HomeMy WebLinkAbout091304PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
September 13, 2004
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the September 13, 2004, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele
(arrived at 8:25 p.m.), Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell
III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 23, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
The minutes of the August 30, 2004 Joint CC/PC Special Study Session were
approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, complimented City proposed Bicycle Plan,
need to look at pedestrian overpass design, suggest looking at the over
crossing in Berkeley over Interstate 80, best pedestrian over crossing in
California, good for bikes, pedestrians and can accommodate wheelchairs, is
aesthetically pleasing and functional; Mills Hospital- at the Traffic Safety
and Parking Commission meeting they reviewed the removal of on-street
parking on Trousdale, concerned with moving the hospital entrance from El
Camino Real, has anyone asked emergency personnel how an entrance on
Trousdale will compare to the El Camino Real entrance, there is a signal
noted at El Camino Real and Trousdale, and El Camino Real and Magnolia
but there is no signal noted at the proposed emergency and service entrance,
however Figure 2.17 does show a signal at Marco Polo and Trousdale.
Commissioner noted that he observed another Planning agency recently and
wanted to express his appreciation to City staff and the Commission for
being prepared and for all of their hard work in the decision making process
and for being decisive. It was embarrassing to watch this other agency.
There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1844 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
REAL ESTATE USE (FABIO SILVA, APPLICANT; JEFFREY SUN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
2
Commissioners asked:
• Concerned about easement at the rear of this property; think there is litigation among the various
property owners regarding this easement, want to make sure this easement is maintained before
taking action.
Commission discussed placing this item on the consent calendar or the action calendar. Decided to put the
item on the consent calendar, can always pull it off, if there are issues with the easement. CP Monroe noted
this item would be set when all the information has been submitted and checked. This item concluded at
7:14 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.
2A. 716 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT, FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JOHN
STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JEFF AND JENNIFER
CASTELLO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
2B. 1444 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (ANDREW YOUNG, YOUNG AND BORLIK ARCHITECTS, INC.,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID CROSATTO, PROPERTY OWNER) (73 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
2C. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN
EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A
CHANGE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND SEATING AREA (RIYAD
SALMA, APPLICANT; STAN VISTICA, ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
2D. 1512 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AUTO SALES (ELLIOT SCHAFFER, APPLICANT; COEN COMPANY INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (18
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
2E. 1137-1145 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF
AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE,
VARIANCE FOR DWELLING UNITS IN THREE BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT, AND CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE (3) STORY, TWELVE (12) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
(DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FU-LEN CHENG,
PROPERTY OWNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
2F. 1340 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG HAGEY,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
3
KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RANDY LEE,
PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
C. Vistica recused himself from voting on item #2c, 1101 Burlingame Avenue, because he has a business
interest in the project.
C. Auran recused himself from voting on item #2f, 1340 Drake Avenue, because he resides within 500 feet
of the subject property.
C. Bojués 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 the staff report and each by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent), except for item #2c, 1101 Burlingame Avenue which passed on a 5-0-1-1
vote (C. Vistica abstaining, C. Keele absent) and item #2f, 1340 Drake Avenue which passed on a 5-0-1-1
vote (C. Auran abstaining, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16
p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1417/1419 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SETBACK VARIANCES AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
DUPLEX AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
(RAYMOND BRAYER, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) (98 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report September 13, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the
Planning Department has any regulations on solar panels, staff noted that there are no regulations for solar
panels in the zoning ordinance. Commission asked if the Fire Marshal has changed his position on the
requirement that the new garage must be within 150’ of the street and asked if fire sprinklers will be
required in the accessory structure? CP Monroe noted that the Fire Marshal has not changed his
requirement, however during the building permit process the property owner may be required to comply
with other requirements to meet the fire codes if the structure is not located within 150 feet of the street; and
that fire sprinklers will be required in the new accessory structure.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, property owner and designer, was available to
answer questions. He submitted photos of the subject property and adjacent properties. Chose to purchase
property because of the park like setting, however the 1417 Sanchez house is bordered existing development
on every side. Wants to keep the trees on the site and has designed the project around the site constraints.
Site is big, can cover a lot on this site, but don’t want to do that, trying to put parking spaces together rather
than having them in two separate structures, so decided to place the new accessory structure in front of the
parking garage wall for the apartment building that abuts the property on the west side. Took the drawings
around to the neighbors for review and tried to incorporate the changes that they requested. There are only a
few small windows that are being added to the east side of the house at 1417 Sanchez. This is an unusual lot
because of its size and shape, tried to keep the character of the old house, and tried to minimize the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
4
coverage on this lot. The other house on the lot, 1419 Sanchez Avenue will not be touched, no changes.
Plan to live in house at 1417 Sanchez and have family member live in the house at 1419 Sanchez. Under the
zoning code could tear down these houses and build a very large house without Planning Commission
review, but decided to work with existing structures. Adding solar panels on both the accessory structure
and 1417 Sanchez, trying to generate as much electricity as possible, possibly up to 80-90%, over the course
of a day.
Commission asked if the solar panels will have a reflection or create a glare, concerned with the effect on
neighbors. Mr. Brayer noted that you have to get close up and be above the panels to get a lot of the glare,
these panels have a matte finish and absorb and reduce reflection, they are very efficient panels; placing
most of the panels on the accessory structure where they will be most efficient because of the sun location
and placement of the panels on site. Commission asked what type of activities will occur in the room above
the garage. Mr. Brayer explained that it will be an art studio and various types of art activities will occur in
the space. His wife is an artist, with items showing on Howard Avenue. She uses many medias, sculpting,
painting, ceramics, which requires quite a bit of space for items such as a kiln, sanding device, paint easels.
It is very hard to accommodate these items within the house, and the areas where 1417 Sanchez can be
expanded are very limited. Commission asked if the number and placement of windows in the recreation
room provide appropriate light for the proposed use of the space, because changes to the number of windows
or placement may require that the project return to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Brayer felt
that the dormers proposed and the windows on the doors would provide enough light for the use of the room.
He noted that his two sons may also use the space for art, but will be used predominantly by his wife.
Commission noted that there is not a bathroom in the art studio. Mr. Brayer decided he did not want a
bathroom in the art studio that way the Commission knows that he does not intend to convert the space to
another dwelling unit, and also wants to ensure that his wife will have to return to the house to use the
facilities, so she doesn’t spend too much time consumed in her art. Commission asked if the art studio needs
to be that large? Mr. Brayer stated that given the foot print of the garage, he is trying to match the size,
weight and mass of the garage, and the given the number of art media the size is needed to accommodate
different machines and medias, structurally it is the most efficient way to design the building and it will also
serve as a cover of the wall of the adjacent parking garage, which is very large. Trying to hide the wall with
the accessory structure, but parking garage and wall are so large that it will still be visible from the second
floor of 1417 Sanchez. There was a 3’ area left behind the garage for utilities.
Applicants comments continued: In response to the Planning Commission’s concern with the Fire Marshal
comments, Mr. Brayer explained that he has worked with the Fire Marshal; since he can not locate the new
accessory structure within 150’ of the street he will be installing commercial grade fire sprinklers that have a
higher pressure flow than a residential fire sprinkler system. He noted that he plans on using cobble stone
on the columns and chimney and stamped concrete to look like the cobblestone on the driveway.
Commissioner noted that plans show more different materials, now applicant sounds like using traditional
materials for the fireplace and columns, asked staff if the applicant can change these materials over the
counter with the Planning Department. CP Monroe noted that if the Commission feels strongly about the
use of specific materials then it should be added as a condition of approval as part of the resolution.
Matt Tragoutsis, 931 Capuchino Avenue, and Simon Jones, 1432 Edgehill Drive, had the following
comments: noted that rear elevation of the 1417 Sanchez house will face his backyard, addition will be
located 6’ from his rear property line; thanked Mr. Brayer for keeping the windows to a minimum, however
he is concerned with the second floor deck looking into his backyard, can it be moved over the other side or
can a screen wall be built on the side of it? Support variance request for location of the garage, if garage
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
5
was conforming to code and pushed to the back of the lot it would have a negative effect on his property.
There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: thanked applicant for providing letter of explanation, very helpful in understanding
the project; concerned with the garage and art studio, there is a lot of space to provide the 7 foot side
setback, do not see hardship for the side setback variance for the accessory structure, very large art studio,
can later be converted to another unit, does not have to be the whole footprint of the garage; extraordinary
lot, very unique to Burlingame, taking the side setback and calling it a front setback, would be considered a
rear setback on any other lot, see exceptional circumstances on every request for this proposal; it is harder
to find the exceptional circumstances on the accessory structure than on the house, but it is blocking the
large garage of the apartment garage on the adjacent property, there is only one sink drain in the accessory
structure so unlikely to have easy conversion to another unit; accessory structure is large but on the site visit
saw the concrete wall of the apartment building garage and see hardship, need to cover this view, accessory
structure will fit in well with the site, property is under used, would rather see these two homes expanded
than to see them both torn down, applicant did a fine job in favor of the house and accessory structure;
garage and studio are large, but appropriate for the size of the lot and will be useful in blocking the
apartment wall, concerned with rear of 1417 Sanchez facing, 931 Capuchino, need owner to work out
something, either screen deck with wall or reconfigure deck, need to meet with adjacent property owner,
would like to see this brought back; concerned with deck on 1417 Sanchez and privacy issues of Capuchino
lots, there is no real landscape plan included in these drawings, site plan only notes vague details such as
“English garden” and “water feature”, but no details are given, for privacy would like to see evergreen
landscaping included, need full landscape plan; not clear if chimney will be cobble stone or stucco, want the
exact materials proposed shown and called out on the elevations, need to be more specific; don’t think deck
will be problematic because of circular stair location, people won’t be hanging out on the side nearest the
Capuchino properties, look at landscape solutions for the deck, comfortable approving tonight; think that
there are other ways to block view of the apartment parking garage, not just with a large accessory structure,
could use landscaping solution.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns and comments:
• Concerned with rear of 1417 Sanchez and deck facing 931 Capuchino a privacy issue, need owner
to work out something, either screen deck with wall or reconfigure deck, need to meet with adjacent
property owner;
• Need full landscape plan with irrigation indicated, no real landscape plan included in these drawings,
site plan only notes vague details such as “English garden” and “water feature”, but no details are
given, would like to see evergreen landscaping included, in places where screening for neighbors is
an issues, City should review;
• Not clear if chimney material will it be cobble stone or stucco, want the exact materials proposed
shown and called out on all elevations, need to be more specific.
C. Visitca moved to continue the item to return on the action calendar when the issues stated have been
addressed and resolved and submitted to and reviewed by the Planning Department. The motion was
seconded by C. Keighran. Maker of the motion revised the motion to continue this item to return on the
consent calendar, the second agreed to the revised motion.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item and bring it back on the consent
calendar when the requested revisions have been made and checked. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C.
Bojués dissenting, C. Keel absent). This item concluded at 8:07 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
6
4. 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) (79 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report September 13, 2004, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. James Breen, property owner, noted that since the last Planning
Commission meeting the project has been reduced in length, width and floor area. The house does not need
two covered parking spaces, does not want two side by side spaces because it would take up a majority of
the rear yard, revised project provides more compliant parking than what is there now. Existing accessory
structure floods all of the time now, there is no storm drain on this street. City Engineer has been made
aware of this problem and has allowed this property to provide on-site drains, therefore need to have lower
floor slab for plate height, but need finished floor height to avoid flooding from the street level. There is
one other structure on this street that of similar size, so the proposal is in character with the neighborhood.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: the applicant has made many changes and has addressed the concerns expressed by
the Planning Commission.
C. Bojués 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 July 14, 2004,
sheets A-1 and A-2, and that the detached garage shall not exceed 596 SF in area with the dimensions as
shown on the plans, shall not exceed an overall height of 14'-8" measured from adjacent grade to the roof
ridge, and a maximum plate height of 9'-10" measure from adjacent grade (maximum plate height of 7'-6"
above garage finished floor); 2) that the applicant shall receive a tree removal permit from the City Arborist
before issuance of a demolition permit or shall have the project arborist install the required tree protection
measures and have them approved and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a demolition
permit;
3) that any waste line to the accessory structure shall be limited to a maximum 2 inches in diameter and shall
not be increased in size without an amendment to this permit; 4) that the storage area at the rear of the
detached garage shall not exceed 344 SF in area; 5) that the detached garage shall only be used for parking
and storage and shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes and shall never include a
kitchen; 6) that the conditions of the City Arborist's September 3 and May 12, 2004, memos, the City
Engineer’s May 6, 2004, memo, including approval of on-site drainage retention basins or French drains
before issuance of a building permit, and Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist’s
May 3, 2004, memos shall be met; 7) 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 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. Brownrigg.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
7
5. 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (47
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she resides within 500 feet of the subject property.
CA Anderson recused himself from this item because of current California state law.
Both left chambers.
C. Keele arrived at 8:28 p.m., abstained from voting, because he was not present at last action meeting
which was continued.
Reference staff report September 13, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, representative for the
property owner, Otto Miller. On July 26, 2004 the Planning Commission stated that they liked the house
proposed at 1553 Drake Avenue, but they did have a couple of concerns. He noted that the proposed height
of the building was not over the 30’ height limit when measured from adjacent grade, but when measured
from the average top of curb elevation it exceeded the 30’ height limit. The other concerns were with the
large left side setback at the driveway, thought that it could be reduced and the house wouldn’t have to be so
close to the right side property line; concerned that it may cast shadows on the adjacent house. Since this
meeting the applicant has reduced the height of the structure to 30’ as measured from top of curb, so the
special permit requested for height has been eliminated, also moved the house to the left 1’6” more away
from 1557 Drake Avenue. Shadow study was conducted on previous plans and showed that there would be
a minimum impact on the adjacent neighbor at 1557 Drake. Changes would reduce shadow impact.
However 1557 Drake has a large roof eave, a large fence on the side property line with plant growth, so
presently nearly the entire side is shadowed by its own elements. The Commission asked for a professional
traffic study on the driveway, asked to look at confluence at the end of Drake, it is not a cul-de-sac, it is a
dead end, and very dangerous. The traffic engineer that did this study, Mr. Hopper, noted that the driveway
located on the left side is consistent with the pattern on the adjacent lots, the City Traffic Engineer,
Augustine Chou, agreed with Mr. Hopper’s conclusions. The drive way apron of the existing driveway
within the public right of way will be retained to help 1557 Drake get out of their driveway. Study also
looked at eliminating the parking space in front of 1553 Drake to allow for better circulation for 1557 Drake.
Will leave that decision to eliminate the space up to the City.
Got a call from the architect’s attorney, he expressed concern regarding liability of the architect if the
driveway is relocated to the right side contrary to the traffic engineers’ suggestion based on safety to keep it
on the left side of the lot. Went to the subject property today to try and maneuver in and out of the
driveways and found it very difficult and dangerous, keeping the driveway on the left side of 1553 is a better
solution. The driveway on the right side is a bad design and can create a potential liability.
Jay Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, and Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, presented the following comments:
submitted to the Commission a summary sheet, opposed to driveway location, interesting that safety and
danger are concerns now, have lived on block for 23 years and this has never been an issue, applicant has
attempted to make a very simple issue look murky, City approved the design of this subdivision years ago,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
8
why is it now a problem, traffic engineer Mr. Hopper says 3 driveways pose a constraint and suggest
changing the driveway of 1557 and 1561 Drake Avenue to accommodate problem, this is not a reasonable
request; City Traffic Engineer’s memo does not mention safety, says that it is a benefit to have 2 driveways,
better than 3 driveways; new driveway will result in a red zone (no parking) in front of 1553 Drake, who
will enforce this, will also result in a loss of an on-street parking space on a block that already has tight
parking; at last meeting Commissioner asked if the driveway change will affect the value of 1557 and 1561
Drake Avenue, since that meeting have researched this and found out that this proposal will result in a loss
of value of the property at 1557 Drake Avenue because of loss of the view and access issues and property
value will also be lost on 1561 Drake because of access issues; 1553 Drake is adjacent to the other Miller
development seems that this is an attempt to shift two story portion next to 1557 Drake and away from his
other houses; memo from RKH has no quantitative analysis, says the driveway was designed as defacto cul-
de-sac, Mr. Miller created a problem by putting up the fence between his property and the adjacent property;
now the man that lives at 1553 Drake has to park on the grass because he can’t even get into the driveway;
the neighbors have used the adjacent property for turn around for years, everyone backs into their driveways
that way it is easier to see kids playing the street when exiting; there is an existing condition such as this on
Cabrillo where three houses share driveway for circulation, they have never had any problems; last
Thursday there were 12 vehicles from workers parked on the street at one of the 1537 Drake parcels and the
Federal Express driver had to back all the way down the street; this driveway configuration has worked for
years, do not see why it has to change now. There were no further comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Auran noted that there are two traffic engineers recommendations to change the driveway location from
the existing right side location to the left side with the new project, found the residential design appropriate,
therefore 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 September 1, 2004,
sheets A-1 through A-5, L1.0, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2) that the property owner shall replace the existing driveway apron and any adjacent sidewalk on the north
side of the lot including an approved safe paved transition into the driveway apron located in the public right
of way for the adjacent lot at 1557 Drake Avenue, design to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit and to be installed and inspected by the City Engineer prior
to scheduling final inspection; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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;
4) that the property owner shall install privacy screening trees which will grow to a height of at least 15'-0"
between the second floor deck and the neighboring property to the north; the City Arborist shall review and
approve the irrigation system, the species, number and placement of trees to ensure the neighbor view
protection prior to issuance of a building permit; and these trees shall be planted and the irrigation system
shall be in place prior to calling for a final inspection for the building permit; 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 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; 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
9
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 Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's September
29, 2003, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 26, 2003, memo, shall be met; 12) 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; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of
Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14) 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; and 15) that demolition for removal of the existing
structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued
and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
The motion was seconded by Chair Osterling.
Commission discussion on the motion: project has been a challenge for over a year, this is not a cul-de-sac,
see safety concern for future homeowners at 1553 Drake, first thing they may consider doing is putting up a
wall at front property line to prevent car from backing onto front yard where kids playing could be hit, will
have deleterious impacts on property at 1557 Drake, concerned with safety issue and bulk and mass on right
side of the proposed building, aesthetically this was a good start to the design, withheld judgment on
detailed design issues because thought that there might be changes to the house and placement to address
driveway and safety issues, can not support this motion; driveway location is better on the south (right) side
of the property, effect of size on adjacent property at 1557 Drake is a concern but could be resolved through
better designed, de-valuing adjacent property and can not support, changes can be made to mitigate issues;
shadow study shows that 3 months out of the year there will be a minimal impact on adjacent property,
already shadows due to the overhang of the house, two traffic engineers have reviewed proposals and
support driveway on the left, nice design of house, applicant is willing to replace the driveway apron to
accommodate the circulation at the end of this street; the property at 1557 Drake will be developed later,
City approved this configuration but any development at 1557 Drake will improve this site; disagree with
that, it is unfair to make planning decisions on future development of neighbor’s houses that may be
affected, flimsy set of studies done on the circulation, hard to determine where apron and curb cut locations
will be and where the location of property lines are, need to have more information, would be helpful if
apron area painted out on the site, properties at 1557 and 1561 Drake may not be owned jointly in the future,
with all of the development on this block there will be 20 bedrooms where there were 4 bedrooms, need to
take a closer look at the on-street parking configuration, what is the benefit to the City if this project is
approved; a traffic engineer and the City Traffic Engineer have both already evaluated this project and
support proposal, respect their input and the input from the neighbors; if the lines were painted out on the
site do not think it would change vote on this project, should this item be continued? CP Monroe responded
that it would not be appropriate to continue the item, this is an action item and has already been continued.
Chair Osterling called for a roll called vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (C.
Brownrigg and Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran and Keel abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
10
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 754 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND
HELEN GRANCOLAS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Mark Grancolas, property owner, 754 Walnut Avenue, noted
that he wanted to correct the information presented by staff. There is not another full bathroom that is being
added on the second floor, this is an expansion of an existing full bathroom. Is requesting an addition to the
existing 3 bedroom 2 bathroom house, has two children 10 and 6 years old, need to separate the kids now,
want to keep one bedroom as a guest room when relatives from the Midwest come to visit, that is why
making this application to add a bedroom and expand the kitchen, the existing kitchen is very narrow, and
there is no bathroom on the downstairs level; noted this proposal is well below the allowed floor area ratio,
and going to continue to live in the house; the existing architecture has high pitch gables, keeping with that
style, also extending timbering that is on the front of the house to the back, this is a large lot and can
accommodate the addition.
Neighbor comment: Daryl Popin, 760 Walnut Avenue, lives two doors away from this project, the front of
this house is beautiful, addition will make the back of the house just as nice, will only be able to see the
profile from yard, but this addition will improve the house and will look nice, the rear of the existing house
is not in context with the character of the front of the house, this project will bring the rear into character
with the front.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent action calendar without changes. This motion
was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: nice design, addition is consistent with character of the house, addition will blend in
nice with the neighborhood.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 9:05 p.m.
7. 2108 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT O'CONNOR,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GARY STRAWTHER, DESIGNER) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
11
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Gary Strawther, project applicant and designer, representing
the property owner, was available for questions. Noted that this was a simple addition, approximately 700
SF in area, will not be seen from the street. The only property that will see this addition is the neighbor to
the south who is located 30 to 40 feet away, so there will not be a privacy issue. Commission asked if new
windows will be divided light windows to match the existing. Mr. Strawther noted that yes they will be
divided light windows.
Neighbor comment: Paul Lynch, 2845 Canyon Road, got notice even though he lives within San Mateo
County jurisdiction. Support project, like addition proposed, even though the existing house is over the
height limit, the addition will not be over the height limit, this house with the proposed addition will not be
as large some of the houses in the area. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment
was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Bojués.
Comment on motion: addition is located at the rear of the property, meets all code requirements, good
candidate for the consent calendar.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 9:10 p.m.
8. 1420 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (PHIL HYLAND, APPLICANT AND DESIGN; CAREY AND BRYAN WELSH,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Carey Welsh, property owner, was present to answer
questions. Noted that they moved to area one year ago, fell in love with the charm of the house, original
windows on first floor , remodeled kitchen, but there are very small bedrooms upstairs, addition in 1960’s
with aluminum windows, want to enlarge existing bedrooms and put a sloped roof over the office on the first
floor, and replace aluminum windows with new matching divided light windows. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
Commission discussion: project will be an improvement to the existing house, tastefully done.
C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Brownrigg.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 9:15 p.m.
9. 217 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELLIS
SCHOICHET, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; HOWARD AND ELISE CLOWES, PROPERTY
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004
12
OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Ellis Schoichet, project architect, was available to answer
questions. Noted that this project was the result of a leaking trellis located at the rear of the house. Decided
to just enclose the area as part of living space. There is a lot of foliage on the existing trellis, decided to add
a new trellis at the rear of the first floor to allowed the existing foliage to re-establish, also adding some
architectural detail at the front of the house. There is another very rustic arbor located at the rear of the lot,
which counts toward floor area, this will also be reduced in size. There were no other comments from the
floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Auran.
Comment on motion: nice job, working within existing regulations, majority of work is at rear of house,
will blend in with existing architecture.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 9:17 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of September 7, 2004
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 7, 2004.
- FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1608 Monte Corvino Way, zoned R-1.
CP Monroe presented the changes proposed on each of the elevations for this approved design
review project. The Planning Commission had no comments on the proposed changes.
- C. Keele asked that the City Attorney prepare a memo to the Planning Commission regarding the
required preparation necessary for participation for different kinds of actions following an absence.
He also asked staff to be more attentive in reminding Commissioners of these various requirements.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary