garage with a recreation room with a half bath above, with a maximum enclosed square footage of 570 SF
and a maximum height of 18’; shall never be used as a second dwelling unit; shall never be used as sleeping
quarters or include a kitchen or cooking element; and the waste connection shall be limited to the minimum
required for a toilet and the garage structure shall not include any additional utility services without an
amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer
and Chief Building Official’s January 12, 2004 memos shall be met; 4) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
9
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5) that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) that the curved-framed true divided light window on the house
facing Humboldt shall be reproduced on the front of the second floor of the garage and that all the windows
in the new garage shall be true divided light windows to match the pattern of the windows on the house; and
7) that the conditional use permits granted for the construction of a two story garage shall be automatically
voided should the garage structure or house and garage structure ever be demolished by intent, natural
disaster or catastrophe. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: would the maker and second agree to an amendment to the conditions of approval
to require that the curved-framed true divided light window on the house facing Humboldt shall be
reproduced on the front of the second floor of the garage and that all the windows in the new garage shall be
true divided light windows to match the pattern of the windows on the house. The maker of the motion and
second agreed to amend the conditions. This house has a unique location and situation on the lot,
particularly since it was remodeled to be one story, was concerned about the two story garage, works
because the plate line was reduced on the garage which makes it work better with the house.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permits with amended
conditions for a two story garage. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m.
9. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL USE AT AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE
TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
PROPERTY OWNER) (80 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report May 24, 2004, , with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the city had
received any traffic complaints regarding this use. Staff responded no. There were no other questions of
staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Michael Mount, Erudite (Hope) Technology Group
administrator, John Tolerver, 356 Grove, principal, represented the project. He noted that they had been
using a flexible start and end time schedule with the public school and it was working well, would like that
to be incorporated into the conditions. Staff of Hope meets students at the Franklin drop off area, disabled
students are dropped off using the disabled parking space in the Hope parking lot; would also like the
flexibility to have a maximum limit of people on site for this use instead of having them defined by class
size or position because of minor variations in sign ups from year to year, also Franklin may need portable
next year so Hope would have to adjust its operation accordingly; during the summer expect the present
situation with their use of the portable to continue, would prefer not to have to come back to commission
again so soon. Commission asked about the maximum number and how the people on site divided out by
children and adults. Applicant noted they are comfortable with a maximum of 77 people on site at any one
time, these divide out 21 adults and 56 children; generally these are special students and class size is limited
to a maximum of 12, many are smaller based on enrollment. Commission also asked about parking;
applicant noted that staff park in their 5 spaces on site and on Trousdale or just around the corner on
Quesada, some use public transit and some commute together, staff have never had a problem finding
parking. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
10
C. Vistica noted that given the history, the school is well run and meeting a need for the community, see no
problem with conditional use amendment to increase the number of people and to define the maximum
people on site for this use to 21 adults and 56 children and also to modify condition 4 to allow for flexible
arrival and departure times as negotiated with the Principal of Franklin School, so move approval by
resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the Hope Technology School shall be limited to
the 5,212 SF shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 8, 2004,
sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-7; including 4,252 SF of permanent building space and 960 SF of portable
classroom space; 2) that the drop off and pick up schedule for Hope Technology Group shall be negotiated
by the Hope Technology Group principal in conjunction with Franklin Elementary School principal, so that
there is no overlap between the drop off and pick up for both of the schools; 3) that the total number of
persons on site at any time, including school staff, students, and volunteers, shall be limited to 77 persons;
4) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint or should any of the following occur: an
increase in the space used, more than 56 students and more than 21 adults on site at one time or any other
operating feature change, except arrival and departure times and class duration; and 5) 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. Bojués.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the conditional use
permit with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 220 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; MARGARET FARNEY, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE BARBER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. He noted a letter from the neighbor at 224 Clarendon
requesting that the windows in the master bathroom facing her property be removed for privacy. There
were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, represented the
project. He noted that this is a typical stucco Spanish house with tile roof at the front and flat roof with
parapet at rear, with the addition at the rear they tried to add some of the same character that exists at the
front of the house now; showed the plans to the neighbor, suggest that the bathroom window be opaque
glass and hinged on the left for the maximum privacy for the next door neighbor, the window over the tub
would also need to be opaque. Commissioner asked if the divided lights on the doors from the master
bedroom to the outside were intended to match the pattern shown on the rest of the house, architect noted
that the divided light pattern would be the same throughout. There were no further comments from the floor
and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar, it is a nice design; the resubmittal
should include a uniform divided light pattern on all the windows and a solution to the bathroom window
which would address the neighbor's concern for privacy. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2004
11
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to bring this item back on the consent calendar when
the two concerns had been addressed and reviewed by staff. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg
absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of May 17, 2004
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 17, 2004, noting for the Commission
the reasons that the City Council did not introduce the proposed ordinance for re-emerging legal lots.
She also noted the revised City Council calendar for the summer and how this might affect major
projects being reviewed at this time.
- Report on Traffic and Public Safety Impacts 6 Months After Approval of the Business at
1230 Broadway, Starbucks Coffee.
CP Monroe reviewed briefly with the commission the findings of the "six months after" traffic and
safety study for the new Starbucks on Broadway. The study showed no real impacts in terms of parking
demand or traffic operation. Safety issues were much less significant than for the Starbucks on
Burlingame Avenue. No merchants in the Broadway area had complained.
- Review Subcommittee assignments and seating.
Commission reviewed the subcommittee assignments for 2003-04 and determined to leave them the
same for 2004-05 although the tasks of the subcommittees would change some. The subcommittees for
the Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plans would shift to addressing zoning
implementation; the subcommittee for Neighborhood Consistency would address review of the design
guidelines to encourage greater variety in design and creek side lot regulations. C. Brownrigg would
continue to serve on the joint Traffic Safety and Parking/Planning Commission subcommittee to develop
a bicycle plan for the city. Subcommittee assignments for 2004-05 are as follows: Bayfront Zoning:
Bojués, Keele, Keighran; Bicycle Plan: Brownrigg; Housing Element Implementation: Auran, Keele,
Osterling; Neighborhood Consistency: Bojués, Keighran, Osterling (alternate Brownrigg); North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Zoning: Bojués, Brownrigg, Vistica. The Neighborhood Consistency
subcommittee agreed to meet in June with the design reviewers to get the work on design review started.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Keele, Secretary
S:minutes/protected/2004/minutes.05.24.04