HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.07.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
July 28, 2003
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the July 28, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica
(arrived at 7:25 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners Brownrigg and Keele
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 14, 2003 were approved with the following changes:
page 4, paragraph 4: Chair Keighran Bojués; page 13, last category "Hazard": a
seismic event of 8.0 should be the basis for determining possible ramifications.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe noted that the Planning
Commission meeting of August 11, 2003 is cancelled. The next Planning
Commission meeting will be August 25, 2003.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 16 DAVIS COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (DANIEL BIERMANN, DESIGN STUDIO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
A.H. JUROW, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. The following corrections to the report were noted: the total
floor area for the proposed accessory is 1,422 SF, the applicant is proposing to add a total of 398 SF to the
existing structure, including 196 SF of ceiling height that is over 12 feet, 112 SF of covered porch area, and 90
SF to the game room. Commissioners asked:
• can the applicant clarify what the uses of the structure will be, will there be a bedroom or any person
sleeping in the structure at any time;
• site visit showed many of the fixtures in the structure were quite old, had heard that the history of the
structure included that is served as the contractor's office for the original subdivision, which may be why
there is a kitchen; can the unit qualify for the Second Unit Amnesty program and would the applicant be
interested in applying for that program; and
• the stated use of the existing structure is as a pool house, but noticed a bed inside during a site visit, is the
unit currently used as living quarters, with somebody sleeping in the structure, and how long has it been
used in this manner.
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 7:18 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
2
2. ZONING CHANGE TO BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR A ZONING
CHANGE TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, REAL ESTATE OFFICES, HEALTH SERVICE AND
GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY
COMMERCIAL AREA (GARBIS S. MAIDA M. BEZDJIAN APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
C.Vistica arrived at 7:25 p.m.
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report indicating that the Planning Commission needed to give
direction on the consistency of the request with the current General Plan policy so that staff could make a
determination on what CEQA review would be required, as well as any additional information on the zoning
request. CP noted that Commission had received a letter from the Broadway BID noting that they had decided to
table any action on zoning in the Broadway area until January so that they could see the status of the economy
and vacancy rates; they also noted that they had agreed that in the future they would poll their membership before
taking any positions on use changes in the area.
Commissioners asked: how is the optometrist use on Broadway now classified; are the two real estate offices on
Broadway non-conforming; would like to know the opinion of the merchants about this request and what their
vision is for Broadway; can we add a review of the number of restaurants on Broadway to this discussion; do we
need to be concerned about ADA compliance for health services on the second floor; we are presently doing two
major land use studies, the Bayfront and North End/Rollins Road, and have developed a process involving
committees and public input for these kinds of changes, this change would be as broad and am concerned about
doing this on the basis of one applicant’s request, merchants want to delay this action and am hesitant to go
forward on anything at this time. Would like to know the effect of office on the first floor experienced by other
cities, know San Mateo recently prohibited offices on the first floor in their retail area, why? Would like staff to
contact other communities such as Millbrae, San Mateo and others with similar commercial areas to see what
their issues are, what they have done, and would like feedback from merchants in the area.
C. Osterling noted in the graphic on the BID letterhead there are real estate and banks shown, should that give us
some direction; survey should include merchants and building owners, so moved to continue this item until after
we have received input from the merchants and property owners on Broadway. Motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Brownrigg and Keele absent) voice vote. This item concluded at 7:35 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.
There were no items set for the consent calendar
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1534 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE
STORY ADDITION (STEVE AND LISA ALMS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS; MICHAEL
STANTON ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report 07.28.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
3
comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair noted that all commissioners had visited
the site. Commissioners asked staff if the April 2002 project had included the same request for a side setback
variance. Staff noted Commission might ask the applicant.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Steve Alms , 1534 Meadow, applicant, noted that this is a different set
of plans, the previous was for a front and side setback on the other side, this is a more modest request. There
were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran noted that this was the type of circumstance for which variances were made, the site has extra width at
the rear of the lot and the problem is created by the way the code requires the measurement to be made, this is a
hardship, the request to add 70 SF for a bathroom, so move approval by resolution with following conditions: 1)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July
14, 2003, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first floor,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), converting attic space to habitable living space, moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review; 3) 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; 4) that the conditions of the Chief
Building Official’s and City Engineer’s memos dated memo dated June 23, 2003 shall be met; 5) 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;
6) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance; and 7) 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. Vistica.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg
and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
4. 39 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION (SOFIA MAKRIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CARLOS RENON DOMINGUEZ,
DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report 07.28.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. She noted in her presentation that the plans reviewed at study did not include the basement, which
has been included in tonight’s review and FAR calculations. Chair noted that all commissioners had visited the
site. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Andres Georges, 39 Bancroft Road, represented the project and
commented he would respond to questions. Did you consider adding articulation to the second floor at the front;
no the project was approved two years ago. At study asked about the front elevation and suggested adding
dormers; did not add dormers, did change all windows so they are consistent. Was there any change to the front
elevation since study; no. It is east to articulate the roof, what are your plans about the existing eave overhangs,
the plans do not show overhangs, do you intend to remove them, if you intend to keep them the elevations should
be redrawn to show the overhang on the gable ends on both the first and second story, the addition is modest but
it is difficult to approve a design when the plans do not represent the project accurately; do not intend to cut off
eaves. There were no further comments from commission or the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: Agree that the plans need to be corrected and more interest needs to be added to the
front elevation.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
4
C. Keighran noted front elevation needs to be articulated with the addition of dormers and plans need to be
revised, so move to continue the item so applicant can revise plans and resubmit. The motion was seconded by
C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: could send this item to a design reviewer, it was drawn by a civil engineer, may need
an architect’s touch. Pretty simple changes are looked for and Commission has been explicit; would refer to
design reviewer if this was the project’s first time through, but the direction is clear, also needs to articulate roof
line at the rear to match what is going on at the front so the two sides work better together. Last time applicant
heard the same comments and came back with little change; have more confidence he will make the changes this
time since he wants to proceed.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 5 -0-2 (Cers
Brownrigg and Keele absent). There is no appeal since no action was taken. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
5. 263 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (KEVIN LEHANE, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; CHETCUTI & ASSOCIATES INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report 07.28.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair noted all commissioners had visited the
site. Commissioners noted have a date stamp on one landscape plan sheet and not on the other, which is the final
landscape plan; staff noted the one with the July 18, 2003, date stamp is the current proposal. There were no
other questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. John Ward, representing the applicant, and Marijana Stott, architect,
7028 Richmond Place, Stockton, represented the applicant; John Seratto, 1604 Howar d; Mary Paolini, 1528
Howard, spoke. Applicant noted that the design review process has been effective, resulting in changes to the
plans, they invited the neighbors in to review the plans, 20-25 came; design in the neighborhood is eclectic, there
are five older Spanish design houses by the same developer so Spanish style is a good choice; concluded before
that the house was properly sited, issue was need to capture the sense of the creek and integrate it as a site
amenity; have added a secret garden along the creek bank accessed from behind the garage. Area along creek
bank is very shady, added benches, also wet and prone to flooding in the wet season, there is a step down into
this area, have selected plants which will do well in wet environment; the stair to the creek terraced area is 30
inches so requires a rail, pushed the garage back to 7 feet from property line, might be good to move garage
forward to increase this area to 12 feet behind the garage to provide a better access to the secret garden are a.
Commissioners asked the applicant: are the columns of the stucco wall also stucco, yes; have you considered tiles
to break up the expanse of the wall? could do that, several walls in area and none have any decoration, plants will
grow up and cover wall. Blank walls do not look good, this is an improvement over what is there. On sheet 4B
why is a shutter circled? looks as if something is needed on that window so put in a single shutter, let you decide.
Do not think shutter is necessary, no shutters on the bay window, have same size window on the first floor with
two shutters, should probably be one shutter like the window above. Not agree that Burlingame Creek is not an
asset, has been addressed as something special and that is good, OK to move the ga rage forward by 5 feet to
address access to the creek area, overall the design looks whole lot better; couple of details are important: eave
detail needs to execute true to the way it is drawn with a couple of levels of shadow at the rafter ends and need to
do something with the fence, tiles on column tops, tile roof. Only need 20 feet in the driveway, so move garage
forward to give more room in the rear yard.
Public commented: live behind project, this is taller than his house, affects the view out the side of his house;
may meet all planning requirements but will be a major change in his life style, it is very close to his house; had a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
5
problem with window placement, but worked it out; proposed house does not reflect the character of the
residential neighborhood , cannot replace what is there now; could reduce the size and height, but will still be
massive, will face Crescent, wall is fine as it is proposed, adding tiles would make it look much busier, his house
has same wall without decoration. Paid over a million for my house on Howard 3 years ago, at that time there
were a lot of houses on the street that looked terrible, this is an improvement; in San Francisco houses on the
corner are bigger, so this is fine; hope a family with children will move in. Heard that Commission would like
changes including moving the garage forward to increase the pathway; add tiles to the wall, applicant can go
either way. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: the issues appear to be the location of the garage and the tiles on the fence, in general
we have a pretty decent project; landscaping is not in keeping with the quality of this house, landscaping along
fence is all small scale shrubs, will not provide screening of unadorned wall, need to increase bulk and mass of
landscaping, with vines or tall shrubs to cover 75% of the span/ height of the wall and add some larger plant
stock not bigger box sizes but appropriate larger species. The paved courtyard extends up to the structure on two
sides, should be reduced so that there is ground in which to put plants on these two sides, not all in pots; and all
planted areas should be served by automatic irrigation. Better to increase soft-scape than add tiles to the
fence/wall, eliminate the shutters on 4B second floor (left side elevation) and first floor left side elevation reduce
two shutters to one, same as on window above. Discussed how the concrete patio would be replaced noting that
there would be a step down to it. Concerned about the location of the garage and the access to the “secret”
garden along the creek bank, consensus was to move the garage forward 5 feet so distance from rear property line
to back of garage is 12 feet not 7 feet, leaving 20 feet clear between the property line and the garage door in the
driveway for one uncovered parking space.
C. Osterling moved to approve the project by resolution with the proposed conditions amended by the items
identified by the Planning Commissioners that 50-75% of the outside of the property line wall shall be covered
by plants and shrubs and vines as approved by the City Arborist, that the concrete patio shall be pulled back from
the structure on two sides to create planting areas in the ground; that all landscaping and planted areas shall be
provided with automatic irrigation; that the shutters on the window on the second floor on the left side elevation
shall be eliminated and the window shown with two shutters on the left side first floor elevation shall have one
shutter as shown on the window above; that the garage shall be moved forward towards the street so that there is
12 feet between the rear property line and the rear of the garage and 20 feet between the front property line and
the front of the garage so that there is one uncovered parking space created on the lot; approval shall be by
resolution and included the amended conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 18, 2003, sheets 1 through 6, and Sheet L, and that any
changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment
to this permit with the following revisions that the shutters on the window on the second floor on the left side
elevation shall be eliminated and the window shown with two shutters on the left side first floor elevation shall
have one shutter as shown on the window above and that the garage shall be moved forward so that there is 12
feet between the rear property line and the rear of the garage and 20 feet between the front property line and the
front of the garage so that there is one uncovered parking space created on the lot; that 50-75% of the outside of
the proposed wall along property line shall be covered by plants and shrubs and vines as approved by the City
Arborist to provide the required coverage, that the concrete patio shall be pulled back from the structure on two
sides to create planting areas in the ground which shall be planted with suitable plants and, that all landscaping
and planted areas shall be provided with automatic irrigation; 2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the
basement, 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; 3) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate t he
property corners and set the building envelope; 4) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall
certify the first floor elevation and the second floor plate height of the new structure and the various surveys shall
be accepted by the City Engineer; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall
establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 6) that prior to scheduling the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
6
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; 7) 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 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; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s, the Fire Marshal=s memo, and
the Chief Building Inspector=s May 12, 2003 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's May 14, 2003 memo shall be
met; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance; 11) that during demolition of the existing residenc e, 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; 13)
that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water
Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 14) that
demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with
all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and 15) that any improvements for the use
shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The
motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on the motion: This is a good example of how design review can work, appreciate the effort of the
applicant; this is a large house but it is well designed and within the declining height envelope, with no special
permits, these are the reasons it is being approved.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2
(Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
6. 1033 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A
NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report 07.28.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. All Commissioner s had visited the site.
Commissioner noted that the river rock and brick veneer shown on the original plans were both missing from the
project as built. CP noted that this project had been reviewed by the Commission at the beginning of its
construction for a change from slate roof to shingle roof. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Charles Schembri, 904 Brownfield Road, San Mateo, John Stewart,
architect, apologized for not bringing this to the Commission earlier, he made the changes for both aesthetic and
structural reasons, neighbors are behind these changes, landscaping will cover the area where the stone
wainscoting would be at the front. Regarding the letter from the neighbor, the approved plans do not show the
rear of the garage to be shingled, original plans show only 2, 24 inch box trees in rear yard not 4 –5, plan does
show shrubbery installed, all has been planted as required; do not intend to replace west fence, it is grape stake,
have repaired it, the fence is along a 10 foot easement between their properties, neighbor has appropriated the
easement into his yard. Original plan was modeled after a traditional Green and Green house which has big
boulders at ground line so that the structure appears to grow out of the ground, prohibitively expensive today
since materials not available in the area, foam boulders are too small; applicant chose unusual colors which
provide a quieter façade and looks better than the stone.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
7
Commissioners asked: prefer the visual with the stone base, especially at the bay window which wants a base to
sit on, can cover base of window with landscaping; covering with landscaping is not the best way to start a design
- the style is visually very busy-trusses are done nicely-did not provide structural engineering data regarding
installing the stone, the trusses are so oversized that the small synthetic stone did not look right-8 inch diameter
boulders. Appears you decided some time ago to use all shingle finish, concerned about why you did not bring it
to the Commission sooner, front of the house may look alright, concerned about the process followed and the lack
of respect demonstrated for the Planning Commission, architect noted that he was not aware of the changes made
by the developer. Commission noted that the builder appears to have ridden rough shod over the Planning
Commission; feel that not enough research was done at the time of design, now say river rock shown is too heavy
and synthetic not look good. There were no fur ther comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: would like to go back to the original using simulated river rock, it’s a viable option
for the chimney and would pull the base of the building together; did not like rock originally, prefer proposed,
agree that developer did not show proper respect for the Commission and the effort which we put into the project;
need to do more homework on the availability of stone so Commission can make a better decision; up to the
applicant to provide more information; Public Works may be able to assist by reviewing; there is a house on
Chapin with rock veneer, what was used there and how was it applied; applicant should bring samples to show
Commission choices; when applicant returns would like to see drawings of the garage including the rear, fencing
and landscaping.
C. Bojués moved to continue this item until all the information requested is provided including bringing samples
of the rock veneer, and the plans and elevations for the garage, fence and landscaping, the applicant should do
this research, Public Works should review what is provided and note if there is an alternative. The motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the applicant submits samples of the
river rock alternatives, more data on the issues around using true river rock and drawings of the garage (all
elevations), fence and landscaping. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Keighran dissenting, Cers. Brownrigg and
Keele absent). This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
7. 1401 CARLOS AVENUE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(BARRY RAFTER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JAMES AND MARY SHANNON, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Osterling recused himself from this item because he lives within 500’ of the subject property. He stepped
down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report 07.28.03, with attachments. CP Monroe
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Chair noted that all Commissioners had visited the
site. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Seamus Shannon, owner and applicant, Barry Rafter, architest, were
present to answer questions; noted that he had met with the design review consultant on several occasions and
followed most of the consultant's suggestions; disagrees with the consultant's comments about the character of the
neighborhood, his own research has shown that the majority of the houses in the surrounding blocks have second
stories and four houses on the same block have higher heights than what he is proposing for his project; likes the
proposed design and the revisions to the project have addressed 9 of the 10 concerns listed by the Commission at
the study hearing.
Commission asked the applicant: what justification can you provide for the front setback variance and did you
review with the consultant any options for providing articulation along the front elevation. Applicant noted that
the variance request is minor, the addition is limited as to design options because the existing house is split -level
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
8
so nothing can be added at the north side of the existing house, and feels Hillside drive is wide enough to
accommodate the elevation as proposed. Architect for the project pointed out that the proposed landscaping
would help to screen the front elevation; feels Commission is giving conflicting direction because they are asking
the applicant to eliminate the front setback variance by removing the bay window at the front elevation, which
would remove articulation from this elevation, but at the same time they want to see more articulation at this
elevation. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: see no physical hardship on this property to justify a setback variance, the existing
layout of the house is not considered a physical hardship; only a bellyband has been added for articulation at the
front elevation and what is shown is not enough, these plans show a master bedroom and bath that are 32+ feet in
length by 12 feet in width, there is more than enough space here to provide articulation along the elevation and to
also eliminate the setback variance by either removing the bay window or by pushing it back by 6 inches,
understand that the applicant is attached to their design, but the Planning Commission is charged with upholding
the design guidelines an do not feel that the proposed dwelling meets those guidelines.
Chair Bojués moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on the motion: denial without prejudice gives the applicant flexibility to return to the Commission after
addressing the concerns mentioned. The revisions could be fairly minor.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C,
Osterling abstaining and Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 9:19 p.m.
C. Osterling resumed his seat on the dais.
8. 2115 HALE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RICHARD HARBER,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC, DESIGNER) (68
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report 07.28.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Chair noted that all Commissioners had visited the site. Nine conditions were suggested for
consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Richard Harber, applicant, was present to answer questions. He
reviewed the various changes he had made to the project, noting that he felt the end result was a nicely designed
house that was in substantial conformance with the original conditions of approval for the project, and that the
dwelling is an asset to the neighborhood.
Commission asked the applicant: why were the windows changed on the left elevation and why is the installed
garage door so drastically different from the design of the approved door. The applicant responded that the
original windows did not meet Building Department egress requirements; the approved garage door was too
expensive to install, did not come with a warrantee, and he feels the installed garage door is both functional and
compatible with the design of the dwelling. Commission noted the garage door on the plans documenting the
changes is not accurate, there are a row of divided lite windows along the top of the row. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: extremely disappointed that this application for an amendment is before the Commission
with the changes already in place, the applicant is well aware of the way the process should work, this
amendment is an insult to the Commission and to the hard work and time they put into considering each project
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
9
before them, most of the changes are fairly minor, the changes do not harm the design, point is that the applicant
should have consulted the Commission earlier in the process, coming to the Commission with changes when the
house is ready for final inspection puts the Commission in an awkward position, an approval of these changes
sends a message to the community that it is okay to disregard the Commission's decisions.
Continued Commission discussion: can the Commission assess a fine for the applicant based on the staff and
Commission time required to re-review this project, noted during a site visit that the dwelling already appears to
be occupied, since a final inspection has not been done, is the house safe or legal to occupy? Are there any steps
or safeguards that can be added to the process, such as allowing certain changes to design to be approved at the
Planning staff level, so that all revisions do not have to come to a public hearing.
The CA Anderson responded that the process already has in place an FYI process to address design changes so
they can be brought forward to the Commission, the amendment before the Commission tonight has a different
status because the changes were discovered by the Planning Department during the final inspection and that
makes this a code enforcement issue. The Commission does not have the power to assess fines, however the
applicant does experience delays by having to resubmit such changes to the Commission to be re-reviewed and
possibly corrected before a final inspection and occupancy of the building.
CP Monroe noted that the applicant made use of the FYI option once during the process to change the roofing
material so was aware of the process. In addition, if a final inspection has not been conducted by the Building
Department, there should not be full electrical and the City can have the power and gas to the property turned off
until the final inspection has been completed and the certificate of occupancy has been issued.
C. Auran moved to approve the application for design review amendment, by resolution, with the conditions
listed. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on the motion: the changes proposed with this amendment are either an improvement or not
detrimental to the project, still feel insulted by the deceit that has been shown by the applicant and the disregard
he has shown for the Commission's work.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 26, 2002, Sheets
A.1 through A.6 and L-1, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; with the revisions to the
façade as shown on the elevations submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 14, 2002, front, rear,
right side and left side elevations of the house and garage; 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, Fire Marshal,
and Chief Building Official’s memos dated July 1, 2002 and the Recycling Specialist’s memo dated June 27,
2002 shall be met; 4) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building envelope; 5) 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; 6)
that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and
provide certification of that height; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project archite ct,
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;
8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and
Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
10
The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling dissenting, Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m.
9. 1715 QUESADA WAY, ZONED - R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE-
HOPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
PROPERTY OWNER) (106 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report 07.28.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Michael Mount, applicant, was present to answer questions. He briefly
reviewed the information submitted for the Commissioner's review, noting that the Hope Technology principal
and the BIS principal were present to respond to any questions. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: feel the applicant has responded to all of the concerns raised. Commission appreciates
their willingness to work with the neighbors to resolve concerns.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the Hope
Technology School shall be limited to the 2,105 SF portion of Building #4 as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped May 9, 2003 Sheets A, B and 1 and shall be permitted to operate at this
location until the start of the regular Burlingame Intermediate School session in the Fall of 200, at which time this
conditional use permit expires, and provided that the applicant shall use this time to resolve the concerns raised
by the planning commission including the employee, volunteer and parent parking, student drop off and pick up,
and other neighborhood and on-site school issues, failure to obtain a second conditional use permit before the
start of the regular Burlingame Intermediate School session shall void this permit; 2) that the operation of the
school classes shall follow a schedule to be approved by Burlingame Intermediate School (BIS) and that the
schedule will be staggered so that no Hope Technology classes start or end at the same time as BIS classes start
and end, either during the standard school year or during summer sessions; 3) that the total number of persons on
site at any time, including school staff, students, and volunteers, will be limited to 49 persons; 4) that this
conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s memo of
April 30, 2003, shall be met; and 6) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg
and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:59 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 1261 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGR. INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CRAIG SUHL, PROPERTY OWNER) (44
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Plr Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Craig Suhl, owner, and James Chu, designer, Brian Anderson, 1249
Vancouver. The owner submitted to the Commission a revised landscape plan and a letter from the neighbor
behind the subject property to show support for the decorative balcony on the rear elevation of the dwelling. The
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
11
owner commented that he had met several times with the neighbor at 1249 Vancouver and agreed to make several
changes to the plans to accommodate concerns about the grading on the site, the new retaining walls, and the
landscaping. He noted that it is his intention to hire a professional engineer to erect the retaining wall and to
monitor its construction on the site and has submitted a hydrology report, retaining wall calculations, and a
drainage plan that were all reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department. Brian Anderson,
neighbor, had four concerns about the project: that the construction process may encroach onto his property and
possibly damage the integrity of his driveway, he would like to see the plans corrected so that the retaining wall
is shown entirely on the subject property, he does not want the grading on site or new construction to impact his
property by altering the drainage patterns, and he would like to reserve the right to review the new landscape plan
and comment on it at the action hearing. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
Commission asked the Senior Engineer: can you identify possible water drainage issues for the neighboring
property at 1249 Vancouver as a result of the proposed grading and retaining wall. SE Monaghan responded that
a drainage plan and engineering calculations for the project had been reviewed and approved; and with the
existing slope at 1249 Vancouver, he does not see any potential for water ponding between the wall and driveway
on that property.
Commission had the following concerns about the project:
• visibility and site lines from the driveway on the subject property and the neighbor's driveway on the
other side could be a potential safety hazard, landscape plan should be reviewed to confirm that new
fence and vines do not compromise visibility;
• the proposed multi-trunk olive trees have low crowns and should be moved further away from the street
so that site lines are preserved;
• the Magnolia at the front of the house may encroach on the foundation once it is larger, should be moved
closer to the street; and
• new fence proposed at the left property line should be shown on the plans and correction made to show
the property line on the correct side of the retaining wall.
Further Commission discussion: this project is a good example of nice architectural design, the evergreen
landscaping selections are appropriate for the site, and the applicant has responded to all of the Commission's
concerns about drainage and grading on the site.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions had been made
and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a
voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:24 p.m.
11. 1348-1368 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDING (MICHAEL PIETRO,
APPLICANT; WILLIAM SCHUPPEL, ARCHITECT; PIETRO PARTNERS L.L.C., PROPERTY OWNERS)
(23 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description noting that this is an environmental scoping required because
of the square footage of the proposed project. The project as designed at this time complies with all the
requirements of the zoning code and the warehouse use is permitted. There were n o questions of staff.
Commission had the following comments regarding the environmental review:
• this project will have extensive amounts of paving, can the environmental review investigate the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003
12
option of having the run-off for the parking area drain into a bio-swale before draining to the bay;
• perhaps an oil separator in the drains might be more effective than the proposed filter pillow;
• review energy consumption, there appear to be a lot of west-facing windows, options might include
screening or high- performance glass;
• more trees in the parking lot would visually improve the project; and
• the property exits onto a 35 mph street in an area where semi trucks are commonly parked in the
street to unload, proposed landscaping should be reviewed to insure that site lines are preserved and
curb cuts should be protected from large trucks blocking sight lines.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Michael Pietro, owner, added that the new project creates 9 additional
on-street parking spaces. The storage tanks on the site have been removed and Phase 1 soils reports for the site
indicate that there are no issues. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The project will return to the Planning Commission when the environmen tal review is completed. This item
concluded at 10:32 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of July 21, 2003.
City Council cancelled their meeting of July 21, 2003. CP noted that the Council also has cancelled the regular
meeting of August 18, 2003 and replaced it with a special study session on the Preliminary Draft of the Bayshore
Specific Area Plan. The meeting will be held at the Recreation Center at 7:00 p.m. A number of Planning
Commissioners indicated that they too would be attending that meeting. Staff and Commission also discussed
briefly the problem of developers building according to approved plans and the FYI process. Staff noted that it
was time to evaluate the FY I process used and clarify the policy regarding changes to plans and how they should
be reviewed. Staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission.
- Confirm Planning Commissioner’s vacation schedules
CP Monroe asked the commissioners to send her their vacation schedules to the end of the year. She would put
together a table so all could be aware when the commission’s numbers for a meeting are close to a quorum.
- The Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 2003, was cancelled for lack of a quorum.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Auran, Secretary
minutes07.28