HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.03.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday March 10, 2003
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the March 10, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Osterling, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:10)
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 24, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed. CP Monroe noted that the minutes
that went out to City Council did not include the condition added to 344
Pepper Avenue that requires the English Laurels planted along the north side
of creek to be maintained at a height of no less than nine feet. This condition
is in the minutes for the February 24, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 826 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1, APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE. (RAY VIOTTI JR. APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; ROB AND JODI EICNENSHR, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Concerned with request for 5 conditional use permits and 1 special permit, too many requests,
applicant needs to look at what can be eliminated;
• Concerned with size, 911 SF, this will limit floor area that could be added to the house at a later
time, takes up landscaping on the site creating more hardscape;
• Why the need for a half bath,
• Why are there 3 skylights; Eliminate skylights and add doors with windows to allow more light into
the garage;
• Size is too large, only 20’ width is needed to park where 27’ is requested;
• Concern with front elevation, proposed two 9’ doors, could change to two 8’ doors, would be more
residential in scale;
• Double doors are the only man door into the garage, will these be durable enough to be used as main
entrance;
• Plans should show the width of the current driveway;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
2
• Would like applicant to complete one conditional use permit application form for each request to
state findings for each request separately;
• Property backs up to an R-2 property, would like to see adequate insulation for the air compressor
closet;
• Does the applicant have a special hobby that requires this much space and an air compressor.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
2. 1541 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCES FOR LANDSCAPING AND PARKING FOR AN INDOOR GO-CART FACILITY.
(STEVE MARKULIN, APPLICANT; DENNIS KOBZA & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNERS; FRANK
EDWARDS CO., PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• How is air quality monitored, is there a permanent carbon monoxide monitor with an alarm;
• Would like more information on study footnoted; what does it cover re: air quality; what is the date
of the study and how comprehensive is it; provide supportive documentation on claims;
• What type of ear phones are used and how much noise do they reduce;
• Will there be landscaping in the drainage area; landscaping is heavy along Adrian Road, but sparse
on David Road, can strip adjacent to David Road be landscaped to improve site appearance;
• Application says people under the age of 18 are not allowed on tracks after 6:00 p.m., is this only on
first track, and second track will be used for only for children, please explain;
• Will the lease parking adjacent to Adrian Road run with the lease for the building;
• Would like to see parking in the drainage easement be required for employee parking first and then
remaining can be used by customers, far from building entrance;
• There are two arcades proposed, will they be restricted from use by people under the age of 18 after
6:00 p.m.;
• Concern with some of the parking spaces, only 7’ wide, can they be reconfigured to be more usable
and then more landscaping can be added along David Road, not much along this side, parking
replaced off-site in drainage area;
• Will run-off from all parking areas be filtered and NPDES measures met;
• Is there containment for the fuel pumps in case of a spill;
• Have there ever been any internal fires at other go-kart facilities;
• Provide landscape plan, show proposed location for trees;
• Providing 50% of the required landscaping is an extreme request and should be addressed;
• What security will be provided;
• Have there been complaints at other facilities;
• Does Burlingame Police Department have any comments or concerns about this project; and
• Time Magazine article provided says that the go-karts go 40 mph, what happens if someone is going
20 mph and someone behind them is going 40 mph, what safety measures are taken for participants.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
3
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.
Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
3. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT; EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH,
PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Commissioner comment: understand that the lot next door, which was two lots should the house be
removed, was placed on the market and sold to someone who is interested in preserving and remodeling the
house, hope this is true.
Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) on a
voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 1719 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR TWO NEW
ARBORS AT THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES (SAMUEL AND SUSIE LAHEY,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 10, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Susie Lahey, property owner, was present to answer question.
There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the arbors
adjacent to the front (Easton Drive) and exterior (Cabrillo Avenue) property lines shall be built as shown on
the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 30, 2003; and that the entrance arbors
shall not exceed 8'-6" in height as measured from highest adjacent grade to the top of arbor structure; 2) that
the conditions of the City Engineer's memo, dated February 13, 2003, shall be met and that a special
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to construction and
installation of the arbor and fence; and 3) 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. Bojués .
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
4
Comment on the motion: arbors do not block vehicular line of sight at this corner; and Engineering
Department is o.k. with proposal; arbors will enhance house; given the busy street adjacent these arbors
provide good transition from the street to the house.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
5. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT
BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report March 10, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Tim Colby, architect with 8 Inc., represented the project. He
noted that the Apple Corporation concept is evolving in the direct retailing area, he feels that the 2’x5’-4”
stone slab material now proposed is an upgrade over the brick proposed before; built a brick store in Texas
and did not think it was the quality to fit the company image; feel that the proportion of the building is better
as adjusted for the size of the material, the additional height is partially due to the need to center the sign on
the front and place the electrical service for the sign at joint, the same is true for the sign on the Park Road
side.
Commissioners asked: the parapet appears to be about 4 feet taller, can one row of stones be removed; need
to center the logo on the front at a joint in the material, CP noted that parapets must be a minimum height
according to the CBC, at about three feet. Applicant noted that a taller parapet would bet ter screen the
mechanical equipment on the roof; this design is the best given the proportions of the stone, and works well
with the windows, raising the one closer on Park Road to eye level. Commissioner asked how the new
height related to the building next door; architect noted the building next door was 2’-3” lower than the new
proposed height, the new structure being taller than the building next door is good at this corner, a better
termination for the block. Commissioner expressed concern about the building being a large billboard,
glitter in the stone material will shout at pedestrians, counter to the “village” image; the façade looks like an
office building. Material is an improvement, no problem with height, the scale works better, roof top
equipment is covered, the four street trees will further mask the building. There were no more comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted had some concern about the height, trust applicant’s evaluation of the proportions,
especially the front, am comfortable; previously enthusiastic about breaking from the style and scale of the
existing buildings; the project is good and the stone is an upgrade from the brick, and the project is
consistent with the Negative Declaration prepared so move approval of the requested changes 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 February 18, 2003, sheets A3.0 through A3.3, with 2'-8" high x 5'-5'-4"
wide gray Italian sandstone slabs, a recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors along
Burlingame Avenue, and 45'-4" length x 2'-8" height display window along Park Road, and a 5' width x 5'-
4" height clerestory window along Park Road; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the project shall obtain Planning Commission
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
5
commercial design review approval before demolition of the existing structure (except for asbestos removal
or reconstruction) or construction of the new building takes place on the site; 3) that demolition of the
existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building
Department; and that the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the permit; 4) that any changes to
the size or envelope or approved of building, 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
commercial design review; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s, Building Official's and Recycling
Specialist's July 29, 2002, memos and the conditions of the City Engineer's August 6, 2002, September 10,
2002 and October 28, 2002 memos shall be met; 6) that the demolition and construction on the site shall
follow the construction logistics plan date stamped June 29, 2001, and the memo and diagrams regarding
construction staging and date stamped September 4, 2002, and demolition and site construction plans date
stamped October 22, 2002; 7) that the debris box in the alley shall be limited to a 10' x 24' debris box, and
shall only be in place for a two week period during demolition, and the alley and fire lane shall not be
completely blocked, there shall be adequate space for a vehicle to maneuver around the debris box; and that
flagmen shall be available for traffic control while the debris box is in place; 8) that an encroachment permit
shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for the scaffolding in the public right-of-way along
Burlingame Avenue and Park Road; 9) that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and
Park Road shall not block any on-street parking spaces; 10) that employee vehicles shall not be parked in
Lot J; 11) that truck access to the site shall not use Burlingame Avenue or California Drive, trucks shall
access the site from Howard and the City Hall Lane alley, access from US 101 to the site shall be via
Carolan Avenue; 12) that no construction that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffolding,
pedestrian barricades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occur between November
3rd through January 5th; construction solely within the building may occur during this time as long as the
public alley and right of way are not impacted or blocked; 13) that all construction shall be done in
accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and
limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There shall be no
construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling shall be permitted on
weekends or holidays; 14) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure
that the interior noise level within the building does not exceed 45 dBA; 15) that the contractor shall submit
the “Recycling and Waste Reduction” form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building
Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the
waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan; 16) that the contractor shall prepare,
have approved and shall implement a plan that insures that all runoff created during construction and future
discharge from the site shall meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 17)
that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are
fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of
the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 18) that all signage on the site shall require a
separate application for a sign permit; and 19) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the
California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Discussion on the motion: cannot support motion as stated because of the height proposed, the previous
design made a different statement on Burlingame Avenue, with this change that subtle quality is lost, this is
a different design.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
6
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the change in the exterior material,
windows on Park Road, and height of the building. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Bojués and Keele
dissenting, C. Osterling absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15
p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 3000 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A NEW ENTRY CANOPY
AND DECK ADDITION (TECTA ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RABIH BALLOUT,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Ahmad Mohazab, applicant and architect, explained that an
approximately 250 SF portion of the crawl space on the lower level where the furnace is located has
sufficient ceiling height to be counted toward total floor area. Owner did renovation in 1996 now wants a
covered entry. At that time did face lift of ranch style house, put turret on, stucco applied to outside and
gutted the inside of the house. The floor area was increased by enclosing rear balcony. This is first variance
request. CP Monroe noted that 1996 was before design review and before revisions to how floor area was
calculated. Did not want a deck at the rear that would encroach into setback so designed deck off of the side
of the house. The area under the proposed deck also counts toward floor area, thought extending the
balcony to the ground would reduce the mass and provide an area for bbq. Commission asked why the deck
was angled? Applicant responded that they were avoiding sharp corners and that the edge of the deck
parallels the property line on the east side. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Auran.
Comment on motion: good looking addition; victim of topography with 143 SF of floor area counted that is
under the deck and 250 SF of floor area that is counted that is in the basement, attached garage also
decreases maximum allowable FAR by 400 SF; project adds character to the house; visual impact of project
is minimal; project abuts Mills Canyon, which reduces concern with mass and bulk that comes with FAR
variance; would like to add condition that the variance is only attached to this building and that if the
building is ever demolished the variance goes away; would like to see applicant consider eliminating angle
on deck by squaring it or rounding it off.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
7
7. 1140 CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(JAMES D. VALENTI, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PERRY WU AND SANDRA SULLIVAN,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Jim Valenti, 1564 Rollins Road, architect, and Perry Wu,
property owners, were present to answer questions. The Planning Commission had no questions and there
were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: project is nicely done; addition fits in with the existing structure; no problem with the
project, appropriate to place this on consent calendar.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this project on the consent calendar when there is
room on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:41 p.m.
8. 215 HUMBOLDT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (CHU DESIGN AND ENGR., INC, JACK CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
ERIC CHRISTMANN, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Jack Chu, project designer, and Eric Christmann, property
owner, were present to answer questions. Mr. Chu noted that all windows will be divided light windows,
and would show this on revised plans.
The Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project:
• Window at the front elevation on the second floor is too big and doesn’t match the rest of the house;
break-up the windows into two double or single hung windows, with true divided lights;
• Center pane of glass on second story front window is horizontal, but no other windows are
horizontal, should be square, vertical rectangle like window pattern;
• Front windows should be more consistent with house;
• Mass is a concern, looks like a box on a box, drop ceiling height of second floor;
• Shutters on second floor front window do not match the size of the window, eliminate shutters, or
adjust size;
• O.K. with mass, mass is not a problem; plate height proposed is 8’-1”, typical, not a problem;
• Plans need more detail, roof looks like it is a continuation of siding, show brick on existing fireplace,
fence and trees;
• Consider putting window at front, in walk-in closet in master bedroom;
• Front entry should be emphasized, possibly with columns, to break-up the mass at the front; and
• Plans revised to show all windows as divided light windows.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
8
C. Bojués made a motion place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the stated revisions
have been made and plan checked.
Comment on motion: not concerned with mass, second floor width is only 26 feet wide, not a big hunk;
applicant can address second story window, enhance the front entry and show the divided light windows and
come back for action; clear direction given.
This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
9. 1280 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PARCEL MAP TO MERGE THREE PARCELS AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW, THREE-STORY SELF STORAGE BUILDING (BOB DAILEY, APPLICANT;
WARD-YOUNG ARCHITECTS, MIKE MUSSANO, ARCHITECT; DORE TRUST, DAILEY TRUST,
STELLA LIU, ROBERT DAILEY, RAY MATHEWS, JENNIFER WALWARK, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description, noting that this project conforms to all zoning
requirements, but is subject to CEQA review because of the size of the building. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Bob Dailey, applicant, was present to answer questions. He
explained that the proposed design was intended to be a benchmark for this industrial area, tried to look at
existing architecture in the City and work from that. He explained that the windows proposed are actual
windows that are framed in with frit (film) behind them so you can’t see through. Maximum number of
people on-site is with 40 cars on the busiest Saturday of the year, average is 30 cars. Weekday use is
sporadic.
Commissioners identified the following possible environmental issues:
• Parking layout looks as if cars will have to back out of driveway, is there room for turnaround if no
parking is available in the aisles; need on-site circulation and access study;
• Explain use of 24’ driveway along south property line;
• Concern with past uses on the site, was there disposal of hazardous waste on- site;
• Will there be a Phase I and Phase II soils site assessment done, concern with past auto and mortuary
use;
• Traffic impact, intensification of uses;
• Architectural style of the building is inappropriate for location, should consider visual impact;
• Provide clarification on proposed windows, are windows fake or true windows, what will they look
into, stairwell, hallways, needed for light and ventilation;
• Provide full landscape plan, increase landscaping along Rollins Road frontage;
• Will PG&E be notified about this project; does it impact their use or operation;
• Concern with effect of electromagnetic fields on users and good in storage;
• What is the average number of cars to the site each day, need traffic study;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
9
• How will access to the site be managed, will it affect circulation on the street and on street parking;
will gates be open at all times or will customers open from electronic control; and
• Look into how the Rollins Road specific area plan will effect proposed use.
Commissioners noted: Nice architecture, does not look like a storage building, refreshing look for this area;
upgrades area; articulation and design are nice.
There were no further comments from the Planning Commission and the public comment on the
environmental scoping was closed. Staff noted that they would, based on the comments made, determine
what kind of environmental document needs to be prepared, and see that it is prepared. The completed
document will be placed on the Commission agenda for action. This item concluded at 9:12 pm.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council study and regular meetings of March 3, 2003.
CP Monroe reviewed the study meeting on new fees including increasing fees for Planning Review. She
noted at the regular meeting Council adopted procedures for selecting and appointing Commissioners and
Board members. The project at 344 Pepper was appealed and was set for the next Council meeting
Tuesday, March 18, 2003.
- FYI- 1320 Cortez Avenue- change to approved roofing material
The applicant is requesting a change to the approved design review, the replacement of synthetic slate
roofing material with composition material, because of the fragility and tendency to fade of the synthetic
slate. Commissioners noted that no information was provided in the request on the performance of the
synthetic slate material, some concrete slate materials perform very well. Commission noted this was a
substantial change in the design in this case and given the limited information provide, perhaps should go to
a design reviewer. CA noted that if the applicant did not want to go to design review, he still had the choice
of building the structure as originally approved.
C. Brownrigg moved to sent this item to a design reviewer who could look at roofing materials and make a
recommendation to the Commission based on the design of the house. The application would then return to
the action calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the issue to a design reviewer. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent).
- FYI- 1415 Benito Avenue – change to approved height
Staff noted that this problem resulted from poor surveying, in this case the architect did not establish the
slope from front to rear accurately, or identify the cross slope on the lot; however since the original structure
was designed to be 25 feet tall, it is still less than 30 feet despite the four foot error in curb elevation. The
City Inspector noted the problem. The size of the error was found when the first floor was surveyed as a
condition of approval to insure that the height would be as shown on the plans. A licensed engineer did the
first floor survey. Commission wondered if the ceiling height in the basement had changed, and directed
staff to confirm that it was less than 7 feet as approved. If the basement ceiling height conforms to the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2003
10
plans, then the increased height of the building is OK so long as it continues to be surveyed as it rises and
stays below the 30 foot maximum.
- Discuss opportunity sites/areas in the North End/Rollins Road planning areas.
Commission discussed briefly the opportunity areas and sites for the North End/Rollins Road planning area.
It was noted that the streetscape design for the block of Trousdale between El Camino Real and California
should include both intersections. Otherwise the list looked pretty good.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Bojués, Acting Secretary
UNAPPROVEDMINUTES3.10