HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.03.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, March 24, 2003
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the March 24, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, , Osterling
and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Keele
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 10, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with two corrections: page 2 add a comment
that providing 50% of the required site landscaping is an extreme request and
should be addressed; and page 5, condition 13 should be clarified delete …on
Sundays. To clarify that the intent is to have no construction on this project
on Sundays and holidays.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Mark Hudak, attorney 219 Park Road, representing Safeway commented that
he had submitted a letter (dated March 21, 2003) regarding the installation of
story poles for the Safeway project at 1450 Howard Avenue. He noted that
the location of the presently proposed store was pulled back 10 feet from the
property line on Primrose to allow angled on-street parking and 2 feet on
Howard to allow for lane adjustment, the placement of exiting buildings,
truck access and required parking will make it difficult to install story poles
with webbing. Revised plans have been submitted to the Planning
Department, retail shops on Primrose have been lowered in height because of
slope on site from El Camino, the prevailing height on the west side of
Primrose will be 15 feet while the prevailing height across the street is 20
feet; because of the placement of the existing buildings and an Elm tree
between, it will be difficult to show height, new building corners will be in
the middle of parking spaces.
Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, want to emphasize how important story
poles are, the drawings in the lobby of Safeway to not depict the mass or size
of the proposed structure, just locating the corners would help demonstrate
the size; story poles should be in place two weeks before the public hearing;
if Safeway feels that this store is perfect for Burlingame they should request
voluntarily to go through design review; would help to mark foot print on
asphalt, but will not address how the store will look from El Camino Real or
how Safeway will use Primrose for trucks when they can enter from Fox
Plaza Lane. There were no further comments from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
2
0. 1450 HOWARD AVENUE – PROGRESS REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE SAFEWAY
APPLICATION, DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND PROCESSING
(RICHARD ZLATUNICH, APPLICANT AND SAFEWAY, INC., PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe noted that the staff report raised two questions: when should the public hearing be scheduled
and did the Commission wish to have story poles installed.
Commissioners discussed the date of the public hearing first. They directed staff to place the Safeway
project on the agenda from the regular meeting of April 28, 2003 with a second day of hearing set for April
29, 2003, should the meeting on April 28, 2003, extend past 10:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the City
Council Chambers. The only other item on the agenda should be the consent calendar, all other agenda
items should be reassigned.
Commissioners asked if staff could provide them as much information on this project as early as possible.
Could staff find a way to organize the staff report so some items could be given to Commissioners as soon
as they are ready, rather than the Friday before the hearing date.
Commissioners then discussed the issue of installing story poles. All commissioners agreed that story poles
were needed, so that they and the public could visualize the project; something is needed to demarcate the
mass and bulk of the exterior of the building, perhaps story poles could be installed where it is possible and
they could be incorporated photographically on to photographs showing the proposed building, so one could
see the relative location of the story pole and the proposed structure, it would help to fill in the blank spots
where the existing buildings make it difficult to physically extend poles and webbing; a computer modeling
program is available which allows the rotation of a structure the poles could be transposed onto such a
model; concerned about the visual impact from Howard down Primrose and from Howard toward El Camino
Real , perhaps a taped line could be placed on the existing buildings to show the height and scope of the
new; would like to see the footprint of the new buildings painted on the ground where possible; four corners
of the new structure should be marked with webbing or string used to outline—need to establish a sense of
the entire box, the story on Fox Plaza Lane is important, need to know how far the new structure will extend.
There will be an impact on the Walgreen’s parking lot and the Safeway loading docks. Should do the best
they can, can work with staff. CP suggested that because of existing structures and uses signs may need to
be posted on poles to explain what they document, a paper describing a self administered walking tour could
be one approach.
Commission agreed that story poles were very important and that they should be installed as soon as
possible, the applicant should work with staff to develop a story pole program. CP pointed out that the
requirement for other story poles is that they be installed 10 days before the hearing, that is the date of
required noticing. There were no more comments from Commission. The item concluded at 7:21 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
3
1. 753 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A NEW
SINGLE CAR DETACHED GARAGE (REMY SIJBRANT, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had no questions of staff.
Commissioners noted: made a site visit, a new garage is really needed on this site, the exceptions are
required because of the small, substandard site. This item should be brought back on the consent calendar
for action when there is space on the calendar. This item concluded at 7:50 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.
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.
2. 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
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 report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion which
passed 6-0-1 (Cers. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1532 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR
HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (ROBERT FELLOWS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER; JOHN A. MATTHEWS, ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report March 24, 2003, with attachments. PLR Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked why are fences
within the front setback limited to 5 feet in height; CP noted that the purpose of the 5 foot height limit is to
preserve the view of the house from the street, to not close in the property and wall it off from the street, and
to maintain adequate site lines for vehicles entering and exiting the site. PLR noted that the Engineering
Department submitted a memo, dated March 19, 2003, after the staff report was prepared, includes
conditions which requires a dimension from the sidewalk to the front property line to be shown on the site
plan and that a special encroachment permit is required if any work is to be done in the public right-of-way,
memo will be included in the conditions of approval. Commission pointed out that the Chief Building
Official noted in his memo dated March 17, 2003, that an electrical permit is required for electric gates and
asked if the proposed gate is operated automatically, did not see this noted on the plans; applicant can
respond during public comment period. There were no further questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
4
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Robert Fellows, property owner, was present to answer
questions, noted that the 6 foot tall gate will keep his dogs on his property, fence height matches the scale of
the recently remodeled house, the proposed driveway gate will be operated by an automatic electric motor.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués noted that the proposed pillars and driveway entrance gate will not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, will not obstruct the view of the house from the street, the design will match the entrance
walkway pillar and gate design, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following
amended conditions: 1) that the pillars and wrought iron gate at the entrance driveway shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 10, 2003, sheet A-1; and that
the pillars at either side of the driveway gate shall not exceed 6'-2" in height and the wrought iron gate shall
not exceed 6'-0" in height, as measured from highest adjacent grade; 2) that the wrought iron gate at the
driveway entrance shall be remotely operated by an electric motor activated from a motor vehicle and that
an electrical permit from the Building Department shall be issued prior to installation of the electric gate; 3)
that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s and Fire Marshal's March 17, 2003 memos, and the City
Engineer’s March 19, 2003 memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the
California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: plans do not include details of the pillars and gate at the walkway to the front of
the house; PLR noted that the pillar/gate design of the walkway and driveway will match, pillars and gate at
the walkway will not exceed 5 feet in height and therefore complies with the fence regulations; do not see
exceptional circumstances on this site for a variance; Commission noted that the visibility of the house is
addressed by the open wrought iron gate and that this is not a variance request but a fence exception, proof
of hardship is not required, only need to show that the pillar and gate will not be detrimental to traffic, the
property or the neighborhood.
Chair Keighran 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 8:00 p.m.
4. 1510 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT
WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (NIGEL WARREN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (55
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 24, 2003, with attachments. PLR Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the address
and front door face the side property line along Ray Drive and asked why the front of the property is
considered to be along Albemarle Way? CP Monroe noted that for setback and fence purposes, the code
defines the front of the lot as the narrow portion of the lot with street frontage, which in this case is along
Albemarle Way. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Barbara Best, representing the property owners, was available to
answer questions, noted that the fenced off area would create a play area for a small child, family concerned
with safety, small rear yard on this corner lot, need to block reflection of traffic lights into the bedroom,
fence will not block view of the house from the street. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
5
C. Bojués noted that the increase to the existing fence height would provide additional privacy, that the rear
yard is limited, that there are no sight line impacts, and moved to approve the application, by resolution,
with the following conditions: 1) that the fence within the front setback (area measured 15'-6" back from the
front property line along Albemarle Way), shall not exceed 6'-0" in height (5'-0" solid + 1'-0" lattice), as
measured from highest adjacent grade to the top of the fence, and shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 27, 2003, with five feet of solid board and one
foot of open lattice; and 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: this is a busy intersection, located one block away from another busy intersection
at El Camino Real, asked the property owners to consider adding shrubs or other landscaping along the
fence to help soften the appearance of the fence.
Chair Keighran 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 8:10 p.m.
5. 826 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1, APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE (73 NOTICED) (RAY VIOTTI JR.
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROB AND JODI EICNENSHR, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report March 24, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. She proposed an amendment to condition 1, that there be full insulation in the walls of
the air compressor closet, including a solid core door with weather stripping. Five conditions were
suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: is there anything in the Municipal Code about auto
repair in residential areas; CA noted that one cannot have an auto repair business or work on commercial
vehicles, cannot store cars on blocks in the driveway; plans do not show what they are going to do with the
air compressor, CA noted if it is to put in a lift it should be on the plans, they will need further approval
from the Commission and get a building permit for that as well. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Ray Viotti, architect, and Rob Eichensehr, property owner,
represented the project. He noted that the compressor was needed for a car lift, applicant works on classic
cars as a hobby, the car is stored off-site and he wants to relocate it. Commission asked how many cars does
he have off-site; one, and only maintains his personal vehicles. Concerned about noise transmission from
the compressor, there are ways to build in mitigation but it needs research; architect noted that further
research was not a problem, applicant does not work on vehicle every night, does it in the early evening
hours, has a young family. How is the compressor used, how often, why for only one car? For driving tools;
need it for convenience; works on the weekends from time to time, works only on his own vehicles.
Concerned about the width exception, could be reduced if work in only one bay of garage; applicant
responded if reduce size to 600 SF the project would need almost the same number of exceptions.
Testimony continued: Jim Belux, 831 Edgehill; Dickson Cheung, 835 Edgehill; Doreen Gandolfi, 825
Edgehill. Expressed concern about the public notification of this hearing, called earlier and inquired if there
had been an application no one could provide him with information; concerned especially now that hear the
intended use; building has a very large footprint, inordinate height in a residential neighborhood; proposes to
put large vehicles back there but has a very narrow driveway about 8’ wide, how will they get to the rear of
the property; is this a way to make a living? An extension of a business? Generally working at home is OK
if it does not cause affront to the neighbors; why should this request be granted, it is a visual impact, he
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
6
removed large trees before he made application so cannot tell if they qualified as protected, should be
required to plant mature trees; why should he be allowed to have an air compressor and other equipment,
how will hazardous materials be handled, when his equipment is used it will affect the enjoyment of the rear
yards of nearby properties; drainage to the street should be a condition of approval. Live behind and about
10 feet from the compressor, concerned about air gun, body work, paint dust in a residential neighborhood,
this work should be done in an industrial area it is incompatible with a residential neighborhood. Drainage
in the area is poor if this project blocks it, it will be a problem; looks like a commercial activity, similar
activities have turned the 800 block of Edgehill into a commercial area, now want to put something
commercial behind her lot.
Applicant responded: the purpose of the air compressor is to operate a lift to increase the auto storage, he
will change oil and do minor maintenance in the garage; the auto lift will be mounted on the floor, one car
will be parked above and one below; he is not a mechanic by profession; need a 12 foot plate for the lift,
need wider garage, because have a wide truck, too wide for a regular garage. Commissioners noted could
limit the air compressor to certain times of the day; owner responded that the compressor is quiet. Asked for
width of the driveway, did not provide, need to know at its narrowest point; lift is not a part of the
application because it is not shown on the plans to include it, it must be on the plans, provide details; how
many vehicles do you have? Two motorcycles, two cars, one truck and one antique car. Can you remove
the tool shop; no it is where the motor cycles will be parked and wife will use as potting shed; is the reason
for the 14 foot height; because of the lift; can part of the building be lowered since only one parking space
would be affected by the lift; tried to match the flat roof, Spanish style of the house. There were no more
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: what are the action options since the lift is not shown on the plans or as a part of
this proposed project, CA responded can approve as proposed without lift and applicant will have to come
back for approval of the lift separately, can continue until some of the concerns raised have been addressed
by the applicant. Commissioner noted that feel that application is incomplete, the width of the driveway is
an issue, the lift is not included on the plans, the specifics of the compressor with decibel levels is absent.
Agree cannot look at this without the lift because it creates special circumstances for the building, generally
concerned about the size of the garage and the fact that it does not conform to the neighborhood, neighbors
are concerned as well; too many exceptions, there are other alternatives possible which would reduce the
size of the garage, could for example fit the motor cycles in with the cars.
C. Vistica moved to continue the item so that the issues identified can be addressed noting that the noise
impact is also an issue and more information is needed on the decibel rating of the air compressor equipment
which is going to be installed. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
On the motion: landscaping also needs to be addressed before resubmittal, especially at the rear of the
property where trees and vegetation was removed; am concerned about the structure height and the lift, left a
lot of details out, am not sold on the effectiveness of the lift for the purpose proposed; architecture and
setback help the mass a lot, but large scale shrubs and trees are needed at the rear, compressors can be quiet,
what kind is proposed and what are its features.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until all the issues have been
addressed and there is space on a commission agenda to hear the project. She directed that the item be
renoticed when it comes back to the Planning Commission. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) on a
voice vote. There is no appeal to this action. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
7
6. 1805 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST
FLOOR ADDITION (KEN ZINNS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RUSSELL AND MARLENE
HOM, PROPERTY OWNERS)(42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 24, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Ken Zinns, architect, was available to answer questions, noted
that he tried to address all of the Commission’s concerns, also submitted a letter explaining the changes
made and why certain changes were not made. There were no further comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: scale of the Japanese maple replacement tree is too small, suggest adding a
condition requiring the applicant to consult with the City Arborist to choose a tree from the City’s street tree
list which is more appropriate in size and scale with the project.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the amended conditions requiring the
applicant to consult with the City Arborist to choose a tree from the City’s street tree list which is more
appropriate in size and scale with the project. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: Commission noted that the concerns were not adequately addressed, proposed
garage is 3 feet wider than required, garage is large, plate height in garage is taller than the existing house,
garage is too close to street and way out in front of the house, scale of existing house is small, proposed
garage not in keeping with the character of the house.
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
failed on a 3-3-1 (Cers. Bojués, Brownrigg and Vistica dissenting, C. Keele absent) roll call vote.
Further discussion: CA Anderson noted action options that the Commission could deny the project without
prejudice or refer the project to a design review consultant. Commission noted that this project could be
improved through the design review process. The following issues should be studied:
• Reduce the size of the garage, too wide;
• Lower the plate height in the garage;
• Scale of the garage is not in keeping with the rest of the house;
• Modify the floor plan so that the garage can be pushed back from the street;
• Entrance to the house should be the focal point, not the garage, as proposed the garage dominates the
front of the house; although the garage is only 3 feet wider and complies with setback requirements,
it is still too grandiose along the front façade, other garages on this block do not appear as large.
C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion
was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The motion
passed on a roll call vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
8
Further comment: bring back to regular action calendar after review and recommendation by the design
reviewer, Commission is clear that an attached garage at the front of the house is acceptable because it is
consistent with the garage pattern in this neighborhood, but the direction now is to minimize the visual
impact of the garage and to reduce the plate height and width of garage; revisions made to the entry is a step
in the right direction. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
7. 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
Reference staff report March 24, 2003, with attachments. PLR Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Jack Chu, designer, was available to answer questions.
Commission noted that the Japanese maple trees proposed at the rear of the lot are small scale trees, would
like to see larger scale trees, suggest adding a condition that the applicant consult with the City Arborist and
choose a larger tree from the City’s street tree list and that the existing birch tree at the front of the lot
should be protected with fencing during construction. At the previous meeting, the Commission suggested
placing a window in the walk-in closet on the second floor, the proposed window is large and appears to
eliminate the use of the wall in the walk-in closet, will it be a false window; applicant noted that he could
make the window smaller, 2’ x 2’ for example, and change it to a square shape. Commission agreed that a
2’-6” x 2’-6” square window without shutters would be compatible with the design of the house and should
replace the double-hung window in the front closet on the second floor. There were no further comments
and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
March 12, 2003, Sheets A1 through A4, site plan, floor plans, and building elevations, with the change that
the double hung window in the master bedroom closet on the front façade shall be changed to a 2’-6” x 2’-6”
square divided light window, and shall have no shutters; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor
area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding
the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City
Engineer, Recycling Specialist and Fire Marshal’s memos dated February 18, 2003 shall be met; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) that t he project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame; 8) that the applicant shall consult with the City Arborist to choose a larger size and scale tree
from the City’s street tree list to replace the proposed Japanese maple trees at the rear of the lot; and 9) that
an arborist report shall be prepared to determine the necessary protection measures for the existing birch tree
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
9
at the front of the lot and that it shall be protected in accordance with the report throughout the construction
period and with adequate fencing during construction. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions includ ing
changing the window in the master bedroom closet at the front of the house. The motion passed on a 6-0-1
(C. Keele absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
8. 1540 MEADOW LANE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO
AN APPROVAL FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING
DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BRUCE MCLEOD,
LIVING DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFF AND STACY NOVITSKY, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report March 24, 2003, with attachments. PLR Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. PLR commented that the designer
informed staff that he would not be able to attend the public hearing, and that if the property owners were
not present, he requested that the Planning Commission review the request and take action. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. The designer and property owners were not present to answer
questions. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués noted that the amendment includes minor revisions to the plans, will have no impact on the
integrity of the design, 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
June 3, 2002, Sheets A1 through A3 and Sheet A6, and the revised plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped March 7, 2003, Sheets A4 and A5; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's
and the Recycling Specialist's memos dated April 22, 2002, shall be met; 3) that any increase to the
habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which
would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s),
adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that 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 Fire Codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Keighran 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 9:10 p.m.
9. 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
Reference staff report March 24, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe pointed out that there
was a 9,620 square foot area on the west side of the building at 1541 Adrian next to the SP right-of-way and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
10
including the PUE on the Adrian site which was visible from the street and also from the parking in the
drainage area which could be landscaped. Adding irrigated landscaping to this area, along with the
landscaping proposed by the applicant, would increase total landscaping on the site to the required 10%.
CA Anderson asked that a condition be added that parking in the drainage area is at the risk of the people
who park there because the purpose of the drain is flood control, and that the city should be held harmless.
There were no other comments or questions on the staff report.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Steve Markulin and Shaina Markulin applicants, Bruce Shelling,
1575 Adrian Road; Tony Van Arkel, 228 Stanley Road. Applicants noted that this was a good location and
there was a need for more recreation opportunities in this area; asked for a clarification that children under
18 be allowed on the site after 6 p.m. with a parent or guardian in order to spectate, they would not be
allowed to drive or play video games; the reason for the requested change is to further promote the activity
as a family activity, family can come see father or mother drive; presence would be limited to the viewing
area. Commission asked if the applicant would be willing to add the landscaping along the west side of the
building, it would be good to eliminate a variance and meeting the landscape requirement is consistent with
the objectives for this Subarea in the planning studies on going in the Rollins Road area at this time.
Applicant noted that they were not aware they could landscape this area, and would do so if they could.
Commission asked about the requested change in persons under 18 on the site after 6 p.m. Applicant noted
want young people to be able to observe the activity any time when there with a parent or guardian but do
not want unaccompanied children under 18 hanging out in the viewing area or arcade. The core of the
business is adults, especially in the evenings.
Other testimony: have a business in the area and was concerned about having to secure parking area
because the Go Kart business would be a Mecca for kids, with alcohol and litter. Reassured to hear that it is
an adult oriented facility, look to the commission to protect adjacent properties from impacts; for the past 6
or more years the area has been secure, without litter and graphite free. Been involved with this type of
recreational activity, participants don’t drink or use drugs; good activity for a family everyone is involved.
Applicant responded appreciate concern about loitering, use should not be negative to the area, a clean,
positive experience. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved approval of the conditional use permit for recreation use in the M -1 zone and for a 41
space on-site parking variance with the mitigation that 43 parking spaces be paved and improved in the
drainage area and connected by lease agreement with the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road to
expire should the conditional use on the site be changed; and with the added conditions that the city be held
harmless for damage to vehicles parked in drainage area, that 9, 600 SF of landscaped area be provided on
the west side of the building between the building and SP right-of-way in order to eliminate the variance for
10% of the site being landscaped, that the permit shall be reviewed upon complaint and that the children
under the age of 18 be allowed only in the viewing area, on the site after 6 p.m. so long as they are
accompanied by a parent or guardian; and with the conditions in the staff report, as modified, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by C. Auran. The amended conditions of approval are: 1) that the project shall
be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 27, 2003,
sheets A-1 through A-3, and date stamped March 13, 2003, sheet L-1; with a total of 90 % of the required
on-site landscaping and 2,981 SF of landscaping in the front setback along David Road and that landscaping
on the west side of the property include an automatic irrigation system a nd large scale shrubs, trees and
vines on the building; that 32 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on site and used only for the
proposed commercial recreation use in the building at 1541 Adrian Road; and that the existing chain link
fence separating the 32 parking spaces for the commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road from the 49
parking spaces for 1565 Adrian Road shall remain and be maintained by the property owner; 2) that the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
11
variance for on-site parking spaces and the variance for total site landscaping, providing 90% of the total
required, shall expire with the termination of the conditional use permit for the Go Kart use; shall be
reviewed with any amendment to the conditional use permit granted to the Go Kart use; and shall expire
should any one or all of the three buildings on the site be demolished; 3) that because the purpose of the
drainage area is for flood control before issuance of a building permit for any of the construction for the Go
Kart use at 1541 Adrian Road, , the owners of the property on which the drain is located shall draft an
agreement on behalf of themselves and their successors in interest and in favor of the City of Burlingame
holding the City of Burlingame, its officers and employees harmless for the approval of the parking within
the drainage area for any future loss, damage, or claim that may arise because of the location, methods, and
construction of the parking use within the drain area and that fully represents that the owners are relying
solely on their own knowledge and the representations of their own experts and consultants in constructing
the parking and in no way relying on any representations or analyses of the City or any of its officers or
employees in proceeding with the construction and use. This agreement shall be approved by the City
Attorney and executed by the owners and recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder before
issuance of any construction permit for the Go Kart use at 1541 Adrian Road project; 4) that the hours of
operation for the Go Kart recreation use shall be 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and
10:00 a.m. to 12:00a.m. on Friday and Saturday; and that no persons under the age of 18 shall be allowed
inside the facility after 6:00 p.m., unless they are part of a previously scheduled private party or the person
under 18 years of age is accompanied by a parent or guardian; persons under the age of 18 accompanied by a
guardian or parent shall be limited to the viewing area only; 5) that the maximum number of employees on
site at any one time will be 13 persons, including the business owner; 6) that all the existing and new
landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system that shall be maintained
by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 7) that the ambient noise level at the property
lines shall not increase more than 5 dBA L10 when the Go Karts are operating; in the event that the City of
Burlingame receives a compliant about noise levels from the go kart use, the applicant shall provide to the
Planning Department a noise study by a qualified acoustical engineer; and should the results of the study
show that the proposed use is not in compliance with the standards in the City's General Plan, the use permit
shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 8) that the four existing catch basins on the site, two at the
southwest corner of the building at 1541 Adrian Road, one in the parking area between the buildings at 1541
and 1565 Adrian Road, and one at the east side of the building at 1565 Adrian Road, and the one existing
catch basin in auxiliary parking Lot A in the drainage easement, shall be refitted to have a petroleum filter
(sock or pillow) installed, and the owner shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning and changing all
filters on a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once (at least) during the rainy season
(October 15 – April 1), or as required by the City upon inspection; 9) that off-site parking for the
commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road shall be provided in parking Lot A in the drainage
easement to the west of 1561-1565 Adrian Road, that Lot A, measuring 64 feet in length by 255 feet in
length, with 43 marked, dimensioned to code parking spaces, and an entrance and exit off of David Road,
shall be provided and maintained solely for the permitted commercial recreation use at 1541 Adrian Road;
that the lease of the 43 parking spaces in Lot A shall be a required condition for the lease of 1541 Adrian
Road for the Go Kart commercial recreation use which was granted, a conditional use permit for the site;
and that if at any time in the future conditional use permit for the Go Kart use at 1541 Adrian Road ceases,
the parking variance associated with 1541-1565 Adrian Road shall be voided; 10) that the applicant shall be
responsible for erecting signage on site to direct customers to the appropriate parking areas for 1541 Adrian
Road; and that all on site signage, including directional and parking signs, shall require a separate permit
from the Planning and Building Departments; 11) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 12,
2002, the Recycling Specialist's November 8, 2002, and the Building Official's November 4, 2002 memos
shall be met; 12) that this use permit and its associated variances shall be reviewed upon complaint; and 13)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
12
that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Comment on the motion: would like the condition regarding landscaping of the area on the west side of the
building to include the requirement of including large scale shrubs and vines planted on the building as well
as trees, the City Arborist can recommend species which will do well in that environment; support the
business, a good idea, would like to note on the landscape requirement, because have not discussed this with
property owner, can grant applicant a lesser variance, 10% rather than 50% of required total site landscaping
to give him some flexibility in implementation and room so that he does not need to return to the
commission in the near future. Maker of the motion and second agreed to granting a variance for total on
site landscaping of 90% of what is required for the duration of this use on this site or until the existing
buildings on the site are removed. It was noted that the signage for the site, including directional signs for
the parking would be handled later with the sign program under the requirements of the sign code.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for the Go Kart
commercial recreational use with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent)
voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 3121 MARGARITA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION (MYRA HO, ABR ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EUGENE LAI,
PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. The applicant and property owner were not present. The
Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project:
• Since project requires a hillside area construction permit, would like to see story poles installed prior
to the action meeting, story pole location and height should be documented by a licensed surveyor;
• Would like to see more landscaping on the East Elevation;
• There are no second floor windows on the West Elevation, looks blank;
• Previous plans were reviewed months ago, for next meeting provide a reduced set of the previous
plans so a comparison can be made with the proposed project;
• Window located to the left of the front door is not shown on the North Elevation, please show; this
window is located at the stairway landing, verify that it will work at this location, provide type of
window and trim;
• Night-glow from skylights may impact uphill neighbors, please address;
• May block view from the house west of this project, request staff to include in the next staff report
the relevant section of the zoning code which addresses finding for the hillside area construction
permit;
• Confirm rear setback dimension, provide rear setback dimension at rear corner of house;
• Applicant should double-check and confirm that site plan, floor plans and building elevations are
consistent; and
• Can the kitchen/family room be modified to eliminate the rear setback variance.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
13
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when there is room after the
revisions have been made and plan checked. 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 there is
space and when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00
p.m.
11. 1576 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR GARAGE DEPTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PETER AND
SANDY COMARATO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
(61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
PLR Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Rosemary Rayburn, project coordinator, was available to
answer questions. Commission noted that there is a ‘for sale’ sign on this property and asked if applicants
purchased the property; yes. Commission expressed a concern with the den, contains a closet and a full
bathroom, it appears to be a bedroom, asked applicant how it will be used; applicant noted that this room
will be used as a den, convenient to have a bathroom downstairs, will have two new bedrooms upstairs.
Commission noted that the proposed detached garage was rather long. Applicant noted that she circulated a
survey to the neighbors requesting a response to the proposed project, received positive responses from the
neighbors. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Visitca made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Auran.
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. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m.
12. 1136 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO
STORY DWELLING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
(JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEVE AND ALISA JOHNSON, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
PLR Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that the plans indicate that there is a
separate permit for the new detached garage that it is currently under construction. Commission asked if the
garage is now being built with windows within 10 feet of property line? PLR noted that the applicant can
respond to this question during the public comment period. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Steve Johnson, property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, were
available to answer questions, noted that a building permit was issued for the detached garage without the
windows, now asking to add windows within 10 feet of property line. Commission asked if the property
owner looked into to the history of the architecture of the existing house, it is unusual; property owner noted
that his original plan was to remodel the house and maintain the existing architectural design, but there was
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 24, 2003
14
extensive water damage from a number of roof leaks and so decided to demolish the existing house instead.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: like the design of the house, fits in well with the neighborhood, concerned with the
proposed FAR being 1 SF under the maximum allowed, would like to make sure the house is built as
designed; disagree, don’t like the design, the proposed house is as big as it can be, is at the maximum FAR
allowed, close to the maximum lot coverage and building height allowed, will look like a battleship when
it’s built, will be replacing a modest building, would like to see roofline come down and FAR reduced,
windows could be improved with true divided light windows instead of sash. Feel that the articulation and
the design of the house reduces the impact of the proposed FAR, house does not appear massive, like the
simplicity of the proposed window design; this is a big house, but meets all of the design review guidelines,
design has been executed well, one of the better examples seen. The Commission had the following
recommendations for the proposed project:
• Recommend not planting two large oak trees in the rear yard, limit to one oak tree so it will not
overhang into alley and neighbors rear yard; and
• Consider using a craftsman style mullion pattern in the windows, few small panes at the top of the
window, will help break up the mass.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been
made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting and C. Keele
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:16
p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of March 18, 2003.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of March 18, 2003. She noted that the revised
procedures for appointment of city boards and commissions had been adopted and the due date for
applications for Planning Commissioner was March 28, 2003. Council will set the interviews to follow the
deadline for application submittal. C. Bojués reported on the California League of Cities Planning
Department meeting which he attended last week.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
APPROVEDMINUTES03.24