HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.05.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Keighran called the Tuesday, May 28, 2002, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg (arrived @ 7:08 p.m.),
Keighran, Keele, Osterling (arrived @ 8:00 p.m.) and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erica Lewit; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza
III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 13, 2002 meeting regular of the Planning
Commission were amended to read: the minutes of the April 22, 2002
Planning commission were corrected to read: “Commissioners Auran and
Osterling returned to the dias at the end of item #9 and participated in the
vote on Item #10. The May 13, 2002 minutes were then approved.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
Commissioner Brownrigg arrived @ 7:08 p.m.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2344 POPPY DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A
DORMER ADDITION (DAVID M. SEDLOCK, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J.D. DESIGN,
DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners requested: applicant should address
the variance application questions more thoroughly, the answers provided do not indicate a physical
hardship on the property or provide justification for a more intense use of this property compared to the use
of surrounding properties.
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 7:10 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.
Chairman Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. C. Keele requested that item #2b, 1128 Cambridge Road, be removed from the consent
calendar and heard as a regular action item. Chair Keighran set item 2b as the first item on the regular
action calendar.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
2
2A. 705 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (EUGENE A. BORDEGARAY SR., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EUGENE JR.
AND LORRAINE BORDEGARAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
KEYLON
C. Bojués moved for approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner's
comments at the study meeting and the findings in the staff report with the recommended conditions in the
staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the
motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2B. 1128 CAMBRIDGE ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG AND TRICIA HAGEY, APPLICANTS
AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GREG HAGEY, ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report, 5.28.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chairman Keighran opened the public hearing. The owner and architect, Greg Hagey, noted that the roof
pitch was altered to be more consistent throughout the proposed house and the overall height had been
reduced by lowering the first floor plate height 3” and the roof ridge by 3”, for a total reduction of 6 inches.
Commission noted: have concerns with the height of the proposed house compared with the surrounding
houses in the neighborhood, could height be reduced further; are the garage doors electric or manual; and
what is the need for two French doors on the side elevation of the garage.
The applicant responded that the proposed height is necessary for the geometry of the new roof to function
with the existing roof and for design and drainage purposes; the garage doors swing out and are manual; and
the French doors are for access from the garage to the backyard, children will probably play in the garage
when there isn't a car parked in it.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: support the project as presented, the portion of the roof over 30' is a very small
mass, the design is a charming story-book style and will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, and the
changes the applicant made to the roof pitches and plate heights work well.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution.
Discussion on the motion: would like to see a condition added that an automatic garage door that is similar
in design to the proposed manual door be installed so that the garage will be more likely to be used to
parking vehicles. The maker and second of the motion agreed to the added condition. Chairman Keighran
called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the following amended conditions: 1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 20,
2002, sheets 1-12, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and
amendment to this permit; 2) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
3
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City
Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s February 11, 2002, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall
comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected
demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling
requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition
permit; 5) that the door at the east elevation of the detached garage shall be an automatic door; and 6) 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.
The motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 7:28 p.m.
3. 2501 HAYWARD DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT KUEHNE, AIA,
SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID AND LAURA ELMORE,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
Reference staff report, 5.28.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Keele recuse himself because he
lives within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioner asked if staff had
received any comments from the neighbors since the story poles were installed. Staff had received no calls.
There were no more questions of staff.
Chairman Keighran opened the public hearing. Scott Kuehne, architect, 2412 – 14th Avenue, San Francisco
and David Elmore, 2501 Hayward Drive, property owner, represented the project. It was noted that they
had installed story poles and they showed that there was no impact on the neighbors; they modified the
structure to eliminate the roof vents; prepared a tree protection report; so believe as changed the project
meets the design review criteria. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Bojués noted that the applicant had listened to the Commission’s pr evious comments and made
appropriate changes, there was now no impact on the neighbor to the right, so he moved to approve this
proposed project with the added condition that the floor area should be checked for compliance with
approved plans by a survey of foundation framing and structure framing, by resolution with the following
amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped May 10,2002, Sheets A1 through A5, site plan, floor plans and building
elevations; 2) that the floor area measurement for the first floor should be checked for compliance with the
approved building plans by submittal of a survey of the foundation framing prepared by a licensed engineer,
and that the City Engineer shall accept the survey as being in conformance with the approved plans prior to
the scheduling the inspection for the foundation and that a licensed engineer shall also survey the second
floor framing and that the survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer, prior to scheduling the final
framing inspection, to confirm that the structure as built has the same floor area as shown in the approved
building plans; 3) that the tree protection plan prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, dated April 25,
2002, shall be implemented prior to issuance of a building permit; the installation of these tree protection
measures shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of a building permit; failure to follow
the protection plan shall result in not scheduling inspections until the plan has been fully complied with; 4)
that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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; 5) that because this proposed house is within 7 SF of the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
4
maximum FAR allowed any future conversion of the attic area to living space shall require review by the
Planning Commission; 6) 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; 7) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s and
the City Engineer’s April 1, 2002 memos shall be met; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements
of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Auran
seconded the motion.
Comment on the motion: architect did a nice job blending the second story with the existing house; because
the house is built to the maximum FAR, would like to stipulate that the attic area can never be converted to
living area without Planning Commission review; maker and second agreed that a condition limiting future
use of the attic area would be appropriate; important to be careful about attic conversions, because see others
using the attic as a way to expand living area with limited public review; story poles were important with
this review, neighbors did not object. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design for a first and second story
addition and hillside area construction permit. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 vote (C. Osterling absent, C.
Keele abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m.
C. Keele resumed his seat on the dais.
4. 1819 MONTECITO WAY - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND
HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (BINEY SAGOO, RYS
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND NARMADABEN PATEL, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
Reference staff report, 5.28.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: called staff and
they indicated that there was no building permit on file for construction of the accessory structure in the rear
setback. Staff responded that it is possible that there was no building permit issued for the accessory
structure, in such cases the city always asks the applicant if they have any documentation of a building
permit. Commissioner asked what areas were included in the FAR measurement. Staff noted that when on
a slope all areas under the house with a 6 foot height or greater, finished or not, are included in the FAR
measurement. Commission noted that no second covered parking space is provided for this 5 bedroom
house; even though substantial remodel, they are not required to comply with current code parking for new
construction. Staff responded, yes; to require two covered spaces when number of bedrooms remains the
same would require an amendment to the zoning code requirements. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Biney Sagoo, architect, represented the project. He noted that he
had a set of plans for the accessory structure which were stamped by the building department, but not signed
or dated; they have been working on the design for 6 to 8 months, reviewed thoroughly a plan with a second
story addition, solution did not work for applicant and went back to this single story addition; lot is almost
square 95’ by 100’, rules on which side of the lot is the front changed and made the house nonconforming in
terms of setbacks by moving the front to the side, house would comply with setbacks if way of determining
front of the lot had not changed.
Commissioners asked: why does the new addition push the house forward toward Montera; is the accessory
structure to be removed solid; contradiction in the plans say the trellis to be removed but it is shown on the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
5
roof plans; will this building be a solid mass to the neighbor; what occurred in design review to cause you to
return to the one story project; how does the proposed height and plate relate to the existing; how does the
lot slope from Frontera affect the height of the area under the house; it appears that the proposed project
adds more square footage than is needed to add a bedroom and bath; how big is the existing accessory
structure; lower level of the structure has two garrison style windows which do not match the house.
The applicant responded: the house is moved forward toward Montera to increase the symmetry and to break
up the long wall; the accessory structure to be removed is three sided, open on one side, with a roof; the roof
plans for the house will be corrected to remove the trellis shown; the accessory structure is a solid mass from
the neighbor’s side; in design review, the consultant wanted an “impeccable” design to recommend, it did
not consider clients views or the clients needs, tried 3 or 4 options, looked at as a whole with windows
centered on walls, client wanted windows on corners, could not resolve differences, so went back to one
story approach; the plate and height of the addition were chosen to match the existing; do not know how
much the lot slopes at Frontera and how that affects the FAR for the area under the house; considered
reducing the size of the addition, but if it is allowed client should be able to build to the maximum FAR,
could consider reducing it, but still feel entitled to go to maximum; the existing accessory structure is 495
SF, the trellis proposed for removal is 168 SF (total 663 SF); could soften the ‘garrison windows’ by adding
landscaping, the owner is not interested in changing these windows to a bay window.
The public hearing continued: Bernard Ross, 2805 Frontera Way, spoke. Live next door, variance
requirements are that there be no detriment to properties in the vicinity; feel that this proposal will affect his
property; from the living room will loose the view of Frontera Way, from the family room will loose the
view of the airport, in both cases will have a blank wall across two windows, he submitted pictures of the
story poles as documentation; building is proposed to extend three feet farther than it needs to thus affecting
his views, could be cut back; detached structure built for storage, not to become a part of the house which
this transfer of FAR infers; will loose light from rooms in his house will need to add skylights; if addition is
pulled back 3 feet it will not affect neighbor’s views. There were no further comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling arrived (8:00 p.m.)
Commissioners comments: visited the neighbors house, saw story poles, agree that existing view from
inside living areas is blocked; the accessory structure was probably built as a sun cover by the pool, now
asking to use that square footage to expand living area in the house; also saw the story poles from inside
neighbor’s house, if the addition had been setback it would affect views less, cannot support hillside area
construction permit request based on what saw; the requirements for a variance may be met, but not allowed
to block adjacent view, this remodel could be reduced and still do what want, should reconfigure and study
so not block views next door; the storage shed is exterior to the house since it is not a part of the house
footprint have problem including it in FAR to expand house; view is important; photos tell the story, feel
that there is enough flexibility in this project to address neighbor’s views, without diff icult to support
project. CA Anderson noted that action choices were to deny without prejudice or deny and start over.
C. Bojués moved to deny the project without prejudice based on the obstruction of the view from the
neighbor’s property which could be addressed by reducing the size of the footprint of the house sufficiently
to maintain the views from inside the neighbor’s house. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: seems to be a lot of room at the middle of the house which could be used more
efficiently as living area than as closets, could pull back the wall and protect the neighbor’s views; need for
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
6
variance is justified in part by the steepness of the lot, would have been helpful to know how much of the
crawl space under the first floor is counted in FAR; addition could be located better, pulled back from the
Frontera frontage.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the request without prejudice. The motion
passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
5. 1564 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO
STORAGE TOWING (HORACIO FREITAS, APPLICANT; HOWARD CHEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) (22
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report, 5.28.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chairman Keighran opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. Commission determined that
the hearing for the application would go forward because it was a code enforcement matter. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Discussion on the motion: would like to modify condition #5 to eliminate wording following "stacks", do
not want this area to become a junk yard cars do not need to be stacked; will take applicant up on his offer to
install a cement curb around the storage area as an added containment measure for run-off and drainage on
the site.
The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amended condition and the new condition.
Further Commission discussion on the motion: concern that the existing site is not presently graded to drain
solely to the existing drain on site, this is a messy use, would like to have condition #7 amended so that an
oil separator is required in the drain instead of just a sock.
CP Monroe noted that the condition #6 is designed to insure that the existing drain on site is evaluated and
made to drain to Rollins Road. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amended condition.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the application with the following amended
conditions: 1) that the storage use for towed vehicles on site shall be limited to the 40' x 170' (6800 SF) area
part of the site outside of the building shall be used for storage by tenants or leased for storage purposes
without amendment to this conditional use permit; 2) that the hours of operation for the towing use shall be
24 hours, 7 days a week, with no more than 50 trips (cars towed to or from the site) generated per a week; 3)
that there shall be no persons associated with the towing business on site for purposes other than dropping
off or picking up towed vehicles; 4) that there shall be no dismantling or repair of vehicles on site; 5) that
there shall be a minimum 8' high opaque fence surrounding the stored vehicle area at all times and that no
materials towed or deposited in his storage area including vehicles shall not be stored in stacks; 6) that the
applicant shall have the existing drain on site, located in the paved area in front of the gate to the storage
area, inspected and a drainage study submitted to the Planning Department to determine if it drains to
Rollins Road, and the City Engineer shall approve plans if the installation of a new drain is required before
permits are issued for the use on the site; 7) that the drain on site shall have a oil separator basin installed,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
7
and the property owner shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning and changing all filters at least on a
biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once (at least) during the rainy season (October 15 – April
1), or as required by an inspector authorized by the City; 8) that there shall be 22 parking spaces striped on
site, with minimum dimensions of 9' x 20', with 8 spaces in front of the first gate behind Rollins Road and
14 spaces between the first gate and the gate to the storage area, a 24' travel lane and back up areas shall
always be maintained on the site; 9) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and City Engineer's March 4,
2002, memos shall be met; 10) that the applicant shall have prepared a drainage plan by a licensed Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer which shall include installation of a 6 inch high (minimum)
cement curb surrounding the proposed storage areas as shown on the plans submitted and date stamped May
1, 2002, Figure 6 and that all drainage shall e filtered as required and taken to locations approved by the
City and all other required permitting agencies; and 11) that any improvements for the use shall meet all
California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m.
6. 920 MORRELL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE FOR
PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS TO ALTER AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE (RAY BRAYER,
APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report, 5.28.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. The applicant, Ray Brayer, noted that he was requesting to
relocate the driveway to Linden Avenue because this would be a safer entrance than the existing driveway
on Morrell Avenue, Morrell Avenue is a busy street and the entrance of the existing driveway is on a curve
directly in the path of the intersecting street; new garage door on Linden will allow two cars to be parked in
the garage where the current garage door is too small to accommodate vehicles; proposed application does
not use any more soft landscaped green space on the lot; have submitted other examples of corner houses in
Burlingame that have garages on the edge of the side property line and very small driveways; the fence at
the corner of the property was installed as required by the State of Calif ornia so that the owner of the
property could operate a day care on site; and he submitted a petition signed by neighbors in support of the
project.
Commission asked the applicant: how many vehicles do you own and where are they currently parked; who
prepared the plans, in looking at the site and comparing the floor plans and elevations, there appear to be
some inconsistencies; letter states that the lights on the fence were removed, however a recent site visit
shows they are still in place; and is the wall shown between the garage and shed a solid wall?
The applicant responded: he currently owns three personal vehicles that are usually parked on the street.
He is a contractor and does have other business vehicles that are parked at a storage yard; he an d his
draftsman prepared the plans and measured the dimensions on site, realizes that there is a mistake showing
existing windows in the garage on an elevation that are not shown on the floor plans; attempted to remove
the lights on the fence and encountered some electrical problems affecting the house, have fixed these and
the lights are now gone; and the wall between the shed and the garage is only a partial wall, can pass from
the garage to the shed, but the shed cannot be used to park vehicles because it does not have the proper
clearance.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
8
Cynthia Dryden, 908 Morrell Avenue, Nancy Padilla, 909 Linden Avenue, Gordon Foster, 916 Morrell
Avenue, Marianne Saucedo, 925 Larkspur Avenue, Rich Barbera, 915 Morrell Avenue, spoke in support of
the project. The fence provides safety for children playing in the yard and the new garage entrance is more
convenient and will get two vehicles off the street.
Leigh Tanton, 845 Linden Avenue, stated that the garage used to be detached from the house and has been
attached by the current owner at some point without a permit; applicant is a contractor, he should have come
to the City before erecting the fence and gate and altering the driveway to find out what the requirements
were; in 40 years of living across the street cannot recall one car going into the applicant's yard; does not
think proposed garage doors can be installed without almost tearing down the existing garage; and
applicant's vehicles are too large to fit in the substandard garage.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: in favor of the fence exception because it is a nice design and good safety measure,
have concern that the garage will not accommodate the large vehicles that the applicant drives, real issue is
that work was done to the property without the applicant obtaining the required permits; proposed garage
alterations are safer, but feel garage might be made more compliant with current code dimensions, not
confident of accuracy of the garage dimensions shown on the plans and would like them confirmed in the
field, would like a condition to state that business and construction vehicles will be parked at the applicant's
business location and not be parked on the neighborhood streets; the proposed garage doors do not have the
same Craftsman character of the house; and site has a three-bedroom house so the code only requires one
covered parking space where the garage has almost 2 covered spaces. CP noted that a three-bedroom house
requires 2 parking spaces, at least one of which must be covered, where the applicant is proposing two non-
compliant covered spaces and no uncovered spaces. Commission asked what the penalty would be if
conditions of the approval are violated.
CA responded that the application could return to the Planning Commission and approval revoked then a
code compliant garage would be required to be built on site.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with added conditions to address business
vehicles being parked on the street, to verify the dimensions of the garage, to note that no lighting can be
installed so that the cone of light extends beyond the property lines, and to install automatically operated
Craftsman-style garage doors. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Discussion on the motion: is the restriction on company vehicles intended for the day and evening hours, it
is reasonable to restrict the hours for parking company vehicles on the street from 7 p.m. to 7a.m., the
change to the garage doors can come before the Commission in memo form.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote to approve the application, with the following amended conditions:
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
May 13, 2002, Sheets A-0 through A-4; with the garage interior dimensions built and maintained at 19'-0" in
width and 17'-8" in length; and that the interior dimensions of the garage shall be inspected and verified by a
Building Inspector before a building permit is issued, if the interior dimensions of 19’ X 17’-8” cannot be
achieved, this permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 2) that the conditions of the City
Engineer’s February 19, 2002, memo shall be met; 3) that the parking variances for dimensions for two
covered spaces shall expire and on-site parking shall be provided to current code requirements if either or
both the house or garage are demolished or remodeled equal to 50% or more of its value as determined by
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
9
the Chief Building Official; 4) that no other building or encroachment permits shall be granted for work of
any kind on this property until the building permit for the garage alterations has been finaled as per this
permit and an occupancy permit has been granted by the Building Department; 5) that, except for a single
motor vehicle of no more than three-quarters ton carrying capacity, no vehicles used for construction
purposes that are owned or operated by the property owner or a business owned by the property owner shall
be parked on any street in any R-1 District in the City between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.; 6) that an
automatically operating Craftsman-style garage door shall be selected and installed in the existing garage
on the elevation along Linden Avenue and that the design of this door shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review by the Planning Commission in a memo format; 7) that no lights shall be installed on
the property so that the cone of light from the source extends beyond the property lines; and 8) that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended
by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m.
7. 329 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE 208 – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (LINDA VRNAK, APPLICANT; G.W. WILLIAMS COMPANY, PROPERTY
OWNER) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
Reference staff report, 5.28.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. The applicant, Linda Vrnak, was present to answer questions.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the real
estate office use shall be limited to 264 SF at 329 Primrose Road, second floor, suite 208, as shown on the
floor plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 8, 2002; 2) that the real estate
office shall have regular business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with weekend
use to be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday; 3) that the maximum number of
employees in this tenant space, suite number 208-second floor, shall be limited to 1, and that no more than
10 customers will be on the site each day; 4) that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or
number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an
amendment to this conditional use permit; and 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California
Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame and occupancy of this suite
shall never exceed Fire Department requirements. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m.
8. 2821 TIBURON WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GEORGE
TAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report, 5.28.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
10
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect, submitted a gravel sample of medium
gray gravel to be used on the flat portion of the roof to show that it would be non reflective and match the
proposed shingles on the roof. He noted that he did not understand the necessity of condition # 5, which
called for a photographic survey to confirm that the story poles show correctly the height and mass of the
proposed structure, when there would also be a height survey for the highest ridge. CP Monroe noted that
the intent of the photographic survey was to evaluate the other proposed parameters for the roof and that the
same goal could be accomplished by requiring a survey of several points along the roof. The commission
asked the architect to elaborate on why the plans were not revised to eliminate the door to the lower level.
The applicant responded that the door provided access from the house in to the backyard. The plans were
revised to show a fence with no gate along the left side of the property as well as no pedestrian access so
that use of the lower level as a second unit would be discouraged. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the proposed conditions. The motion was
seconded by C. Bojués.
Discussion on the motion: condition # 5 should be revised to require multiple points on the roof be surveyed
by a licensed surveyor and confirmed at the framing inspection, would like to see the exterior door at the
lower level eliminated: feel that not having access from the lower floor to the backya rd would be an
inconvenience: condition can be added that a fence with no gate shall be built and the left side of the
property and there shall be no paved walk way along the left side of the house; the color of the gravel should
be an added condition. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amended condition and added
conditions. 1) Chair Keighran called for a voice vote to approve the application, with the following
amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped May 16, 2002, sheets A1 through A7 and L1, and that any changes to the footprint
or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) 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; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialists April 8, 2002, memos shall
be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance
recently approved by the City Council; 5) that a licensed surveyor shall survey the corners and suf ficient
points along erected story poles and then survey the same points along the framed roof before framing
inspection is scheduled the City Engineer shall confirm that the height and slope of the new roof matches
what was demonstrated by the story poles; that the highest roof ridge shall be confirmed by the licensed
surveyor and shall be no greater than 90.47 feet; that surveys shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
verification, and that if the framing is different than the approved plans or as demonstrated by the story
poles the construction shall be corrected or the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 6)
that there shall be a gate with no fence installed at the left side of the house, running parallel to the front
property line; and that there shall never be a paved walk way installed along the left side of the dwelling; 7)
that the gravel used for the flat portion of the roof shall be a non-reflective medium gray color to match the
Northampton blend HE 8703 of the roof shingles; and 8) 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 passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
11
9. ZONING AMENDMENT – ADDING TO RETAIL SALES AND ALLOWING HEALTH SERVICES IN THE
BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report, 5.28.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed changes
to the zoning code including adding “graphics arts and design retail business” and “health and beauty spa”
as defined retail uses and making health services a conditional use above the first floor in the Broadway
commercial area. Commissioners asked: why are groups in a health spa limited to a previously discussed
allowing six. Staff noted that the zoning code presently defines such a group as three or more, wanted to
maintain consistency among the terms; a business could apply for a conditional use permit to have group
instruction for groups of three or more. What did the council do about the issue of planning approvals
expiring? Council discussed the alternative of treating residential approvals differently from commercial in
terms of expiration; and in the end took no action. Commission’s concerns were included in the Council
staff report. There were no further questions from the commission.
Chairman Keighran opened the public hearing. Sharon Scheikowitz, Pilates Studio on Burlingame Avenue;
Ann Hinkel, business and property owner on Broadway spoke. As understand the regulation 75% of the
business income can come from retail sales and one-on-one services; 25% from group instruction. Will
need to get a conditional use permit for the group instruction part. Support the change to allow health
services above the first floor in the Broadway commercial area. There were no other comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués moved to recommend this zoning amendment to City Council for adoption with the clarification
that for health services a group would constitute three or more persons. The motion was seconded by C.
Brownrigg.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the zoning code
amendments to the City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Chair Keighran noted that this
item would be introduced at Council on June 17 and the second reading, public hearing, would probably be
at the meeting of July 1, 2002. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 1540 MEADOW LANE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FIRST AND SECOND
FLOOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION (BRUCE MCLEOD, LIVING DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFF AND STACY
NOVITSKY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff: if the wall of the addition is
built to conform to the required setback, does the existing wall of the house that encroaches in to the setback
still require a variance? Staff responded that the existing wall is considered a non-conforming condition and
does not require a variance.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. The designer, Bruce McLeod, noted that the existing single
car garage was typical for the neighborhood and the requested side setback variances are the result of the
house being built slightly off-center.
Commission commented that the curved light in the family room is a nice element. Commission asked the
applicant if consideration was given to moving the second story mass to the other side of the house so there
is not a large impact on the dwelling at 1536 Meadow Lane? The applicant responded that a design with the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
12
stairway over the existing dining room or bedroom was considered, but it involved a complete
reconstruction of the existing first floor and also required that the first floor be larger and be pushed into the
backyard space.
Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address these
items on revised plans:
• concern with the windows on the right side, the staircase window looks like a bedroom window,
should be celebrated and made to look more distinctive, made taller and thinner;
• the two windows below the staircase are cramped and should be separated by a larger space, the
smaller laundry window could be made to relate to the height of the garage door;
• please note on the plans what material will be used for the trellis; and
• would like to see a more detailed landscape plan showing additional trees and large-scale evergreen
shrubs used to screen the first and second stories
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: project is on the right track and clear direction has been given to the applicant.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar.
This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: is this project a candidate for the consent calendar? It can be pulled off by commission
if issues are not addressed on the plans. The maker and second of the motion agreed to set the project on the
consent calendar.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:21 p.m.
11. 111 PEPPER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE
STORY ADDITION (JOEL MITTLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
KOTAS/PANTELEONI, ARCHITECT) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Joel Mittler, owner, was present to answer questions.
Commission made a recommendation that the "floodlight" shown on the archway on the plans should be
hidden to improve the appearance of the archway and to prevent illumination from extending beyond the
property lines. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this is a great design, brings character to the house and does not just add extra
space, fits in well with the neighborhood.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
13
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:26 p.m.
12. 141 PEPPER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION (TRICIA HAGEY, APPLICANT; KORTH/SUNSERI/HAGEY ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT;
CONRAD AND DIANNA HERMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Craig Hagey, architect, and Dianna Hermann, owner, were
present to answer questions. They noted that the addition is modest and designed to connect the first floor to
the backyard space and to look as if it had been part of the original house. The stairs and metal railing
system provide a required exit from the third floor. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this is a nicely designed addition to a gem of a house.
C. Bojués made a motion place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Osterling.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:32 p.m.
13. 3121 MARGARITA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (MYRA HO, ABR ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EUGENE LAI, PROPERTY
OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description and read into the record a letter submitted from the floor
by neighbors at 1560 Los Montes and 3125 Margarita that requested story poles for the 1st and 2nd story
additions. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Michael Jones, representing ABR Architects, was present to
answer questions.
The Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project:
• plate heights are too high, should be dropped down;
• there are both 4:12 and 6:12 pitches to the proposed roof;
• the mass of the addition is located on one side and in its current location has the greatest impact on
the neighborhood views, also creates a large vertical element at the street;
• the windows are inconsistent, need to be the same type on every elevation;
• window treatment and trim should be detailed on the plans;
• the balcony on the south side directly faces the neighboring house, which will be a significant
impact;
• the vent dormers are large and do not add to the design of the house;
• there are too many windows at the front of the house and they detract from the design of the house;
• the entry is grandiose; and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
14
• design changes should focus on reducing the impact on views from neighboring properties.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this project needs a lot of work and story poles should not be erected until the
project has been reviewed and revised under the direction of a design review consultant.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This
motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: applicant should understand that the Planning Commission is very serious about
evaluating blocked views in hillside areas and that minimizing view blockage should be a primary concern
during the redesign of the project; applicant should walk to neighborhood to get a feel for the surrounding
homes; and the proposed project should be scaled down to fit the neighborhood.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The
motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This
item concluded at 11:00 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of May 20, 2002
CP Monroe reviewed the Council meeting of May 20, 2002. Commission discussed scheduling the
continued Study meeting for the Safeway project. They group agreed on June 11, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
The place is to be determined. CP Monroe will notify Safeway of the date and time; and will look
for a big enough room. Staff will e-mail the commissioners with the details. A staff report will be
prepared and delivered.
- FYI – Window addition to an approved design review project at 1534 Meadow Lane
Commission discussed briefly the fact that the proposed window could have a view into the
neighbor’s yard, pointed out that it was a bathroom window. Asked staff to require that the window
glazing be opaque or the applicant should return to the commission for action.
- FYI – Design Review Exemption Determination for Dormer Additions at 1416 De Soto Avenue
Commission had no comment on the request, and approved it.
- Workshop Schedule for North End Specific Area Plan
PC Subcommittee for North End SAP decided to meet with the consultant on Tuesday, June 25, at
4:00 p.m. The Chair appointed the subcommittee to consist of Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran and
Vistica, with C. Auran as alternate.
- Planning Commission Subcommittee Appointments 2002-2003
Chair Keighran confirmed the Subcommittee appointments for 2002-2003. They were:
Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee: Cers. Bojués, Keighran, Osterling, alternate Vistica,
resident representative, Jerry Deal ; North End SAP: Cers Brownrigg, Keighran, Vistica, alternate
Auran; Bayfront/Anza SAP: Cers. Keele, Keighran, Vistica, alternate Bojués; Housing Element
Work Program Implementation/Multiple Family Zoning Update: Cers. Auran, Bojués, Osterling,
alternate Keele.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2002
15
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
APPROVEDMINUTES5.28.2002