HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.08.10REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 10, 1998
7.00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Deal called the August 10, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga,
Vistica and Deal
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; Senior Civil Engineer, Syed
Murtuza; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall
MINUTES CP noted the minutes of the July 27, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission had errors and have been corrected as
follows; "p. 9, line 4; applicant tohe present, and line 7; 100
year flood plain. The minutes were then unanimously
approved as amended.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was noted for the record that Item # 10, 1336 Balboa
required some clarifications and should be continued to the
August 24, 1998 meeting. The order of the agenda was then
approved.
FROM THE FLOOR Chairman Deal noted that this was an opportunity for any
member of the public to request that an item on the consent
calendar be taken off for individual actions. There were no
public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR EXISTING FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR FRONT
SETBACKS AND FOR GARAGE DIMENSIONS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1800 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1.
(STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND BIJAN & PARI AMINI, PROPERTY
OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the applicant's request and the Planning Commissioners asked the
following questions: made a site inspection there is a massive wall under construction on the Ray
Drive side, is this the wall the design reviewer was commenting on, is there an encroachment
permit for this wall, staff noted that the Senior Engineer made a site inspection today and there
-1-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
is no encroachment permit for the wall and a stop work notice will be issued; this application
should include a landscape plan, especially for the Ray Drive side, only a wall is visible now,
need some landscaping visible from the street; the reviewer notes that this is the only house with
the eaves cut off at a 45 degree angle, has the applicant looked at a 90 degree angle, how would
this look, what would it mean in terms of the code. There were no further questions and the
item was set for hearing on August 24, 1998, if the requested information is available in time.
APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK,
SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2500 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1.
(PAUL GUMBINGER, APPLICANT AND ROBERT D. KUGEL & DIANA S. DAMAZO,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the project briefly and the Planning Commissioners asked the following
questions: would like the applicant to install story poles so could see the bulk and effect of the
impacts of the second story; need to address the parking issue more, could two cars be parked
in the garage; there is a lot of mass at the front of the house, could bay window be addressed
to reduce the mass, the location of the bay window appears awkward, please address; is it
possible to remove the stairs and door in the garage and increase the area available for parking;
why are the siding materials mixed, is there a design reason for this; how many bedrooms will
there be in the finished house. The item was set for public hearing and action at the August 24,
1998, meeting, providing the requested information is available in time.
APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT
ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW AT 508 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PETER W. & JANE G.
STEVENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the Commissioners asked: plans need to be revised
so that it is clearly delineated which walls are new/replace and which are removed, this item
should be reset for study when the plans have been revised; address the design reviewers
comments about landscaping in the side yards and provide plan; site has a problem with parking,
what are the options to resolve, show studies; why did the applicant decide to go for a second
story addition at this time; need a more complete set of drawings, sheet 2 in the plans is hard
to understand; asking for a declining height envelope variance, reasons are unclear, what are the
extraordinary circumstances. This item should be brought back to study and staff should set it
when the information requested and plans are complete.
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR
WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE (4' PROPOSED) AND FOR
RECREATIONAL USE FOR A NEW GARAGE AT 1445 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
(PAUL E. BROEKER AND SHIRLEY E. LEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the project and the Commissioners asked: why is the applicant asking for
such a large accessory structure but still not providing two covered parking spaces; how many
bedrooms are in the house and how many off street covered parking spaces are required; why
is the applicant not providing two covered parking spaces; this large garage will restrict future
-2-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
development on the site, is the applicant aware. The item was set for public hearing on August
24, 1998, if the information needed is submitted in time.
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR
WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE (6' PROPOSED) AND FOR RECREATION
USE FOR A NEW GARAGE AT 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JESSE AND
MARIA GUERSE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the project and the Commissioners asked: applicant should explain why
they are not proposing to add two covered parking spaces; should be aware if two covered
parking spaces now could avoid problems in future if want to expand house, could limit future
expansion as proposed; why do they need a fireplace in the garden workshop; there appear to
be three doors into the garden workshop (one might be a window, plans are unclear), clarify,
why would they need three doors; is the fireplace proposed gas or wood burning; how many
bedrooms are in the house; presence of fireplace raises concerned about the future use of the
accessory structure; reason for exceptional circumstance is existing location, but removing
existing garage so why need to rebuild with exception; application for special permit and
variance are so full of jargon cannot understand, please redo; special permits for window and
recreational use are not addressed in applicants request, need to be. The; item was set for public
hearing on August 24, 1998, if the information is available on time.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND ARE ACTED ON
SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER.
Chairman Deal introduced the Consent Calendar. CP Monroe read the title and address of each
request. Chairman Deal asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on any
of the consent items. There were no comments from the audience. It was noted that the project
at 1336 Balboa had been continued to the next meeting for a clarification on the plans.
Both C. Keighran, commenting that the applicant was a relative and C. Deal, commenting that
he had a business relationship with the applicant, noted that they would abstain from any vote
on the project at 1600 Willow Avenue. The project of 1600 Willow was removed from the
other consent items for a separate vote.
Chairman Deal then called for a motion on the following remaining items on the consent
calendar:
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY
ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1417 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1,
WITH FINDINGS BY RESOLUTION. (BRAD CLARK, APPLICANT AND PATRICK M.
& LAURA F. SOMERS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 116 COSTA RICA AVENUE,
ZONED R-1. (CHRIS GILMAN, APPLICANT AND GARY & MARYANN P. NICHOLS,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1617 CHAPIN
AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PHILIP ANASOVICH, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND KARL E. & DEBORA A. BAKHTIARI, PROPERTY OWNERS)
SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AT 1234 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED
C-1, SUBAREA A, WITH FINDINGS BY RESOLUTION. (ANN BURATTO, APPLICANT
AND KEIL SONOMA CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER)
EXTENSION OF A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4.
(AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND WILLIAM WILSON
& ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER)
C. Key moved approval of the consent calendar, with findings as noted in the staff report and
by resolution as required; C. Coffey seconded the motion. Chairman Deal then called for a
voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW AT 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1, WITH FINDINGS BY
RESOLUTION. (JAMES C. & RYAN KEIGHRAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS)
Chairman Deal then asked for a motion on 1600 Willow Avenue. C. Key moved for approval
and C. Coffey seconded the motion. A roll call vote on the motion was called for. The motion
to approve the request passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Keighran abstaining) vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
REGULAR CALENDAR
APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1117 CABRILLO
AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TONY PANTALEONI, APPLICANT AND ANTHONY AND
ROSALIE SPITERI, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 08.10.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four
conditions were recommended for consideration. CP Monroe presented the staff report. The
Commissioners had no questions.
-4-
City of B-Ung— Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Shana Erminhouse, representing the architect,
reviewed the previous history of the house and site. The house was built in 1907, it had 2700
SF of interior space which was increased to 3200 SF with porches and covered areas. It was
3 bedrooms with a one car garage; a single story at the front and two stories at the rear.
Current owners purchased 9 months ago, want to expand but also maintain the character at the
front and extend the character of the structure at the rear. On May 11, they asked for 5
variances, planning commission felt it was too much, they redesigned. In May Commission
indicated that they were less concerned about the left side setback, since it was an existing
condition to which no change was being made; they reduced the size of the second floor room
on the left and eliminated the declining height exception; they reduced the size of the garage and
house above so the FAR was met; felt that the tandem parking was no problem since it was
essential to the character of the house and an existing condition. She showed plans which
indicated the reduction in the mass of the house caused by the described changes. Reduced the
impact of the wall next to the right side property line by 8 feet on each end, leaving 37' long
garage, will accommodate two cars; will continue the existing architectural detail to the second
floor addition. The majority of the houses on the street have attached garages, a few at the end
have double or triple car attached garages. If parking were placed at the rear it would mean
paving a driveway on the right side of the lot and taking up a substantial portion of the rear
yard; the circulation core of the house is off the right side by the garage, so if remove garage
would affect entire interior floor plan. As now presented the variances are all to deal with
existing conditions, every effort was made to keep and enhance the existing style as supported
by the design reviewer.
Commissioner asked if the second floor plate line could be reduced from 9'-5" to 8'-1" this
would reduce the height of the roof ridge by 16" and reduce the apparent mass of the left side
of the structure, could look into; why is the garage 37 feet instead of required 40 feet for
tandem, attempted to reduce area of garage and FAR, can easily park 2 cars within 36 feet,
Commission previously concerned about mass on the right side property line, this reduction also
addresses this issue; Commissioner wanted to know if request was to lower plate line on just the
left side or on entire floor, noted that wanted to keep a uniform eave line and the 9'-5" plate is
throughout the second floor now, the problem outside of the declining height envelope has been
addressed. Tony Spiteri, the property owner, spoke noting that they had spent a lot of time and
money in the redesign of the project after the May presentation; have done all that they have
with the intention of preserving the house; need to work within the existing conditions so don't
really have choice of a side -by -side garage; want to protect the rear yard, not want to use it for
parking; since previous review city has instituted design review, so commission has the
advantage of that perspective now, design reviewer was very favorable. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Deal commented on the request to lower the plate line on the left side, suggested it
because the house was so close to the side property line, house next door has a high plate so will
be a lot of mass; could reduce to 8'-11" in a way that would affect only two bedrooms on the
left side, would break up the vertical mass and not really affect room size, ceiling would be
slightly vaulted on one side, no other real effect; feel put a lot of time and effort into the design
and reduced the living area which should have but to add another 16 inch reduction is not
necessary; agree, within allowed height, nice to have a second story with a higher ceiling so go
-5-
City of Burhngane Platniag Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
with existing design; dealt with parking, a decent job; can't expand garage without causing FAR
exception.
C. Luzuriaga noted that he had concerns with the last submittal, glad not tearing down house,
favor tandem parking think it fits the neighborhood better and since applicant from San
Francisco where using tandem now, sure will use; first floor left side exception is an existing
condition, have to remove house to meet setback, unfair; right side setback is also an existing
condition reduced impact and meet FAR; tandem parking is all right, 37 feet is long enough to
park two cars even though one car garage by code; based on these findings, those mentioned by
the Planning Commission and the facts in the staff report he moved approval for the three
variances stated by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built
as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 18, 1998, sheets
A.1 through A.5; 2) that the left and right side property lines shall be surveyed to verify the
existing first floor setback; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 22, 1998
memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion.
The motion to approve the variances passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK, DECLINING HEIGHT
ENVELOPE AND NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION
SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 632 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1. (ELMO J.
NOVARESI, APPLICANT AND RONALD J. & MARCI E. MARTINUCCI, PROPERTY
OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 08.10.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three
conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked if the staff could read
the letter from Mr. Thomas, which was mailed to the Commissioners, in to the record.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Elmo Novaresi, architect, 131 Ramona, El Cerrito,
spoke, he showed a rendering of the house, noting that the second stork design made an effort
to retain the horizontal appearance of the existing structure. In the case of this property the
garage projects to the front of the lot, the addition is over the main horizontal living area of the
house parallel to the street. Showed pictures of the rear view from the house, they limited the
number of windows have only 3, two in the bathroom and one in the stair well, will not
encroach on the neighbor's privacy; the neighbors house is 30 feet away from the new addition,
will not be affected by shadows from new addition; lowered plate line to 7'-6" to reduce mass,
having sloped ceilings inside; have a declining height variance because of slope at the front of
the lot, rear 75 feet is level, this is where the addition is; declining height should be based on
the higher level area; design reviewer supported keeping the existing building; can park one car
in the driveway behind the sidewalk, to add a double car garage would destroy the character of
the house and not fit in the neighborhood; applicant wrote to seven neighbors about addition,
they signed petition, include in the record.
0
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
Thomas Mooney, 635 Lexington Way, spoke in opposition. He lives directly behind this
property on Vernon Way, he wants to preserve the sense of space he; has at the rear of this
house; bought house 13 years ago, house had a second story, it was not an addition, the house
has 2 bedrooms and 2 baths, it was built 40 years ago; you can't understand what a difference
this proposed second story would make, his rear yard is small, the lots going north and south
in this neighborhood are small, the last two bedroom and bath addition on Lexington Way was
done 10 years ago; city was concerned so passed the moratorium on second stories then design
review; submitted copies of the Sanborn Maps for area showing lot size and house placement,
his house is 26' from rear property line and their house is less than 20", less than 50' between
these two second stories; no place else in the neighborhood on Concord where the houses are
this close together; the house at 628 Vernon sits almost 27' further to the front than the house
at 632, if 632 were as far forward as 628 he would not be before the Planning Commission; this
addition is too big, too overpowering and too close to his property and he must defend the value
of his property; the bay windows (important features) at the rear of his house in his breakfast
nook and bedroom will loose all view of sky and trees as well as blocking small view he has to
north, not fair. Applicant has many wants; he wanted a full deck in his back yard, he wanted
a trellis, he said he would plant trees at rear but did not, the owner at 635 lexington Way had
to, now wants huge house (not many 4 bedroom, 3 bath houses in this neighborhood) with no
concern for neighbor's property value, privacy or enjoyment of his house. Propose he moved
the addition to the front of the house; submitted a letter from a real estate broker indicating that
the proposed addition would negatively affect his property value.
Applicant responded not asking for a variance to the rear; adding 1000 SF, neighbor probably
has the same in his second floor; did not put a lot of windows at rear to address privacy issue;
Vernon lot looses privacy from Lexington Way since he looks into their rear yard; applicant's
family is going to get bigger, need another bedroom, if go to the front they will loose the
existing livingroom, no way to get light and air to it; to do the addition differently is not in the
best interest of the Vernon property only intent is to build livable space. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: a difficult project which presents a lot of problems; visual impact of
second story has been mitigated, good job; lot of space at front of lot, too sacred not touch, not
a good place for the addition; where did put addition is creating a lot of problems, invade rear
neighbor's privacy, garage is not well associated with the rest of the house, not address issue
of parking; need to preserve neighborhood, this is done by preserving street, by providing
parking; addition is in the wrong place, at rear suits owner, if located elsewhere suit
neighborhood and neighbor to rear better; not see a hardship, didn't add parking, need to
explore. Story poles show how addition interfaces at rear, could have put more of addition to
the front of the lot; there are other possibilities on this lot, need to address parking, could add
bulk at front or in middle; understand Mr. Mooney's concerns about light and privacy, code
does not address privacy, hard to on 5000 SF lots; it is common to add a second story, everyone
says will obstruct view, but only adding 3 windows one in stairwell and two in bathroom, not
increase views into neighbors yard; would set the wrong precedence if base action on privacy;
one point clear is parking variance, not inclined to vote for since do not see exceptional
circumstances for parking.
-7-
City of Burlingame Pitaudng Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
Chairman Deal noted parking is no problem if 3 bedrooms on second floor not oversized would
require one covered, problem if it is 5 bedrooms; agree that privacy is tough with many small
lots in the city even though in other cases there may be more room between structures; agree
that there is a lot of mass in the second story, it is loaded onto the rear of the house to protect
the beautiful front yard, but placement does have an effect on the neighbors; like the choice of
window placement; based on the reasons stated he moved to deny the application. The motion
was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote; the motion passed on a 7-0
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
DETACHED DOUBLE CAR GARAGE AND WORK/STORAGE AREA AT 33 ARUNDEL
ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JOHN SUDANO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 08.10.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request,
reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four
conditions were recommended for consideration. C. Deal noted that he would abstain on this
item since he had a business relationship with the applicant. C. Vistica noted he would abstain
since he had an interest in the neighborhood. There were no further comments from the
Commission. Vice -Chairman Coffey took over the meeting.
Vice -Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. John Sudano, 33 Arundel, spoke thanking
the 6 commissioners who came by his property; he noted he had two reasons to build, he lives
in a 928 SF house with his two sons, there are three small closets in the house, the current
garage is impacted by the nearby plum tree and is unsafe, garage is 336 SF can't get a car into
it, it is full of storage. He has the required access to the proposed garage, he feels that his
proposed use of parking is a typical use of such as structure, storage is also typical in a garage
and he has no storage area in the house, a workroom is a typical garage use in the city, many
people have a work bench for home repair, he also likes to make furniture; so all the uses are
typical of the area and will not hurt property values of other residential lots; right now parking
on the street is a problem because of the nearby auto repair and sales businesses, have to be able
to park the cars in a garage; the property is 38' wide, his neighbors on similar 38' lots have
similar garages across the rear of their properties; in future want to add a bedroom and will need
parking; the ridge one foot from property line is the best aesthetic solution; has put in one
skylight at the lowest possible location facing into the lot for the workroom, there are no other
windows, would not be the end of the world if the skylight were denied. Commissioner noted
that when add one bedroom would still need only one covered parking place, also when build
such a large accessory structure you are limiting the size of any future addition to the house
because of lot coverage; applicant not sure wants to add to the house now, has a car that he is
restoring, branch fell off the large redwood in the back yard and ruined the convertible top, the
garage is the biggest need now; want to add garage at the rear so that there is room to add to
the back of the house later. There were no further comments from the public or applicant. The
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comments: have no problem with 2 car garage but have a problem with such a
large garage and a 920 SF house; if add more square footage than two covered spaces, the
proper place to add the square footage is on to the house not in an accessory structure; can put
efficient storage in the garage; 38 foot wide lot if stop short, have a useless piece left over, in
Ef
City of Bur&game Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
favor of the use permit but not the variance; agree, clear about future limitations on lot,
placement is good if want to expand house, wants 2 covered spaces which is not always the case,
if need extra storage it looks fine.
C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the project by resolution with four special permits, which
exceeds 600 SF, provides for covered parking for 2 cars and is only one story with no storage
attic, meets maximum height, with attractive roof sloping away from the :fence so has less impact
on the neighbor, skylight will only affect his yard and there is only one, need storage because
house is inadequate and everyone needs some storage area, by resolution with the conditions in
the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The conditions are as follows: 1)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped June 25, 1998, Sheet G-1; 2) that the conditions of the Senior Engineer's June 29, 1998
memo shall be met; 3) that use of the structure shall be limited to off-street parking for vehicles
and a work/storage area, and that the accessory structure shall never be used, rented, or
converted into a second dwelling unit and that there shall be no sewer or water services
connected to the accessory structure; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of
the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
On the motion: do the plans show two skylights, no second area is for the pull down ladder;
need to vote no, this is a huge garage it will limit the future options on this property and could
be a potential second unit, cannot support.
Vice -Chairman Coffey called for a vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-2 (C.
Key dissenting, Cers. Deal and Vistica abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised.
The commission took a brief break at 9:07 p.m. The commission reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
PLANNER REPORTS
- CP Monroe reported on the August 3, 1998 City Council Meeting.
- SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND DISCUSSION OF DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS AND R-1 ZONE REGULATION CHANGES
- The Commission reviewed the report of the Design Review Subcommittee on
recommendations for a permanent design review process and for changes to the R-1 district
regulations to make them work better with the design review process. CP Monroe briefly
reviewed the history of the Subcommittee review and the timing of the :next steps. She pointed
out that in order for the council to adopt an ordinance in time to have it effective before the
interim ordinance expires the council must act at their second meeting in September. This
means that the commission must make a recommendation on the preferred design review process
for council's agenda at the next commission meeting, August 24.
C. Deal, Chair of the Design Review Subcommittee, noted that the subcommittee was
recommending a continuation of the present process because the reviews appeared to be timely
(did not unduly hold up the review process) and projects reviewed were responding to design
concerns, so the process was accomplishing what needed to be done. There is a problem with
WE
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998
the current process and it has to do with the need to develop consistency among the reviewers.
This can be addressed by having regular meetings with the reviewers and giving them feedback
on the commissions views. A commissioner asked if applicants were requesting specific
reviewers. No they are not and the process now in effect (and recommended) requires that the
City Planner assigns reviewers randomly, which we have done to the best of reviewer
availability.
The commission then reviewed page by page the proposed amendments to the R-1 district zoning
regulations. They suggested a number of changes for the City Planning to include in the draft
which will go to the City Attorney for codification and consideration at: the public hearing on
August 24, 1998. CP Monroe noted that there were a number of typographical errors and an
item missing from the last attachment which was the corrections to the rest of Chapter 25 and
the Municipal Code necessary to establish the new definition of Special Permit. She will be sure
that the corrected copy is included in the action packet for the public hearing.
Commissioners Keighran and Coffey noted that they would not be able to attend the next
Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Deal at 10:30 p.m.
MINUTES8.10
-10-
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary