HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.10.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, October 27, 2003
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the October 27, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES Several changes were made to the minutes of the October 14, 2003 regular
meeting of the Planning Commission: 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, page 10, add
bullet, the tree report is inadequate and needs revision; 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue, page 11, add bullet, the tree report is inadequate and needs revision;
page 9, second paragraph following “this could be addressed by merchants”
add: the city does not have a vision statement for the Broadway area, the
initial study and subsequent environmental review for this request should
look at effects of the change in uses on parking, traffic, pedestrian flow and
circulation, economic impacts and the effect on services and infrastructure;
the applicant should be aware that the Commission needs considerable
information and that he would be responsible for the cost of preparing the
specific studies that the City Planner determines would be necessary to
prepare the environmental document”. The minutes were approved as
amended.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road, commented on the modifications proposed to
the uses on Broadway discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting,
and noted that the merchants would like to go on record in support of the idea
that the city have a trial period in which the four proposed uses (real estate,
financial institutions, health services and general office uses) be allowed for
24 months and then the impacts evaluated, rather than undertaking a series of
studies which need to be done before a permanent change can be
implemented.
Garbis Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway, the applicant for the use changes on
Broadway, would ask for the 24 month trial period and would like this use
change to be approved on the next commission agenda so that he can start his
family business right away, does not feel he should have to spend any more
money on studies and will withdraw request if have to do environmental
studies.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
2
Helene Darling, 3100 Margarita Avenue, would like to request that item 2c
1568 Alturas Drive, be taken off the consent calendar and a public hearing
held.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1209 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 203 & 204, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A PILATES STUDIO (MARK
LUBARSKY, PILATES FAMILY, APPLICANT; CHARLES ANDREW TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked:
• Can staff see if we have parking available in parking lots F and N, hourly counts would be nice if we
have them available, drove by and one lot was full while the other had spaces available;
• What are the proposed times for the classes;
• Can not use financial hardship for variance finding, explain hardship related to property;
• Clarify question 7, where will owners and employees park, need to give further thought to this;
• Parking lot has five spaces that are dedicated to suite 200, how many spaces are available for suites
203 and 204, are other spaces designated.
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 7:25 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 Bojués noted that item 2c, 1568 Alturas Drive, will be moved to the action calendar. He then asked if
anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any other item off the consent calendar. There
were no additional requests. C. Auran noted that he would abstain on the vote on item 2a, 1340 Drake
Avenue, because he lives within 500 feet of the property.
2a. 1340 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG HAGEY, KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RANDY LEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
2b. 2b. 8 WINCHESTER PLACE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE AND REAR
SETBACK VARIANCES AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION
(GREGORY PROEFROCK, GLANCE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD V.
UNSINN, PROPERTY OWNER) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Osterline moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
3
noting that item 2a passed 6-0-1(C. Auran abstaining) and item 2b passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were
advised.
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.
2c. 1568 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (TRIAD
HOLMES ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ENGINEER; ANNIE FLANNERY-HILDEBRANDT AND
ANDREAS HILDEBRANT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR
VOONG
Reference the staff report October 27, 2003, with attachments. Sr. Eng Monaghan presented the staff report,
reviewed the criteria and staff comments. He noted that after the lot line adjustment all the lots affected
would be larger than the 7000 SF minimum lot size for the area. Commissioners asked for clarification on
the map of which portions of each lot would be affected. Sr. Engineer noted that just the legal description is
recorded for a lot line adjustment. Chair Bojués noted that all the Commissioners had visited the site. There
were no further questions from the Commission.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Andre Hildebrandt, 1568 Alturas Drive, represented the project;
Helene Darling, 3100 Margarita. Applicant noted that he had installed a row of trees in an area which he
thought was a part of his property. When he went to sell the property he realized that these trees were in fact
on his neighbors’ properties, he wished to make this lot line adjustment to add this planted area to his
property. The affected neighbors agreed with the lot line adjustment. His buyer insisted that this issue be
cleared up before the purchase was final. Neighbor commented that she called this item off the consent
calendar because she had a question about the retention of the trees. The applicant has answered her
question so that she now has no objection to the requested lot line adjustment. There were no further
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keele moved approval of the lot line adjustment as described by the Senior Engineer and in the staff
report by resolution including any conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the lot line adjustment. The motion passed on
a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1504 ARC WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DIODATI PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (107 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report October 27, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués noted all
Commissioners have visited the site. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
4
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Road #700, project architect and Joe
Diodati, 1730 Quesada Way, Burlingame, property owner, were present to answer questions. Noted that on
the drawings there are two pine trees shown on the left side of the driveway, they are diseased and will be
removed and replaced with five pittosporum alongside the south side property line. Since the last proposal
have reduced lot coverage, reduced FAR, revised landscape plan, and have articulated the south elevation.
Commission asked what is plate height? Applicant explained 9’ plate height is proposed with 1 foot
between floors. Thomas Starkovich, 822 Walnut Avenue, stated concern with loss of privacy. Family
room faces south side of this property, new second story will look directly into the family room and back
yard. Commissioner asked if he had looked at landscape plants? Mr. Starkovich noted that landscaping is
all dependent on how the trees are maintained.
Commission noted: some improvements, balcony columns changed to solid stucco; last time balustrade was
thick, now a stucco wall and is more bulky and massive, thought it would be reduced to thinner balustrade;
awkward design, south elevation has a recessed window that is 10 feet beyond, too deep, garage roof plan
not consistent, front is not the same as the back, why don’t you have smaller hip, the heavy tile roof is not
comforting; switch bathtub and toilet in bathroom number 2 on the second floor so you center the window.
Applicant responded that he can center window in the bathroom and explained that the recessed window in
the second floor hall way will get light from sloped lower tile roof, it is on the south side too, would like to
keep that window, can change garage roof so front will be treated same as rear, was trying to create a depth
feeling. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: not concerned with recessed window, not on front, on south side; Burlingame has
small lots and when second floors are added there is a loss of privacy, balcony at back is troubling, not used
much and doesn’t enhance the house, eliminate balcony, height is a concern, height is at maximum, from
design standpoint looks like a tower; recognize that this is a transition area between apartment buildings, on
the fence about the height; house is only 24-25 feet, the rise in the slope on the lot brings the height up to the
maximum; at the study meeting noted that this was too large, but due to the transition zone with apartments
surrounding gives a little leeway, balconies are usually not used – would like to see it removed, center
second floor window on front elevations, o.k. with recessed window.
C. Keighran made a motion to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended changes;
1) that the window on the front elevation be centered; 2) the balcony on the west elevation be removed; and
3) that the front and back of the garage roof match and the conditions in the staff report. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Discussion on the motion: balcony is too large, but what if reduced to not extend beyond the wall below,
make a quarter of the size it is now, effectively more interior to the bedroom, nice feature if kept flush with
house, amend to recess second floor balcony; the maker of the motion agreed to retain the balcony so long as
there is no stucco, reduce balustrade; project is a good candidate for design review, give direction on roof
and balustrade size.
Chair Bojués re-opened the public hearing to get input from the project architect regarding the size of the
balustrade. Dale Meyer stated that the balustrade that was originally proposed had an 8” diameter, can
reduce diameter to 6” and size of balcony, and can wrap around lower roof on south side in lieu of railing.
Thomas Starkovich, 822 Walnut, stated that he had looked at the landscape planting and does not see how
mature trees on the southern boundary will help address his privacy i ssue, there is only a 6 foot fence
between properties, balcony looks directly into his family room. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
5
The maker of the motion, C. Keighran, and the second, C. Auran, withdrew the original motion for approval
with changes.
Further Commission discussion: noted that they would like to see the changes before approving; like
balcony solution suggested by project architect; still suggest removing the balcony.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar after the following changes:
1) revised garage roof plan so front matches the rear;
2) bring lower roof around as a railing for recessed balcony and provide lighter balustrade; and
3) center window on front elevation.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote to place this item on the consent calendar when the suggest changes
have been made. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
4. 1029 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 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 October 27, 2003, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twenty six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués noted
that all Commissioners had visited the site. Noted that applicant has submitted story pole survey completed
today, which documents limb clearance to roof. An additional arborist report has also been submitted
regarding the oak tree at 1024 Cortez Avenue, City Arborist has reviewed and found acceptable along with
other arborist reports on this property. Commission asked CA Anderson how project can come back without
a one year wait if Planning Commission denied the project; how does the penalty fee n oted in condition
number 19 work; and wanted to see development proposal when the site was subdivided. CA Anderson and
CP Monroe explained that City Council denied the project without prejudice because they wanted the
project to go back through the design review process, the City Councils’ denial without prejudice overrides
the Planning Commission straight denial and the project does not have to wait a year for further review. CA
Anderson noted regarding future impact on the trees that for the Drake project a value assessment of the
trees was required and the penalty was set based on that. CP Monroe noted that the building shown at the
time of the subdivision of the lot was just to document that the lot could be developed within the
requirements of the zoning code, does not preclude the applicant from coming forward with an exception to
the code later. CA Anderson noted that unless it was a condition on approval, the building does not have to
have the same dimensions the footprint shown for the lot split.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, represented property
owner Charles Schembri. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project architect was also present.
Mr. Hudak noted that when the lot was split the house that was shown was within a few square feet of the
house proposed, however that house had a slightly larger footprint, with a cantilever over the creek bed, the
current design is less intrusive. At the previous City Council appeal hearing on this project the Council
debated the size of the house, noted it was nicely designed but need to down size to fit better on the lot, so
they denied the project without prejudice. Project architect worked with design reviewer Randy Grange on
redesigning. He eliminated one bathroom, one bedroom and one parking space, the house is now narrower
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
6
from the front, more landscaping has been added at the front; there less intrusion into the creek. Trees will
be preserved due to the construction methods proposed and the tree protection measures employed. The
additional letter from Mayne Tree regarding the oak located on the property at the rear notes that the distress
shown on the tree is not due to the construction on Balboa. There has been talk of a one stor y house,
however the biggest threat to the trees is the foundation and if the house were to be one story the risk to the
trees would be the same. The house will clear the major tree limbs by at least two feet. The special permit
requested for declining height envelope is due to the need to protect the trees on the left side, so there is
justification for the special permit. Lot coverage proposed is 26% well below the maximum allowable lot
coverage.
Commission concerned about the effect on the trees asked where the sewer and water line will tie in and if
there will be trenching for the irrigation system. Owner Charles Schembri noted that sewer service will be
tied in the at the rear and that the water line runs parallel to the front to the house and will be tied in on the
north portion to avoid any tree roots. The landscape architect suggested using either a drip irrigation or
bubble irrigation system to minimize trenching. Commission asked applicant to explained how far the
building has been pulled back from creek and how far the roof has been lowered since the April 30 proposal.
Charles Schembri stated that the cantilevered area over the creek was reduced by about 50% since the April
30 proposal, but the distance of the cantilever over the creek has not changed. The roof area has been cut
back since the April 30 plans, sheet A2, A3 show 45 degree angle taken out of bedroom number one and the
living room to allow more room between the house and oak tree. Commission found the declining height
envelope intrusion troubling, don’t want to see little slice between the houses, could lower plate height in
bedroom number two and master bathroom could have lower ceiling to help break up the two story wall that
runs almost the length of the entire building, would like to hear from the neighbor regarding the declining
height envelope, building is crowded in with the adjacent building, notching ceiling can mitigate
encroachment in to the declining height envelope. Project architect noted that can not get windows in the
wall if the plate height is less than 8 feet, would lose balance of house. Commission asked if Black Acacia in
back corner is going to be removed, not shown on the landscape plan, appears hazardous with growth into
power lines. Mark Hudak stated that the design reviewer notes in analysis that the intrusion into the
declining height envelope is necessary to preserve the trees and provide for adequate living space. Making
the rooms smaller upstairs will make them unlivable, can not see how a single story house will be viable.
Property owner noted that there was encroachment into the declining height envelope on the plans shown
for the lot split, result of saving trees, not proposing removal of Black Acacia, will be adding screening to
corner of lot.
Greg Thomas, 1033 Balboa Avenue; Alan Skokan 1041 Balboa; Andrew Stypa, 1024 Cortez Avenue; Bill
Robers, 1020 Cortez Avenue; Iraida Mairanella, 1037 Balboa Avenue; and Lana Appenrodt, 1040 Balboa
Avenue, expressed the following concerns with the proposed project: proposed construction will have a
significant impact on property, every window will be shadowed by proposed construction, opposed to roof
height; roots of the trees will be undermined, story poles look like they are within 2 feet of tree li mbs,
impact on creek concern, and height is a concern, looks like row of apartment buildings, single story house
is a better solution; story poles are no different than before, when lot was initially approved it was required
that there are no exceptions for development on the lot should be the same now, tree roots from 1024 Cortez
do go onto 1029Balboa, because of the creek, roots have no where else to travel; with the proposed
basement and foundation there will be less room for roots and they will be disturbed, and then tree may fall
on house; no substantial change to this project, confused with process because when the lots were split
requirements said no exception to code but there is a special permit for declining height envelope requested
with this project. At the June 16, 2003, City Council meeting there was discussion that a two story house
may not be possible on this lot, need to relate to natural setting and transition to creek, would like to see old
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
7
grape stake fence at the rear of the lot replaced if this project is constructed; concerned with trees and
canopy, trees on this property were thinned out in January, major limbs were cut – no documentation, during
construction saw things that cause concern with the trust of this contractor and worry that conditions will not
be followed, conditions require fencing 15-18 feet away but that would be within footprint of the house,
during construction of 1033 Balboa saw debris and material placed against trees and trucks were brought up
over the roots; why are conditions for trees now added, why not just build a ranch style house.
Mark Hudak responded to neighbor concerns: noted that new owners of 1033 Balboa were notified about
construction at 1029 Balboa Avenue and did see the plans; oak trees on subject property were trimmed in
accordance with Mayne Tree direction, City Arborist was aware of trimming; ranch house on this lot would
very narrow and would be hard to provide two bedrooms; applicant has followed process, eliminated
bathroom, bedroom and garage space; worked with City Arborist, there is nothing from City Arborist that
says this project won’t work; understand declining height envelope a concern, but not a lot of options on this
lot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Concerned with project, wanted to see a substantial change, design is nice but
looks like top of house is in tree canopy; encroachment into the declining height envelope closes in other
house; visually this is a 27 foot wide lot, project covers 50% of the buildable lot, project will bring down
values of neighbor’s properties, can address concerns with smaller house; based on design review criteria
the trees and creek are part of the neighborhood, the left side of the house is not compatible with the
neighborhood, project will have an impact on the trees, creek and neighborhood, under criteria no. 4, the
infringement of the declining height envelope on 1033 Balboa is inconsistent with the criteria, doesn’t
matter if the owner knew about the project when bought the house, structure should be compatible, no
findings for special permit for declining height envelope; roof too close to the canopy of the trees, doesn’t
relate well with adjacent development; changes are an improvement but only to the front, building crowds
the site; project not consistent with design review guidelines, project is 10% less than maximum FAR
allowed, but that reduction is found on typical lots in Burlingame, not creek lots, need more of a reduction
on a creek lot since buildable areas is less; need to look at alternative for encroachment into declining height
envelope. Need to make sure there is enforcement of the tree protection measures and add a condition that
the waterline not be trenched, did note debris around tree during construction of 1033 Balboa , need to avoid
cutting roots, with three year maintenance add language about additional pruning, need to maintain 2 foot
clearance so that during storm branches don’t rub against the roof.
C. Keele made a motion to deny the project. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the design review, special permits for attached
garage and declining height envelope. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m.
5. 1341 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (RENE ARIAS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CESAR
SIFUENTES, DESIGNER) (82 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report October 27, 2003, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués noted that all
Commissioners have visited the site.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
8
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present at the meeting. There were no
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission noted that this is a decent project, big improvement over original proposal.
C. Visitca 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 October 10, 2003
sheets 1 through 5, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 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 the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer,
Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s memos dated June 30, 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
to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the
maximum height shown on the plans; 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. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 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 the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of
Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8) 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; and 9) 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. Keighran.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7 -0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:22 p.m.
6. 1420 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
THOMAS M. AILAND, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 27, 2003, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. She noted that because this is a
single family house in an R-2 zone it is not subject to design review. Chair Bojués noted that all the
Commissioners have visited this site. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Thomas Ailand, property owner and Alan Olin, architect, 286
Mills Avenue, Menlo Park, represented the project. Commissioners asked why the stairs were not put inside
the building and the lot coverage reduced. Applicant noted that they were trying not to encroach on the
declining height envelope. Commission noted that there were ways to design the stair internally to the floor
plan, it might cost more and be harder to build, but it would be better. Applicant noted could not figure out
how to keep within the declining height requirement and felt that that was sacrosanct to the commission.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
9
Commissioner noted that there was a 10 foot PUE on that side of the building to mitigate the declining
height encroachment. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran noted that concerned about the size of the lot coverage variance caused by the location of the
stair, do not see the hardship on the property to justify, would be more willing to grant a declining height
exception than a lot coverage variance so will move to deny this application without prejudice and give the
applicant an opportunity to return with a different design. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: hardship may be the substandard lot size, but already at 42.9% which is about the
amount other properties in the area exceed lot coverage, but this request is 45%; nice design, looks good,
needs stairway inside; where can the stairway be put inside without loosing the bedroom that they are trying
to gain; there is room with some rearrangement between the bathroom and laundry to accommodate the
stair; disagree that there is no hardship on this property, the garage and front porch are oversized given the
size of the house and lot, in favor; agree the area where the stair is proposed is at the rear and is presently
hardscape which has been there from the start; this is a 4,000 SF lot which is substandard; this lot has a 40
foot street frontage with 1000 SF less structure than the Balboa site which had a 47 foot street frontage;
think that the point of the increase in the lot coverage variance is well taken when there is a solution which
does not include a variance.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny the request for a lot coverage variance without
prejudice. The motion failed on a 3-4 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keele, Osterling and Bojués dissenting) roll call
vote.
C. Keele made a motion to approve the request for a variance for lot coverage based on the hardships on the
property cited by the Commissioners by resolution noting condition 2 that this variance shall expire if the
existing house to be remodeled is ever demolished or expanded and including all of the following
conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped September 30, 2003, sheets 1-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the lot coverage and parking variances shall only
apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by
catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3) that protective fencing shall be installed around the
birch tree in the front yard prior to any demolition, construction, or material/equipment staging on site and
shall be maintained until the final inspection has been completed; the protective fencing shall be installed at
a minimum radius of 6'-0" around the tree; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, the Chief Building
Official's, the Fire Marshal's and the Recycling Specialist's September 22, 2003 memos 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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of
the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff;
and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the variance for lot coverage. The motion
passed on a 5 – 2 (Cers. Keighran and Vistica dissenting ) Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 9:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
10
7. 1313 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CATHY
GLAZE AND LAURA SIMMONS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ALBERT PASTINE,
ARCHITECT) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 27, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués noted that all
the commissioners have visited this site. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Cathy Glaze and Laura Simmons, property owners, 1313 Grove
Avenue, represented the project. Commissioners asked if this request was not granted what would the
applicant have to do. Applicants noted that they want the roof pitch of the gables to match the pitch on the
main roof for aesthetic reasons, so if application is not approved would have to lower dormer which would
mean a smaller window which probably could not be a matching double hung because of the smaller size, on
the interior there is a valance below the dormer window with lighting for the stair well, this would be
affected as well. Commissioners asked how the project got to this point. Applicants responded that the
original plans showed the pitch of the roof on the gable matching that of the roof, but when the architect
drew the framing plans he changed the pitch from 8:12 to 5:12, the framers had not seen the original and
framed to the prepared framing plans. Commission asked if the dormer could be slid down the roof to allow
for the steeper pitched roof. Applicants noted no because it would cut into the living room, the dormer
provides a light well for the area below and it already cuts into the living room 2 feet. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the request for amendment to the design review and a special permit for 6
inches in height 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 October 14, 2003, sheets R2 and A4, and date
stamped October 1, 2002, sheets R3, R5, and A1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the overall building height shall not exceed 30'-
6" above average top of curb (elevation 30.52' at roof ridge) and that the second floor dormer at the front of
the house shall have a 8:12 pitch roof to match the existing gables on the first floor; 3) that any changes to
the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to design review; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in
the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s
September 23, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's October 20, 2003, memo shall be met; 9) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
11
demolition permit; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the
City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: it was noted that approval was appropriate in this case because to achieve
consistency in design of the roof a 6 inch height exception was required, the project is modest and the roof
line consistency is important to the compatibility of the this structure with the neighborhood. It was
suggested that the applicants add two evergreen Bradford pear trees in the front yard on the right side to
help blend this structure with the neighborhood.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the design review and
special permit for 6 inches in height. The motion passed on a 7 -0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m.
8. 1350 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR A SIGN
VARIANCE FOR SIGN HEIGHT FOR RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING SIGN ON THE PRIMARY
FRONTAGE (DORI AZZOLINO, A-ACTIVE SIGN CO., APPLICANT; NAGHI AND IRAN HATAMI,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 27, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués noted that all
the Commissioner have visited the site. There were no questions from the Planning Commission.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Dori Azzolino, representing A-Active Sign Company, represented
the project. Commission asked if the intention was to remove any signs and put signs on awnings.
Applicant noted that there were only three signs on the site, a wall sign and a two sided blade sign, there had
been no consideration of awning signage. Commissioner noted that signage on the awnings would be more
visible than a 15 foot high blade sign, would applicant consider putting the signage on the awnings instead
of on the blade sign. Applicant noted that they would consider signage on the awnings. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués moved to deny this application without prejudice so that the applicant can return with awning sign
for review if, for some reason, the awning signs cannot be installed within the current signage allowances
for this site. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice the request to increase the
height of the blade sign. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 9:55 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
No items for design review study
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
12
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of October 20, 2003
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions of the City Council at the October 20, 2003, meeting,
including the status of the Safeway project and the direction to have the Planning Commission
review and comment on the Second Supplement to the Response to Comments Document, look at
adding laundry facilities as a requirement for multiple family apartment development, cancelled the
November 3, 2003, council meeting, gave direction that the city should survey the merchants and
property owners in the Broadway commercial area regarding the requested changes in allowed uses.
Commission asked for the CA to clarify the procedure for abstaining when a project immediately
impacts their own property.
- FAR Discussion
Commissioners discussed the FAR regulation and the fact that so many recent projects have been at
the maximum, should the city be considering other options to reduce the mass and bulk such as
basements; a threshold for FAR and special permit for area over the threshold as we do for height;
different FAR standards for “scrapers” as opposed to remodeled houses; some way to address the
cumulative effect of new residential construction on single blocks which changes the character of the
block. Need to develop a carrot approach. Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee is looking at
regulations for emerging standard lots, some of their findings might be useful to consider on a
broader base for all new construction. Commission directed staff to look at what other cities are
doing in terms of single family residential regulation and design review; do a study of size of houses
currently being built in Burlingame, identify where they are, and assemble a tour so Commission and
Council can see the impact of different sizes and design review.
- Status report & discussion of scheduling for the Safeway project
CP Monroe noted that after reviewing the status of the Safeway project the city council directed that
the second supplement to the Response to Comments Document addressing the issues raised by the
Planning Commission and public during the public hearings when the project was before the
Planning Commission, should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commission was not
asked to approve the document or to take any further action on the project, Council wished for
comment on the responses compiled. Staff handed out the Supplement 2 and asked commission to
set a date for the review which would also be a public hearing. Commission directed that the review
of the Supplement 2 be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the December 8, 2003, meeting,
and that in the interim the Supplement 2 be made available to the public for review. Commission
directed staff to make it clear that this review and comment on Supplement 2, will not affect the
Commission’s previous action on the Final EIR and Safeway project; and directed the Chairman of
the Commission , if asked, to make it clear to the press that this hearing is not a revisitation of the
Commission’s previous action, nor would it affect the Commission’s previous action.
- Status report on 1537 Drake Avenue
CP Monroe noted that there were several steps that the applicant for this project needed to complete
before a demolition permit can be issued. He is working on these items. However he has decided
that rather than do the root investigation required for the driveway for the middle house he will
“flip” the development and put the driveway on the opposite side of the lot. He will need to do a
root study of the impact on the redwoods of these change. This root impact study will need to be
reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before the city will accept any plans to relocate the
driveway and reverse the house on the middle lot. Also this study will be made available to the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003
13
neighbors who have taken the lead regarding the redwood trees. The neighbors may appeal the
arborist report on the reversal of the middle lot development to the Planning Commission, if they
feel that the arborist report is inadequate.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Auran, Secretary