HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.10.25MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 25, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Coffey called the October 25, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank
Erbacker; Planner, Ruben Hurin
MINUTES The minutes of the October 13, 1999 regular meeting minutes were approved as
mailed.
PPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 96, 1804 Davis Drive was continued from the September 26, 1999, Planning
Commission meeting. Item #8; 1610 Chapin and #9; 1009 Burlingame Avenue are
continued to the November 8, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. The order of
the agenda was then approved.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED
GARAGE AT 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (T. PETER LAM, AIA, APPLICANT AND DMITRI
NADEEV_ PROPERTY OWNER
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. C. Boju6s noted that he lived within 300 feet of this project and he
would abstain from any discussion of this project. The commissioners then asked: why is there a parapet wall
on one side of the proposed garage structure; will the second floor casement windows shown meet the emergency
egress requirements for bedrooms; the applicant should reconsider the design for the house, as shown it does not
fit the neighborhood; the driveway paving width is shown at 9 feet, is 10 feet required; what type of windows and
window trim will be used throughout; none of the houses in the neighborhood have second story balconies or stucco
columns, would the applicant explain how these are compatible; it is good that these plans are more schematic,
means that there is more room to change the design at less expense; neighborhood compatibility is an issue, applicant
should explain how the height, bulk, mass fit with the adjacent properties; there are inconsistencies in the drawings
hich need to be fixed, the roof plans do not match the elevations, there are appendages shown on the elevations
which are not shown on the proper elevations; the balcony on the front of the building and the columns it sits on
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999
need attention, the balcony violates the roof plane of the gable roof, they need coordination; the quasi -columns
t—lding up the balcony are not appropriate for the character of the neighborhood, there is nothing similar with such
_arge entry and large columns in the immediate area; items which need addressing for compatibility are: balcony,
large entry, massiveness of the columns, purpose of the garage, garage door size- needs to be split into two single
doors; the windows are inconsistent in terms of size, scale and proportion. There were no further questions from
the commission and the item was set for public hearing at the meeting of November 8, 1999, providing the applicant
is able to respond to the questions in time.
APPLICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
SHOPPING AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE USE, REZONING FROM THE C-1, SUBAREA A
ZONE DISTRICT TO THE C-1, SUBAREA B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW A REAL ESTATE OFFICE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 320 -
350 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (PRIMROSE PLAZA PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: how many full time and part time
employees work in the bank, compare to the proposed number of employees for the new use; does a conditional use
permit go with the property or the tenant; what is the total square footage in the building and the total square footage
of leasable space; if the building were to conform in parking how much would need to be provided on site. There
were no further questions from the commission. The item for public hearing on Monday, November 8, 1999.
ACTION ITEMS
.nsent 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.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON
SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISC USSIONAND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION DOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT.
REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR FRONT, SIDE SETBACK AND
PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW
AT 1701 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JEFFREY & MONICA OWENS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS)
and
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USE OF AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS AN ART STUDIO AT 1750 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1. (LEE & NADIA
WENGER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
Chair Coffey introduced the consent calendar and asked if anyone in the audience would like to call any item off the
calendar. There were no requests from the audience. He then asked if any commissioner would like to call an item off.
C. Deal asked clarification on Item #3; 1701 Carmelita, the request for 2 special permits; CP clarified that extension
:Q based on requirements in the code in effect at time originally granted.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999
C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments
nd the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff report, and by resolution. The motion
.as seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0 . Appeal procedures
were advised.
Regular Calendar
APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND TWO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR REPLACEMENT OF A DETACHED ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 2208
HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (CARLOS & ROSEMARY RIVAS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
(61 NOTICED) - CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 13, 1999
C. Luzuriaga noted that he lived within the 300 foot noticing radius for this project so would abstain from the
action. He stepped down from the dais. CP Monroe presented the staff report, 10.25.99, with attachments
including variance findings, review criteria, and departmental comments. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration. There were no questions of staff from the commissioners.
Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Rosemary and Carlos Rivas, the property owners spoke. Have
submitted pictures of house next door. We based the plans for the size of the garage on the garage next door which
is the same length and height. Thought that they would look better if the two garages were the same size and length.
We don't really need all the length. What is the length of a required parking space, 20 feet with a 10 foot width
"or each space. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: Requesting a 17' by 21" garage for a house which is already over current floor area ratio
allowance; in 1985 these current owners added to the rear of the house 313 SF and knew that they were at the
maximum FAR, now they are back asking to exceed the FAR and their reason is that there is not enough storage
in a 4 bedroom, 2 and one-half bath house, do not see the exceptional hardship; they are asking to make the garage
look like the one next door, but the other garages on the block do not look like the one next door; the house next
door is 1296 SF that does not compare to the proposed house with 3168 SF, feel that there is no hardship for the
floor area ratio and lot coverage requests; the garage appears to be in poor condition, if it needs to be rebuilt it
should be the same size as the existing garage. Cannot grant a variance unless there is an "exceptional hardship on
the property", this is a standard lot with a standard shape for this neighborhood, it is flat, don't really see a hardship
with the property; the house is massive, public storage is an alternative; could dig under the house to create
additional storage area; the garage next door is a bad example to match.
C. Keighran moved to deny the lot coverage variance, floor area variance, conditional use permit for accessory
structure plate height and conditional use permit for accessory structure height. The motion was seconded by C.
Deal.
Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion was approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga
dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Winutes October 25, 1999
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED
' 1. (NIMESH AMIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED) - RESUBMITTAL OF A
AOJECT WHICH WAS CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27 1999 MEETING
Reference staff report, 10.25.99, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there is
a limit on the amount of storage in a house. Planner Hurin noted that there is no limit on the amount of storage in a
house, but that the limit on storage in an accessory structure is 10% of the gross floor area of the house.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Applicant, Rajin Patel, noted that he would be glad to answer any questions
the Commission might have. Commission noted that there is a lot of storage built into the house; bedroom #1 has a
walk-in closet and a standard size closet, bedroom #2 has a closet which spans the full length of a wall, bedroom #4 has
two walk-in closets and a standard closet, and bedroom #5 has a walk-in closet and a standard closet. In addition to
these closets, there is also an unfinished storage room in the basement. The Commission asked the applicant to explain
the need for so much storage. The applicant noted that the lifestyle of Asian Americans requires that food for a year
be stored in the house. He also added that it is better to build more storage now than to add it in the future after
construction has been completed.
Commissioner expressed a concern in the amount of square footage proposed on the lot. This lot measures 5250 SF
which is allowed a certain development square footage, basement is not counted towards the FAR, if the basement area
were counted in FAR, the proposed square footage is equivalent to what would be allowed on a lot that is over 9000
SF. Therefore, the intensity of use on this lot is much greater than the zoning code anticipated; all properties are sold
at some point, applicant may be here five years, then the problem goes to the next owner, and still have a bulky building
,th a lot of square footage, unlike anything in the neighborhood. The applicant noted that he looked all over
Burlingame for a 4-5 bedroom house; Palo Alto and other cities are starting to not count basements in floor area ratio
because it is an innovative way to increase the square footage, most cities are reducing the allowed floor area ratio; three
years ago, before the allowed FAR was reduced, a 3500 SF house could be built in this neighborhood, many of the
houses designed are over 3000 SF, does not make economical sense to build a 1500 SF house based on the purchase
price of the existing house and lot, existing smaller houses in the neighborhood were built 40-50 years ago. Commission
then asked the applicant if his argument was that because the property was purchased for a certain amount, that he
should be allowed to build more than what the zoning code allows. The applicant commented that the zoning code
allows a basement and that this was the main reason why the lot was purchased, otherwise he would not have purchased
the property; he checked with the city several times to make sure that a basement is allowed by code; would like to work
with the neighbors and city, would like to live in this neighborhood, addressed all concerns and questions expressed by
the Commission at the study and action meetings, difficult to address concerns because all Commissioners had different
points of view; this is design review, if you don't like something in regards to the design, changes can be made to the
design, has been to design review twice, both reviews have had positive recommendations; applicant submitted a sketch
of a typical foundation detail, noted that if a standard foundation is used the house will be 21" above grade, applicant
is proposing 24" above grade; Commission noted that there are other typical foundation details that could allow the
floor being lower, floor needs to.be lower on only a small portion of the property because it slopes downhill, a double -
sole plate could be used so that the floor joist can be set down much lower; applicant noted that if a project was
submitted under the height limit, this typical foundation detail would be allowed; in his last letter he provided examples
of houses in the neighborhood where first floor is above grade, at the last meeting it was suggested that the applicant
consider placing some living area above the garage so that the second floor would not be so high and the structure
would present less mass and bulk to the neighborhood, it wasn't done, wondered if the applicant explored this
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999
alternative; applicant noted that the design reviewer did not like the idea of having living space over the garage; does
not know who to please - design reviewer or the Commission.
Kathryn Smith, 1811 Davis Drive, Teresa Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive, Leo Tealdi, 1640 Marco Polo Way, Jim Vangele,
1648 Marco Polo Way, and Bill Mason, 1808 Davis Drive spoke in opposition to the project: petition signed by 100
Ray Park residents was submitted which expresses that the house is over 4100 SF on a 5250 SF lot; has a 1337 SF
basement not included in the FAR, any basement over 100 SF should be counted in FAR, all water/drainage problems
should be addressed; the plan for the house is not compatible with the neighborhood in regard to height and design,
and the proposed house would have 5 bedrooms and 5'/z baths which could pose a parking problem; letter submitted
by Kathryn Smith addressing additional issues, no other house in the neighborhood has a full basement used for living
purposes, basement has potential for three bedrooms, and rear of house appears to be three stories; letter submitted by
Mr. Clark, 1800 Davis Drive, house is more like a triplex than a single family house, cannot understand house, such a
large house can be built on such a small lot which would allow a lot of cars and people creating a parking problem,
house not compatible with the neighborhood because of its size, height, and living space in basement; concerned about
diverted surface water issues, normal flow of water will be diverted into their home, feels the engineering report
submitted by applicant dated October 18, 1999, does not address their concerns regarding underground water, asked
if Braun Consulting will accept responsibility if problems are experienced because the underground water test was done
during a dry period of the year, asked if City will accept responsibility of water problems if it approves the project; issues
have not been addressed, dropping the first floor to ground level and eliminating the storage room, house from the front
is tallest on block, proposed 5 bedroom house could become a 6 or 7 bedroom house because of the basement layout,
storage room could be converted to a bedroom, 2V x 2V master suite in basement has two doors and two closets and
could be divided to make an extra bedroom, design review letter dated August 4, 1999, indicates that the design
reviewer is concerned about overbuilding the site with a potential 6 bedroom house and only a 2 car garage, talked to
'ghbors in Ray Park who noted that it was unfair that the 1337 SF basement is not counted in FAR, feel that because
of a technicality that doesn't declare a basement having living space that the new FAR rules are not being followed;
speaker noted that he is a police lieutenant for a local police agency, noticed traffic and parking is getting worse in the
area, in order to cross street you have to pass through parked cars in the early morning and evening, intersection of
Marco Polo Way and Davis Drive is a high traffic thoroughfare for cars and children going to school; as a police officer
has been in other homes similar to the proposed which started off as a single family dwelling, no doubt that this house
will become a multiple family dwelling, applicant admits that most houses in the area are smaller, alarmed at the plans
and design of house, should meet the concerns of the Commission and 100 other residents that live in the neighborhood;
speaker owns large five bedroom house on Marco Polo Way, house is built on same size lot as proposed project but
does not have a basement and does not violate any city codes, feels this project has aspects of a Winchester mystery
house with large closets, one kitchen for three families and two children now, but what will happen five years from now,
does not object to building a new house, but should build within code limits; appears to be three stories at rear of house
as a result of the sloping grade, lives next door spend a lot of time in rear yard and will have to look at three story
structure; frequently during heavy rain storms Davis Drive tends to flood, diversion and pumping water from basement
will add to existing water problems.
The applicant responded to the comments made by the public, noted that the basement is allowed by code, if he is doing
anything that is against the code, he can be stopped; letter prepared by the consultants was submitted and addresses all
water concerns, if neighbors or the city think otherwise he will bear the cost for another study by a different consultant,
if result is the same as original study, neighbors should bear the cost, he does not want to live in a house that floods;
tried to contact several neighbors and commissioners to review the revised plans, but got no response;,door between
the bedrooms was added because of emergency egress requirements, feels neighbors opposition is based on fear; there
*11 be no increase in traffic, there is an existing house on the site now with a two car garage, not proposing increased
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1999
development; this is a joint family, takes time to understand the concept of a joint family, neighbors fear what could
happen in the future, meets code requirements now, any house after it is sold may be in violation of a code, that is why
-re is code enforcement; the typical foundation detail shows the finished floor 21" above grade, applicant is proposing
the foundation 24" above grade. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: applicant has a point, exception for basement, does not count in FAR but thinks it is a mistake,
building code doesn't count basements as usable space because they don't tend to add building code type problems, but
a basement as useable space does add impact, classic example of why we need design review, need to discuss
compatibility with the neighborhood; regardless of basement, the way spaces and size of spaces have been allocated
throughout the building is what is causing this to be a big building and the need for the space in the basement;, design
reviewer apparently did not understand the compatibility issue in the neighborhood, issue is height of building above
grade and the way the building is massed, too much square footage on the lot; project sent back to the design review
because the Commission was concerned with the size of house and how it fit into character of neighborhood, to say that
the project adheres to the code and therefore you should have what you want is wrong, design review was established
because people were abusing the code; in past few years the code has been taken to the maximum in many respects; still
not compatible with the neighborhood, basement is too big, proposing square footage that is equivalent to a 9000 SF
lot; not too concerned with the water problems because this issue will have to be addressed later; basement ordinance
was intended for someone to add underneath an existing house in the hillside, never intended to build an entire floor;
basement issue is regulated through design review; engineering issues can be easily addressed, design review was
established to thwart the construction of monster homes allowed by code two years ago, with basement, use on property
will be intensely magnified, design review has done what it is supposed to do, should pursue the study of basement
ordinance, cannot support project; not an easy project to make a ruling on, understand applicants' arguments, final
determination lies in the design review, two story house with a full basement is a different house than what the rest of
neighborhood is made up of, lots of single story houses adjacent to this house; rooms are very large, excessive
amount of storage, these items can be addressed and reduced to bring the house closer to the size of other houses in
the neighborhood; responsibility of the commission is to plan for the future and protect the neighborhoods; strong
showing from neighbors that don't believe the project is in keeping with the neighborhood, there are alternatives to this
project to meet the needs of the applicant.
Additional commission comments: suggested that the second floor addition be placed over the garage so that more
bedrooms could be added on the second floor rather than have the bedrooms in the basement, adding a room or two
in the basement is an innovative way to add space and not add bulk above ground; felt that the definition of basement
did not consist of bedrooms and bathrooms, not saying applicant cannot have a five bedroom house; concern is having
bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry room and an unfinished storage room in the basement; how will the basement be used
in the future, basement could have potential of being used as a separate dwelling since there are doors to the outside
of house; there is the possibility of putting basement bedrooms on the second floor and using basement mainly as
storage area; general view of basement is not habitable area, feel bedrooms can be relocated and the house redesigned
to accommodate the relocation and still be able to provide storage space in the basement; applicant seems to be flexible
and is certain a solution can be reached perhaps by making bedrooms and storage areas smaller; feels applicant has a
clear direction now, storage room in basement may be converted to a bedroom in the future by another property owner,
doesn't feel code intended a full living floor in the basement; code is what the city allows, city is made up of families
and neighbors, applicants have property rights and neighbors have neighborhood rights, project does not fit the
character, size, height or integrity of the neighborhood, 100 neighbors oppose the project, they too have neighbors
rights.
Deal moved denial of the project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999
On the motion: Commission asked how does denial without prejudice work versus a straight denial. Denial without
prejudice relieves the City Planner of having to make the determination whether a revised project which is submitted
substantially different than the previous application; commissioner requested that the maker of the motion reconsider
the motion to be a straight denial.
C. Deal moved to amend the motion to a denial, C Bojues, the second, agreed.
On the motion: Commission asked if it would be possible to waive the fees for resubmitting. City Attorney notes staff
does not encourage the waiving of fees, difficult to differentiate between this applicant's position and some other
applicant's position where the commission might not waive the fee, better to be consistent; tendency would be to deny
without prejudice and then give clear direction, if saw an application that took a more compact approach to building
a house, a more restrained approach on how far it comes out of the ground, and took the compatibility with the
neighborhood seriously, meaning the height at the front, the height and distribution of the mass, it might be a better
project; applicant is relying on the fact that he is meeting the codes, applicant must realize that there is design review
also; need to send a strong message that 4100 SF is not tolerable on a 5250 SF lot, gave applicant opportunity by
continuing the project and by sending it back to design review.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the amended motion to deny; the amended motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR SECOND -STORY
REAR SETBACK FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1021 DRAKE AVENUE,
ZONED R-1 (JOHN SCHLESINGER, APPLICANT AND EUGENE SUPANICH�PROPERTY OWNER)
reference staff report, 10.25.99, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning
Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The commissioners asked the City Engineer
what the city's construction requirements were when building near a creek bed, CE noted that best management
construction practices would be required, they would have to stay clear of the 100 year flood level, they could not
change the direction of the flow in the creek, and they would have to get a Fish and Game permit if the agency required
one; is construction limited during wet weather, not by code but possibly by circumstance.
Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Eugene Supanich, 1036 Cabrillo, have owned this lot for some time and
want to build a new house on it to retire into; we were originally confused about the setbacks, discovered that the
narrow frontage (Drake) is the front, there is an alley way (10' easement) at the rear of his lot, there are only two houses
behind them on Carmelita so he will have 15' on his property plus the easement between him and the house behind which
is 40' further back from the property line. The side of the house is not too visible, we will add more trees; we need a
bathroom on the second floor and one bedroom will be used as an office and the bedroom downstairs will be used as
a pool room.
Commissioners asked: what is wrong with the house that is there now, remodeled it 35 years ago, the foundation is
almost gone, the rooms are small, lived in it and am tired of it, want a nice new home; worked to make the new house
fit into the neighborhood and it will be quality; the house that is there reflects a lot of the characteristics of the
neighborhood including a front porch. This is a double lot why exception, not a lot of space to use between the new
retaining wall and street, the creek takes considerable room. Concerned at study about the height of the structure
proposed -this is a large building -nice looking but big, as increase size need to mitigate could do by reducing second floor
ight, have a flat ceiling on the second floor with a 9.5 foot plate could have an 8 foot plate and vary the ceiling inside.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999
Applicant responded, there is a big Oak on Carmelita and a large Redwood on Drake that they tried to keep, will plant
-lore to cover house, designed to look like one story from the street, the mass is at the rear left side put in a dormer
,ere to break up the roof at the front of the house. Should have mentioned the attached garage at study, it should be
detached given the older homes in the neighborhood, it is an important part of the whole picture, other three corners
of the intersection all have attached garages, on the south east corner one is a carport; noted that on plans the garage
it is 20' to the exterior and should be 20' to the interior, when build will have to correct to be 20' interior measurement,
so living area will be reduced for adjustment, the interior width dimension does not work at the stair, that will also have
to be corrected; the dormer added over the door is not quite resolved, looks as if it were stuck on, what was the rational;
originally done without dormers, they were added to reduce the mass, these dormers look like the ones on the house
on Sanchez (in Hillsborough) nearby, the similarity in appearance is why we agreed to add. There were no further
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: nice project, it is a big lot,-10,000 SF, and has a creek on it; existing house is nice but they
have the right to replace it, the new house looks nice and fits well; the questions raised at study were all addressed in
the staff report, concerned about the break in roof line, the dormer was added, the front entrance centered, added detail,
the garage dimension can be adjusted; agree, tried for a height reduction but it is all right, good job, fits in neighborhood,
can put 4000 SF on this lot, there is enough space around it; addressing the variance, there seems to be more space at
the rear of the house because of the easement and location of other houses and there is a hardship because the creek
covers about half of the lot.
C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the negative declaration, variance for second story rear setback and design review with
the findings as discussed by resolution with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown
on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 19, 1999, sheets Al, Ala, D1, A2 through
6, A6a, A7, A8, L1, Sl, C1, C2 except that the garage shall have an interior clear dimension of 20 feet in depth and
20 feet in width as measured from the stairs which project into the parking area with these adjustments to be made
interior to the structure so that the setbacks and footprint of the house do not change;
2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s)
or changing the roof height or pitch, and any changes to the retaining wall or decks affecting the creek, shall be subject
to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 26, 1999, memo and the City Engineer's
July 26, 1999, memo shall be met; 4) that if the California State Department of Fish and Game shall require the
applicant to apply for a Stream Alteration Permit, the applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the California
State Department of Fish and Game and submit an approved Stream Alteration Permit to the Burlingame Building
Department at the time the building permit application is made. Should the permit require any changes to the proposed
structures on this lot, the application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended
by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on the motion: it is compatible with the neighborhood, had to work harder because they have a big house,
this lot has the space with the neighbor across the easement; has the window detail, arrangement and proportion right,
the proper dimension of facade to roof, made it look like the old houses, height is a problem which could have been dealt
with, creek is as asset to respect in design; the adjacent house faces Carmelita and there is a large space between them;
would like skylights to be glass but the code will require them to be plastic bubble because of the height above the floor,
would be nice to have flat glass, we will see when built if makes a difference.
Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with conditions. The motion passed unanimous on
7-0 voice vote.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999
k noted that the applicant mentioned wanting to put on a slate roof but his wife did not agree, the plans do not show
a slate roof, can he put a slate roof on if they agree that they want one; commission agreed that a slate roof would be
all right.
Chairman Coffey advised the applicant of his appeal rights.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, LEFT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE
AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR AN 80 SF SECOND STORY ADDITION AND 231
SF FIRST STORY ADDITION TO REMODEL AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND REPLACE A DETACHED GARAGE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1610 CHAPIN AVENUE,
ZONED R-1. (ROBERT AND RHONDA HOCKER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (39 NOTICED) -
REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 8, 1999
The applicant requested continuance to the November 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR LANDSCAPING AND FOR VEHICLE MANEUVERING IN THE
PARKING AREA FOR A NEW 3-UNIT, 3-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1009 BURLINGAME AVENUE,
ZONED R-3. (FRANK PANACCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (21 NOTICED) - CONTINUED
FROM OCTOBER 13, 1999; REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 8, 1999
The applicant requested continuance to the November 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
_.EVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2000,
CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that the meeting following Columbus Day in 2000 was set for a
Wednesday. She inquired if the commission had a specific reason for shifting the meeting from Tuesday to Wednesday;
it can be a problem for applicants because of the shortening of the appeal period for applicants. Commission discussed
and determined to change the meeting after Columbus Day to Tuesday, October 10, 1999. The commission also
discussed the change in the Design Review submittal calendar. Staff explained that based on our experience the design
review item is placed on the commission calendar as soon as the design reviewers comments have been received and
the applicant has had a chance to decide what they would like to do.
C. Vistica moved to adopt the 2000 Planning Commission Schedule as amended for the meeting after Columbus Day
to be changed to October 10, 2000, and the 2000 Planning Commission Schedule for Design Review of Residential
Construction or Addition as amended. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Coffey called for a voice
vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed unanimous on a 7-0 voice vote.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe discussed briefly the Council's action in adopting the amendment to the Design Review provisions
and to the Food Establishment regulations, the effective date of each ordinance change, and the process to be used
to issue a conditional use permit to each food establishment in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea
A and Broadway commercial area.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1999
C. Luzuriaga asked how the commission might make clear to Council the reasons for their actions on the project
at 1531 Montero. The commissioners noted that they felt that the minutes from the meeting clearly stated the
reasons for the vote; could suggest that the City Council members listen to the tape of the meeting if they wish.
There was a brief discussion about the difference between an appeal and Council calling an item "up for review".
Commissioner also noted that the house on Hillside near Montero has been under a tarp for at least three years,
wondered what could be done to see it finished.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
MINMID.25
10