Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.05.24MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 24, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Coffey called the May 24, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey MINUTES The minutes of the May 10, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item #8, 1312 Castillo Avenue; applicant has asked that this item be moved to last on the agenda due to a prior commitment,. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 2208 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (CHI HUNG ACHU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: is there a reason that the plans do not show a gutter; would the applicant discuss the fascia board and why it needs to be so thick; am unclear about the garage is it being widened or kept the same dimension; need to provide additional information on the plans including existing and new elevations, information about the window trim detail (like to see stucco mold to match existing), property lines and landscaping detail on the site plan. There were no further questions about the project and, if all the information can be provided in time, the item was directed to be placed on the consent calendar for the meeting of June 14, 1999. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN 825 SF SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT TO RETAILIPERSONAL SERVICE USE TO EXPAND A FIRST -FLOOR BEAUTY SALON AT 254 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (RACHEL GROFFMAN, APPLICANT AND ALLAN MEYERHOFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: unclear about the number of employees, the description in the staff report does not match the commercial application table, please clarify. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on June 14, 1999, if all the information is provided in time. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 636,000 SF OFFICE PROJECT, IN FIVE BUILDINGS ON A 16 ACRE SITE AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (CARL DANIELSON, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project with the hotel/office alternative including a brief summary of the project effects as described in the environmental document and the commissioners asked: what is the volume (size and square footage) of the hotel/office project as compared to the all office project; what is the relationship of the General Plan and the Specific Area Plan (SAP), can the project comply with the General Plan and not the Specific Area Plan; clarify why the project and the exceptions to the code are necessary, why are the exceptions necessary to the project, why is the project important to the city; seem to design to the FAR but not to the other requirements, why; project seems to sit in a sea of parking at the expense of pedestrian access, pedestrian amenities at the center of the site will be in a "wind tunnel", site design is not attractive to get people out of their cars; need to mitigate traffic in surrounding areas, should address how people can get to site from long distances beside cars and shuttle bus, should contribute to providing bicycle access across freeway, connections to alternative transportation; what is the size of the main oracle campus (building square footage and site size); provide a comparative table of the height, square footages and FAR of the office buildings at 411, 433, 500, 533, 555, and 577 Airport Blvd.; commented that there was a previously approved hotel at 300 Airport Blvd. what was the height, square footage and FAR proposed for that project; what is the height and area of the existing movie screens (exactly from top of curb); note that with the hotel there would be 320 fewer jobs generated by the project, exactly how many jobs would be generated by the all office project and the hotel/office project; how exactly would the site plan be revised for the hotel/office alternative; concerned about density, would like to see an alternative for the project which keeps the project within the 65' height maximum of the SAP; would like to see a configuration with two office structures on the east side of the site and three on the west side; would like a site alternative that addresses mitigation K-1 and rotates the buildings and moves the height to the western portion of the site; clarify the height of buildings A, B and D, height to the roof appears to the be 82.6 feet not 78 feet, explain. Commissioners continued: obvious from the EIR that the project is too big for the infrastructure now in place, impacts streets, intersections and freeway access in Burlingame and San Mateo; would like to see alternative which reduces project and respects more of the SAP development requirements including building height, lot coverage and view corridors; why does applicant think the project needs to be as big as it is proposed; need to show mitigation for the wind as the EIR indicated; what is the status of the approval of the hotel at 300 Airport Blvd. and when will it be built; view obstruction could be reduced, re-examine and reduce from both Airport Blvd. frontages and the Sanchez Channel side; applicant did not explain why city should grant view corridor exceptions in finding attachments, provide; Baypark Plaza building is 5 stories and 65 feet, applicant's 5 story buildings are 78 feet tall, why; think we should require the ground cover for the interim unused portions of the site as suggested in the staff report, should be a condition of approval; what is the prospect of turning the buildings at an angle to reduce impact on board surfers; the wind specialist should evaluate each alternative design suggested by the developer; one alternative which should be evaluated is to eliminate building B and put taller buildings on the west side of the site; need stronger rationale for deviation from the design guidelines, project can be scaled back so what are the rationals for the various requests; agree should look at a different layout; this is a new project on a large site, still has 5 exceptions to the SAP requirements; when comparing for wind impact should compare to the wind conditions with the movie screens in place; should evaluate what the effects of the project would be on the access points on US101 if the Anza 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Blvd. /US 101 interchange was made into a full interchange and what would the associated costs be; am disappointed in the architectural design, this is a bland campus office park; saw a rendering in a CB Ellis Real Estate flier of a differently designed project on this site which is much more attractive, where did this design come from; project meets minimum parking requirement with maximum FAR, if not enough parking on site there is no place else to park, need to compare parking demand/usage at existing office buildings in area to confirm that there will be enough parking, check out usage studies for Oracle and others, also trip generation information for existing development if they have it; how can Burlingame show a concern about impacts of this project on San Mateo, if they are affected so is Burlingame; explore what guidelines San Mateo is looking for from the developer, what additional information do they want; looking for an approval which has no time limit on phasing, how long before they can begin the project with this approval, and what is the time frame for returning to commission for extensions; if project is not phased what would be the time frame for development. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on June 14, 1999, assuming that all the information is available to staff in time. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2987 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (YING CHIU LAU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) _ Commission asked that this item be referred to the regular calendar for Public Hearing, discussion and action. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 7 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1. (THAD SHAFFER, REIF-SHAFFER ARCHITECTS. APPLICANT AND GENE & MIKE WEEKS. PROPERTY OWNERS). APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1445 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PAUL BROEKER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) and APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE (HEALTH SERVICE) WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 1220 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1. (PAUL BOLOGNA D.C.. APPLICANT AND DOMINICK & PATTI CRISAFI PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; Items No. 4; 7 Kenmar Way and Item #6; 1220 Howard Avenue, passed 7-0, and Item No. 5; 1445 Cortez Avenue, passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2987 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (YING CHIU LAU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5.24.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Nelson Szeto, 1263 Hillcrest Boulevard, Millbrae, architect for the applicant, was present and available for questions. Commissioners noted that at study session, asked that garage width be reduced, it was reduced by only 16", explain; and asked why the wall between the two garage spaces was not removed. The applicant noted that if the divider wall is moved, must leave beam hanging with no support, if post is left there, there is not room to park two cars; it would be too expensive to replace with steel beams as required, worry about seismic stability as well, wall between two parking spaces is there now, it is structural, would like to keep it. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: Applicant has opportunity to remove wall and open up entrance to residence, now proposes two doors, different sizes, can put up beam for support. C. Deal moved to deny the application for front setback and lot coverage variances and hillside area construction permit, without prejudice, with direction to the applicant to redesign so that the garage is not bisected with the demising wall, provide one garage door and reduce the width to the minimum required to increase the width of the entry to the house. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Comment on the motion: agree that the aesthetics would be improved by proposal suggested, but is concerned about cost, won't gain much in aesthetics to warrant the cost; can support the lot coverage variance because of the design of the house, the project is not impeding views so hillside area construction permit not an issue, in support of project as it stands; this is an Eichler home, with post, beam and plank construction, if it were resolved as proposed there would be other aesthetic issues at the front; many garages have two doors, removed wall in garage would not be visible from street, no need for additional expense. Chairman Coffey called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion failed 2-5 on a roll call vote (Cers. Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica, Dreiling and Coffey dissenting.) C. Vistica then moved to approve the application for front setback and lot coverage variances and hillside area construction permit, by resolution, for the reasons stated by the commission and facts in the staff report with conditions in staff report as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 17, 1999, sheets A-1 through A-3; 2) that the double car garage shall be set back 19'-8" from the front property line and shall have two single -wide garage doors; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 edition, and the California Fire Code, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Chairman Coffey called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion was passed on a 6-1 roll call vote (C. Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 716 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (BIL:L & DIANE BOURNAZOS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 5.24.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. C. Dreiling noted that he had a conflict because he had served as the design reviewer for this project before he was appointed to the Planning Commission and had received more than $250. From the applicant in that capacity; he stepped down from the dais. The applicant, Bill Bournazos, 716 Acacia Drive, was present and available for questions. He noted that they originally intended to remodel, but due to condition of house, wasn't anything to salvage, contractor recommended that they start from scratch; started off with contemporary design, evolved into design which is consistent with neighborhood; although there are none on this block, there are some houses in the area with attached garages, attached garage better serves their needs; regarding the front setback proposal exceeds average on side of street if take out house next door with an extra ordinary setback, his house not affect that on side because it is set back so far; added side bay window to enhance bungalow look, will use accessory structure for woodworking; can then park cars in garage. Commission questions: commissioners noted that the applicant was asked to investigate the possibility of using detached structure for garage. The applicant noted that was impossible as house is now designed, if redesigned, house would be narrow. Because of area on side needed for driveway to rear, had detached garage in last house found easier to leave cars on street than to use garage. Public comment in favor: Jean Fiske, 717 Acacia Drive, noted she is pleased to see new structure built, old one is dilapidated, pleased with care taken with design review, attractive design, originally concerned with accessory structure, recommend condition so that it cannot turn into second dwelling. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: commissioners noted that first impression noticed all houses on street have detached garages, width of home with garage in front looks massive and bulky, have 33' extra length of lot, can convert accessory structure to two -car garage, this would eliminate side setback variance; support front setback variance, adjacent house has 69' setback which skews the average, would accept an average without that house, staff report notes that would be 20.25' ; attached garage does not respect concerns for design review, makes house seem wider than any others on block, not address element of parking pattern and texture on street; side setback variance makes house wider, lot is deep, room for detached garage; new house situation does not justify side setback variance, front average skewed, can go as is; there are no attached garages on block, front setback variance minor, architecture good, house doesn't fit with 2-car attached garage, can't support, everything else okay; very good design, rather have 2 car garage in rear, no problem with front setback variance, problem with 2-car garage in front; agree existing house is dilapidated, disagree that its E City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 easier to tear down than remodel, can be done; new house is maxed out setback to setback, no attached garages in 700 block of Acacia, not in character; should be no variances on new project, 130' deep lot can provide front setback. C. Luzuriaga moved to deny the project as submitted. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on motion: variance for front setback is okay if other issues met, would support conditional use permit for woodworking use in accessory structure; reinforce what others said, front setback as proposed is healthy, clear that existing pattern in neighborhood is not 2-car garages at front; support front setback at 20.25'; regarding attached garage, applicant has right to attached garage, has set it back so it isn't offensive, house should fit in with neighborhood, not match, need divergence, changes in style, applicant has had difficult time, has gone through architectural stages, has positive recommendation from design reviewer, do we want design review or does commission want to be reviewers, if that is the case then it is not fair to put the applicant through both processes; attached garage is more convenient, safer, oppose motion. Chairman Coffey called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny the front and side setback variance, design review and conditional use permits for accessory structure. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 roll call vote (C. Coffey dissenting and C. Dreiling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. C. Dreiling returned to the dais. . APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 113 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (RON HIMAMOTO APPLICANT AND AKIRA & CAROL EEJIMA PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 5.24.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Ron Shimamoto, 1330 Hayne Road, Hillsborough, architect and Aki and Carol Eejima, 113 Loma Vista Avenue, property owners were present and available to answer questions. Presented petition, signed by 37 owners in the subdivision, in favor of the project. Applicant noted there are 7 neighbors who intend to do second story additions in the future; the side setback variance is for the existing garage, noted that only 2 out of the 47 houses in the subdivision meet the required 7' side setback and the 5' is a preexisting condition; with regard to the requirement for a two -car garage, originally submitted for 2 garages, existing one on left and additional single car garage on right, cannot put 2 car garage side by side in one place, would eliminate existing newly remodeled kitchen, have been working with the design reviewer, and followed guidelines and recommendations; noted that the intent is to be respectful of the neighborhood, to fit in, know there is a concern with bulk, there are trees in front which will mask the bulk, wont be seen from front, second story is set back to minimize bulk. Questions of applicant: Commissioners asked if a two -car garage had been proposed. The applicant noted that the proposal was for two separate single car garages, the existing garage on the left plus a proposed second garage on right, never was a proposal for a two -car garage to north. Commissioners noted that there are not a lot of big second stories on this block, and the applicant has tried to respect the pattern by setting back the second story. 1.1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Speaking in favor: Milton Boyd, 150 Loma Vista Drive; Jim Parsons, 119 Loma Vista Drive; Aileen Morgan, 66 Loma Vista Drive; David Willoughby, 107 Loma Vista Drive; and Vincent Cauchi, 131 Loma Vista Drive; first house built in 1949, been a desire to improve the street, make homes larger and better looking, hopeful neighbor can go ahead with this project; next door neighbor in favor, prefer not to have windows in closet, aesthetically sound proposal, improvement will help neighborhood, feels house would fit in; have family, need to enlarge, space constrained, street is a close community, homes are biggest investment, limited expansion impedes investment; distressed with direction commission taking design review, personal comments out of line, add stress and financial burden to applicants, will take issue to Council. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed,. Commissioner comments: Commissioners noted that people need to realize design reviewers are not reviewing for variances, it is also difficult to get variances in other communities; in a situation where the house is practically torn down, difficult to ask for variances because can be fit in when that much is being changed; neighborhood has attached garages, architecture is fine, tough issue; has dilemma with garage issue, hate to see change to existing kitchen, narrow street, where will cars park as neighborhood changes; should have two -car garage but kitchen is expensive to remodel; concerned with one -car garage with number of bedrooms, but because of small, confined neighborhood there will not be parking from the area outside, neighborhood could handle; concerned with future additions but at this point in favor; side setback variance is existing condition, parking variance is triggered by "new construction" definition from old code, new code would allow one car garage, cars generated by number of bedrooms, in favor of variance, appreciate reconfiguration of garage wall so it meets interior parking dimensions for one car. C. Luzuriaga, based on the findings stated by the commission and the facts in the staff report, approval of the side setback and parking variances and design review, by resolution, with the following conditions from the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 22, 1999, sheets A2 - A4 and date stamped May 17, 1999, sheet Al, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an 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 and variances if required by City codes in effect at the time; 3) that the Chief Building Official's and City Engineer's October 26, 1998 memos shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 edition, and California Fire Code, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW 620 SF DETACHED GARAGE AT 725 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JACK MCCARTHY APPLICANT AND TERRY DUNNE. PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5.24.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, Suite 311, San Jose, designer for the project, was present and available for questions. He noted that two options were presented for the roof, he is willing to go with either one, but preferred flat roof option, flat roof can not be seen behind ridge. Commissioners noted there are different window styles, what will the window details be. The applicant noted that he proposes stucco surrounds on the major windows and prefers not to use stucco surrounds to play down the secondary windows. Commission noted that they would prefer stucco mold on all the windows rather than stucco surround and the applicant agreed. The commission asked if the detail at the ridge of the flat roof can be done so the flat part is not seen, the applicant noted that with the flashing method proposed, it could not be seen. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: The commission noted they are pleased to see a traditional style house, in favor of project, and agree if applicant wishes to downplay front porch, would prefer to have flat part of the roof eliminated. C. Luzuriaga moved, based on the findings stated by the commissioners and on the design reviewer's comments, approval of the design review application with the addition of two conditions addressing the size of the sewer line from the potting shed and the rear roof pitch as follows; 6) that the sewer line from the potting shed shall not be greater than 2" in diameter; and 7) that the rear roof pitch shall be a 7/ 12 pitch as shown on plans date stamped May 17, 1999, and with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: commissioners noted that some windows have stucco mold, some have bigger trim, should all be stucco mold, this is a big house, not a lot of character, would like to see more detailed guidelines in the future; agree with sloped roof, of the opinion we need to move out of the design review business at commission level; design is fairly close would like it to get closer, should be traditional stucco mold rather than stucco surround, would like that added as a condition. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the added condition. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review application, by resolution, with three added conditions as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 19, 1999, Sheets 1 through 5 and L-1; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the new residence 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 Chief Building Official's February 22, 1999 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 22, 1999 memo, and the City Engineer's February 22, 1999 memo shall be met; 4) that the applicant shall install the landscape plan as proposed on Sheet L-1, date stamped March 25, 1999, prior to the completion of construction of the residence and issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 5) that during the demolition of the existing residence and construction of the proposed residence, the applicant shall comply with Burlingame's Storm Water Management and Discharge Ordinance, and shall apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) pursuant to C.S. 15.14.140.3 to the greatest extent possible to reduce off -site erosion and sedimentation resulting from this project;6) that the sewer line from the potting shed shall not be greater than 2" in diameter; 7) that the rear roof pitch shall be a 7/12 pitch as shown on plans date stamped May 17, 1999; 8) that all window shall have wood stucco mold trim; and 9) that any improvements for the 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 use shall meet all California Building Codes, 1998 Edition and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1312 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MR. AND MRS. GREG FLOWERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Reference staff report, 5.24.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal noted that the applicant, Greg Flowers, had called him to discuss and he reiterated the commissioners' concerns with the project. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Ken Ibarra, 600 El Camino Real, Millbrae, architect representing the applicant indicated he was present and would answer questions. He presented two letters in favor of the project from Joyce Earnhardt, 1316 Castillo Avenue and Lola and Jared Byrd, 1308 Castillo; the property owners on either side of the site. He noted that in responding to the commission's concerns, the property owner determined not to reduce the height of the ceiling, but decided that the suggestion for a mansard tile roof similar to the front of the house was appropriate, the window groupings were changed and the concern about corbels under the cantilever was addressed. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: Commissioners noted support of the project, applicant has addressed the design review issues, and there are no variance requests. C. Vistica moved, based on findings stated by the commission, the design reviewer's comments, and changes made to the project, approval of the application for design review with the following conditions from the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 3, 1999, sheets A.1 and A.2 and date stamped May 17, 1999, sheets A.3-A.5, and that any changes to the footprint, floor area or rear plate height of the building shall require and amendment to this permit and that: the finished house shall have no more than four bedrooms; 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, changing the roof height or pitch, or enclosing space to create additional bedrooms, shall be subject to design review and variances if required by City codes in effect at the time; 3) that the Chief Building Official's January 19, 1999 and City Engineer's January 25, 1999 memos shall be met; and. 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 edition, and the California Fire Code, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comments on motion: commissioners noted that the commission is working with the design reviewers so that they better understand what the commission is trying to accomplish and also on :refining the design guidelines to improve communication with the applicants, noted that it is important to put quality control on projects, understood concern with process and thanked the applicant for responding to comments on design. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review application by resolution. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNERS REPORT - CP Monroe reviewed City Council meeting of May 17, 1999. Design Reviewers Quarterly Meeting - Commissioners decided that they would meet with the Design Reviewers to discuss the design review process and see the initial draft of the proposed revisions to the design guidelines. Suggested the meeting be held June 16, 1999 at 4:00 p.m. in City Hall. - CA Anderson reviewed memo's on various procedures included in the packet. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Coffey adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MIN5.26 Stan Vistica, Secretary 10