Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011005PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 10, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the January 10, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the December 13, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that item 4, 2112 Easton Drive has been continued to the meeting of January 24, 2005. The item will be renoticed. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1100 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES AND FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND ADDITION (SHEILA WARD, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRISTIAN AND ERICA RIELLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ▪ There is a utility pole on the Drake frontage where will it be relocated, and how will the support wires be accommodated? ▪ Does the uncovered parking space shown meet city code requirements? ▪ Note that the landscaping is increasing at the front but need more information about the type and location of the new landscaping and its impact on sight lines along the public street. Provide a detailed landscape plan. ▪ Understand the hardship on this property and not too troubled by the variances, but should use this opportunity to replace the front door to improve the curb appeal, there is a lot of FAR and lot coverage available to create a better defined entrance to this house. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 2. 1812 C MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ART CLASSES (NANCY CALL TORRES, APPLICANT; WJ BRITTON, INC. PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 2 CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ▪ Can the applicant clarify the number of employees, is one sufficient for ten children in a class? This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 2122 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAN AND ANGELA DOBSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3B. 1418 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DUTCH HOSMAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3C. 1031 MORRELL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PAUL AND ELLEN DONATI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. C. Bojués abstained on the action on 2122 Roosevelt Avenue because he lives within 500 feet. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the consent calendar, 1418 Castillo and 1031 Morrell passed on a 6-0 voice vote. 2122 Roosevelt Avenue passed on a 5-0-1 (C. Bojués abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 3 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 2112 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ORLANDO AND MINERVA BUENA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER At the request of the applicant, this item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 2005. 5. 919 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JEANETTE BARRACO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DIEGO PEREZ, DREAM BUILDERS, DESIGNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report January 10, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: can we create a condition that the applicant must first do one thing before the permit is valid for another thing? CA responded that the Commission may frame the conditions in this way. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jeanette Barraco, property owner, and Diego Perez, architect, represented the project. They noted that they have revised the plans, the property owner only wants to bump out the kitchen and use the accessory structure for exercise room and storage, not intend to rent as a second unit so removed the kitchen and shower. Also will remove the stairs in the driveway, there is a back door which can be used instead. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that this project has been much improved through the review process, support it as now submitted with the conditions proposed because of the odd shape of the lot and the placement of the existing house and existing inadequate access to the rear, would add a condition that any future modification of the building envelope or change in the use of this property to duplex will cause these variances and use permits granted to be voided; so move approval by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 22,2004, site plan, floor plans, and building elevations; 2) that the existing stairs that encroach into the driveway, leading from laundry room to driveway, shall be removed; the door from the laundry room to the driveway shall also be removed and the wall shall be restored with a building permit in accordance with all applicable building codes within 90 days of the date of this action; 3) that the shower in the existing full bathroom in the accessory structure shall be removed, and all water and waste lines to the shower shall be removed, all work shall be done with a permit and in accordance with all applicable building codes within 90 days of the date of this action; 4) that the accessory structure shall only be used for storage and a recreation room/home gym, with a toilet and sink, with a maximum enclosed square footage of 438.5 SF and a maximum height of 13'-6"; shall never be used for sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; and shall not include additional utility services for a kitchen or a full bathroom without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, NPDES Coordinator and Chief Building Official’s October 13, 2004 memos shall be met; 6) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 4 demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 8) that the variances and conditional use permits granted under this approval shall expire if there is any future change to the envelope of the structures or the use of the lot changes to that allowed by the R-2 zoning. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: Am sympathetic with the applicant, this is a difficult situation, given the discussion and added conditions feel that she will work in good faith and a two staged approval is not necessary, however, would like to see the stairs in the driveway and access door to the utility room removed early as possible in the remodel process. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions which would cause further development on the site to void the variances and conditional use permits granted for continued use of the accessory structure as a living area associated with the house, but not used as a second unit. The motion passed on a 6-0-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 6. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE CHANGE IN OPERATION OF A CAR RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; VANGUARD R/E HOLDINGS, LLC) (10 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report January 10, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked what the timeframe might be for BCDC response on widening the Bay Trail. CP Monroe noted that she did not know, the applicant should address. Has the Planning Department received any complaints about the present operation? CP Monroe noted that they have not received any complaints since the conditional use permit was granted in 2003. How does the revenue the city receives now compare to that received when all of Alamo's rentals were from this site? CP Monroe noted that she did not know, but it is significantly less because almost all car rental contracts on which sales tax was charged are now signed at the airport. There were no further questions of staff from the Commission. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, attorney representing Vanguard the current parent company of Alamo and National Rent a Car, with Mr. Hudak were Peter VanBelkenberg, Airport Relations with Vanguard and John Olsen, District Facilities Manager for Vanguard. Applicant noted that two years ago when Alamo acquired National, business travel was down along with car rentals, SFO had recently opened its on-site car rental facilities and required all companies doing business on-airport to operate from this facility, including signing contracts and storing rental cars on the airport site. The Alamo site became the location for fleet repair and maintenance and for cars to rotate in and out of the SFO fleet. In 2003 Alamo/National needed to introduce a new model for car rentals from the Burlingame site, need to work with hotels and local businesses and rent to them instead of air traveler brought to site by shuttle. It has been slow going building this new business, but there is a rental desk at the Burlway location and they rent on average one car a day from the site. It is unlikely that the rental volume from Burlway will every reach the "hay day" of the volume before the major business moved on-airport. Today the plant on Burlway is in good condition, the length of the Bay Trail on this site is "as good as anyone's", there is a narrowing of the trail at an existing warehouse building, architect has been working with BCDC to see if City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 5 they can widen the trail into the bay since cannot remove the building, have not heard back from BCDC; have been paying the annual fee to the city and reporting the number of actual rentals, know have not reached the volume of rentals to have 1% equal the $36,500 fee. Two years from now will be in a better position to assess the value of the land in an alternative use, probably hotel or office use; glad to have site developed but need an interested party. Commissioners asked applicant: What was the total gross rental from this site in the past two years? Don't know exactly about 342 cars were rented from the site for different lengths of time. CA noted that this kind of information is not public record. What is currently being done at the site? Primarily to bring new cars into the SFO fleet, they are prepared on this site; no cars for the SFO fleet are stored on this site; do service and maintenance work for the SFO fleet on this site. There is a better place to prepare, service and maintain cars than on the Bayfront, seems to be a serious flaw in the conditions- original stated pay $36,500 flat fee plus 1% of all rentals over $5,000 from the site, this has changed to $36,500 when 1% exceeds $36,500 pay 1% of that amount; prefer the first formula which would result in the higher amount to the city. CA noted that there was an error in the action letter with the first formula and the condition approved by the Council is the one in the Planning Commission Staff Report tonight. Concerned about the Bay Trail, there a pot holes in the trail and there are shrubs which increase the narrowing of the trail, they should be removed and the area asphalted, these were problems before and were there on Sunday, why have they not been corrected and the trail maintained? Spokesman noted that he made a note of the places that needed repair after his inspection; looked at invoice for work, not completed because of the weather. When being maintained can the trail be moved inland? No it is immediately behind a building. Are the shrubs protected?, staff should check, if not they should be removed and the area asphalted up to the wall of the building, this should be done in 30 days. Can be done, but because of weather would like 90 day time limit. Can the volunteer shrubs be removed immediately? Will tag for removal as soon as the weather permits. Do not want you to wait for response from BCDC about widening trail into the bay to do shrub removal and trail maintenance, contact the Planning Department as soon as you hear from BCDC, but do other work immediately. Will notify the Planning Department within 10 days of hearing from BCDC about widening the trail. BCDC has been unclear about when they will get back to us, this is a low priority for them. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to add a condition that the volunteer shrubs near the warehouse building be removed and the area paved up to the building within 90 days and would like to modify condition 11 that the applicant shall notify Planning staff within 10 days of BCDC's decision about widening the trail so that the City can work with them as required by the adopted BCDC/City guidelines. C. Bojués moved to extend the conditional use permit for two years (to February 2007) based on the discussion and with the amended and added conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 3, 2003, sheets A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, A2.1, and A22.1, site plan, partial site plan, second floor- administration, and building C floor plan, kiosk floor plan and reflected ceiling plan; 2) that the car rental, maintenance and storage facility may be open for business from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. , seven days a week, and that there shall be no more an 50 employees and 25 customers on-site at any one time; 3) that there shall be a maximum of 600 cars stored on the site at any one time, this number shall include cars that are on- site for maintenance and there shall be a maximum of 2 car carriers on-site to deliver vehicles at any one time; 4) that no trucks delivering or picking up cars at this site shall arrive or depart between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, and all such deliveries shall be made on-site with no impact on the public street or right-of-way; 5) that the required number of handicap stalls for employees and/or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 6 customers shall be provided and designated at 778 Burl way Road as per the California Building Code, 2001 edition, and all employees shall be required to park in the 78 space employee parking lot in the southwestern portion of the site, employee parking shall be designated and employee cars shall have sticker identifying them as belonging to employees on-site; 6) that all employee parking shall be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the south end of the site; 7) that the car rental operation at this site shall pay to the City of Burlingame $36,500 per year; the annual payment shall be payable in advance no later than April 30 of each year during which this permit is in effect. When one percent (1%) of the total gross rental for any vehicles for lease or rental originating from this site, whether those agreements are signed in Burlingame or adjacent jurisdictions exceeds $36,500 during any calendar year, the applicant shall then pay one percent of the total gross rentals to the City of Burlingame on a quarterly basis for the duration of the permit; this amount shall be due and payable no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar-year quarter. For purposes of this condition, agreements for rental from San Francisco International Airport car rental facility shall not be included in calculating the 1% payment to the City. In addition to making the payments required by this condition (either annual/flat amount or quarterly), the car rental operation shall file quarterly statements with the City of Burlingame Finance Department documenting the number of vehicle rental agreements signed at the site per month during the quarter on such forms as may be required by the City, and shall include a breakdown of the monthly vehicle rentals from the 778 Burlway Road site. In addition, the City of Burlingame shall accrue any sales tax revenue from rental contracts written in the City of Burlingame. Whether paying a fixed fee or 1% of the gross rental rates, the car rental operation on this site shall keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all records as may be necessary to determine the rentals from which the one percent (1%) payment calculation may be derived. Such records shall be available for delivery to the City for review with fifteen (15) days after request therefore; 8) that no cars shall be loaded, unloaded or stored on any public street, in any public right-of-way, or in any public access area; 9) that any change to the rental of cars, number of employees, amount of auto storage, addition of services or secondary business to the site, or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; 10) that the fire lane from the east end of the site to Burlway Road shall be provided and maintained, unobstructed, on a permanent basis as required by the Fire and Public Works Department of the City of Burlingame; 11) that the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the public access trail and improvements adjacent to the subject property for the life of the project and shall be liable for any damage caused to the pubic for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard, including that the applicant shall remove volunteer vegetation at the narrowest point of the trail and call for an inspection by the Planning Department within 10 days (January 21, 2005) and fill the area of vegetation removal and all pot holes in the Bay Trail and call for an inspection by the Planning Department within 90 days (April 10, 2005); and further that the property owner shall seek Bay Conservation and Development Commission approval for redesigning the narrowest existing section of the trail and replacing and expanding the pavement in this area and shall inform the City Planner of any decision within 10 days of BCDC action; 12) that the property owner shall install and maintain on a regular basis as prescribed by the city’s NPDES inspector, petroleum filter pillows in all parking lot catch basins throughout the site, that all water used for washing cars on site shall be recycled by a method approved by the City Engineer, and that failure to install these systems within 90 days of approval of this use permit amendment or failure to maintain the effectiveness of these systems on an on-going basis shall cause this conditional use permit to be review by the Planning Commission; 13) that this approval shall expire in two years and all said uses on the site shall cease unless the applicant applies for a permit extension by January 20, 2007, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; and 14) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Code, 2001 edition s amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 7 Comment on the motion: would like to ask the City Attorney to reflect on the condition requiring the applicant to pay a higher fee to the city, and, if it is determined to be appropriate to require the higher fee, bring this action back to the Planning Commission for amendment. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit amendment with added conditions for immediate Bay Trail maintenance, city inspection and staff notification of BCDC's decision regarding widening the trail into the bay. The motion passed 6-0-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1552 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A LOWER FLOOR ADDITION AND SECOND FLOOR DECK (DEREK WEE, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREG AND SERENE LIM, PROPERTY OWNERS) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 13, 2004 P.C. MEETING) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Gregory Lim, property owner and Derek Wee, architect, 20 N. San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, represented the project. Applicant noted that he is a physician at Mills- Peninsula Hospital, had twins three years ago and now need to enlarge the house for his growing family, intent is to make floor plan flow better and put all bedrooms on one floor; discussed the proposed project with neighbors and they are in support of the project, adjacent neighbor to the north was out of town but now have letter of support, will provide that letter to staff. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted: ▪ Concerned with state of drawings, drawings need to be improved, half of lower level is missing on front page, location map does not clearly identify subject property; information on the plans needs to be clearer and consistent throughout; ▪ Concerned with the use of shutters on the front elevation, there are no shutters proposed on the other elevations, if shutters were to be remove the front elevation would look bland; ▪ Look at other ways to add interest to the front, could also look at shape and proportions of windows or use of obscure glass and glass block; ▪ Front entrance needs to be better identified since existing trellis at front will be removed; ▪ Do not want to see side and rear elevations neglected, architectural style and details need to be consistent throughout the house; and ▪ Applicant needs to provide letter from adjacent neighbor, include in next staff report. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: would prefer to see this project come back to regular action given the extent and nature of suggestions made, additional information needed which could affect opinion and corrections required on the plans. The maker of the motion and second agreed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 8 Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 9 8. 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIM KEIGHRAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (104 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Keighran stated that she would be abstaining from participating on this item because she is related to the applicant and stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jim Keighran, property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, represented the project. Applicant noted that he has lived in this house since 1998, now have two kids and want to have two more in the future, would like to expand his house for his growing family, would like to have all bedrooms on one floor, he is removing a portion of the garage accommodate the proposed addition. Designer noted that there is a change to the basement floor plan not shown on the plans, would like to add a direct vent fireplace and 25 SF half-bathroom in basement, designer submitted a revised basement floor plan showing these changes. Commission asked if the half-bathroom will have a pump. Designer commented that the City will require a pump and backflow water valve to be installed. Commission asked if the existing roof height is being lowered? Designer clarified that the existing roof height is not changing but that the new roof portions will be lower than the existing highest roof. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the project is designed well, the addition is articulated and there is interest in the roof design, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the changes proposed in the basement. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (C. Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:28 p.m. 9. 2101 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATTHEW MEFFORD, WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEAN AND URSULA WILLIAMS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran stated that they would be abstaining from participating on this item because they live within 500 feet of the subject property and stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Plnr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Dean Williams, property owner, and Matthew Mefford, architect, 1290 Howard Avenue #311, Burlingame, represented the project. Applicant noted that the intent is to develop the interior of the house and enlarge an existing bedroom to make it a master bedroom, also adding a family room next to the kitchen, presently the existing second story portion of the house looks unfinished, this project will complete the second floor, addition integrates into the existing architecture, using the same exterior materials throughout to match, project conforms to the zoning code. Commission asked if the new windows and eave detail will match existing; yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 10 Commission noted: ▪ Concerned with the second floor window and second floor façade facing Adeline Drive (North Elevation), may not see all of façade since it is set far back, but architect should consider other options for the window to add more interest on this elevation. C. Auran noted that the addition is integrated well with the existing house and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked by staff. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran returned to the dais. 10. 3028 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ED WEBB, FORMAT, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ANGELINA BRUNO, PROPERTY OWNER) (26 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plnr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that during his site visit he noted an adjacent house to the subject property but could not identify its address and asked staff to identify it on the aerial. Plnr. Hurin noted that staff will revise the aerial to show all surrounding addresses for the next meeting, but the applicant may be able to provide that information tonight. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Angelina Bruno, property owner, and Ed Webb, architect, 248 Gravilla Street, La Jolla, represented the project. Applicant noted that he talked to staff about how the measure the building height, using 4:12 roof pitch from the living room, addition seems tall but is integrated into the existing house, house was built in 1961, will be using hardi-plank horizontal siding and hardi-shake roofing, also will be sandblasting the existing wood siding to provide a softer feel, designed the roof so that it is integrated into the hillside; noted that the adjacent house at 3026 Hillside Drive sits above the subject house. Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, and Jim Freeman, 1514 La Mesa Lane, noted several concerns with the project, lived here for 32 years, house looks down on Mills Canyon over Mercy High School, concerned with the building elevations, will be looking uphill at west elevation, existing house is 24 feet tall, proposed second floor would add 12 feet to the height and would block his view, will be able to see the bay but will block current view of trees, would like to see story poles added to show location of rooflines and so that view blockage can be evaluated; there are a number of trees between his property and the subject property, concerned with the proposed height, plans show 24 feet to top of roof, the south elevation appears to show a 12 foot increase in height, would like to know the actual height from grade to top of roof ridge. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 11 Commission noted: ▪ Clarify height dimensions on the plans, dimensions provided on elevations do not match, plans need to clearly show the existing and proposed building height from adjacent grade; ▪ Provide side-by-side comparison of existing and proposed building elevations; ▪ Install story poles to show envelope of proposed addition; story poles need to be installed no later than the Wednesday before the meeting; notify Planning staff; ▪ Provide contact information for neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court and 1514 La Mesa Lane, would like to view story poles from these properties; ▪ Would like to see landscaping incorporated, provide landscape plan; and ▪ If the diseased tree mentioned by neighbor is on the subject property, an arborist report needs to be provided for the action meeting; C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: Commission noted that the purpose of the Hillside Area Construction Permit is to review impacts on long distant views, not short views. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 11. 1613 MCDONALD WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PATRICK AND ANNETTE DOHERTY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plnr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, and Annette Doherty, property owner, represented the project. Applicant noted that the loft over the garage will be demolished to allow the second floor to be set back, there are several single-story houses in the neighborhood, wanted to respect the mass and bulk of the neighborhood, in designing the addition took design clues from the house on the left, seeking side setback variance for a small portion at the rear of the house, does not make sense to inset that addition one foot at this location; this house has been in the family for 54 years, previously grandmother's house, parents live on Marco Polo Way and brother lives in Burlingame, not much has been done to this house in last 30 years, would like to update the house and enlarge it for growing family, house has a nice rear yard and this is an important feature for the family, discussed the project with the neighbors and they are in support. Karen Hager, 1616 Monte Corvino Way, purchased her house about one year ago, now have privacy in backyard and only look at two windows and the roofline facing her yard, concerned that her privacy will be lost with the proposed addition, three new windows and a second floor deck will look into her yard; proposed gingko trees in rear yard are very slow growing, will take years for them to provide screening, would like to see faster growing trees planted. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 12 Property owner noted that she also wants to maintain privacy for her children, can provide faster growing trees in rear yard. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted: the architect has done a nice job on the design, blends in well with the existing architecture, appreciate setting the second story back, wish everyone could hear the comments made by the owner with regard to the importance of a rear yard; generally discourages large second floor decks because of privacy concerns, but in this case it is located off the master bedroom and does not lend itself for entertaining, unfortunately cannot ensure privacy; Commission further noted: ▪ Consider using wood shingles on roof; ▪ Would like a condition added requiring windows to be true divided light; ▪ Replace proposed gingko trees at rear of yard with large scale shrubs or small scale fast-growing evergreen trees; trees should be chosen from City's tree list, look at providing more than two trees at rear, proposed trees should be shifted towards the right side of the property at the rear, show proposed trees on revised plans for the next meeting. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: suggest the applicant wait until the framing is completed during construction to determine the best location of the trees to provide the most effective screening, then plant before the construction is complete. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of January 3, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 3, 2005, noting that applications for the Planning Commission are available in the Manager's Office. The application period will close February 4, 2005. Then Council subcommittee will interview and make recommendation. - Review Planning Commission Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates. CP Monroe discussed the assignments. She acknowledged that monthly meetings were a big commitment and hoped that they would not have to go beyond June. She also noted that once involved review may be faster than expected. Finally she noted that the Sign Subcommittee would meet in January and at that first meeting, determine their future meeting dates. - FYI - 139 Victoria Road. CP Monroe noted that the issue here was a project which did not require design review but was changing its roof height by more than 6 inches. Did the Commission feel it necessary to review such projects by FYI? The Commissioners indicated that such review was not necessary when design review was not involved initially or previously. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2005 13 - Acknowledgements Chair Osterling asked if the Commission wished to have a 15 minute presentation about Planning for Sustainable development. The Commission agreed that it would be a good idea and should be scheduled at the beginning of a Commission meeting. Commission asked regarding the Safeway letter if a role for the commission had been considered or defined. CA responded that the City Manager and staff are presently discussing a process, so the next steps including commission involvement are not known. Commissioners noted that they would like to be involved early in the process. Commissioners expressed some concerns about projects which may not have been completed as submitted. These included the insets on Sephora which were to include lighting and an "S"; and the fact that a new jewelry story on Broadway was being advertised by someone waving a sign standing on the sidewalk which was distracting to traffic and difficult for pedestrians. CA noted Federal Court decisions which limit the City's ability to regulate this kind of promotion. Having said that, people do not have a right to make the sidewalks unsafe for pedestrians. Commission also discussed the use of the parking lot fence on Broadway for week-end sales. Staff noted they would pass this concern on to the code enforcement officer. Commission asked when the Council was planning on meeting with them. Staff noted that they would check with the Mayor, but thought that it might be in the early summer given the press of the budget and other Council commitments. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2005\minutes.01.10.05.doc