Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042505PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 25, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the April 25, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi and Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 11, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item No. 4, 1329 De Soto Avenue was continued to the Commission's May 9, 2005 meeting due to a lack of a quorum. V. FROM THE FLOOR Russell Miller, 1435 Bellevue, Board President, Redwood Crest Condominiums, and Eileen Landis, 1457 Bellevue, had comments regarding the proposed condominium project at 1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue, noting that have very little concerns with the project, think it will fit in nicely with the neighborhood, but have a concern regarding the telephone poles in front of their building, they are leaning, realize that this is not a Planning issue, don't know the process, but would like to go on the record to request undergrounding of the power lines, would be more attractive. Have lived in building to the right of the projectfor nine years, the new condominium building will block light in our unit until 11:00 a.m., will also block our view of trees, it will be dark, our electricity bills will be higher, would like to see our concerns addressed. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1441 & 1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPE VARIANCE, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY 16- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O LITKE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. She noted that Commissioner Keighran submitted comments on the project and read them into the record. Commissioners asked: • Will the applicant need to replace the sewer line? • Provide an explanation regarding how the traffic volumes will decrease with this project compared to the existing. • Some of the units are extremely large, explain why they need to be that large. Specifically concerned with Units 9, 13, 15 and 16. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 2 • Would like to see the applicant offer to provide two affordable units and not have to request the special permit for height because it would be offered as an incentive; the community would be served by providing more affordable units. • Concern with four-story building, would like to see three-story building. • Need to discuss garbage collection with BFI, because the trash enclosure is located underground in the parking garage, how will it be accessed. • Balconies on the southwest elevation appear overbearing and look like they are tacked on, especially the ones on the top floor; concern that the iron work and grills are very busy, can the railings be simplified and still maintain the architectural design. • Show the locations of the P/V valves and backflow prevention devices, these are often tacked on during the building plan check process and can detract from the building design. • Overhang on mansard roof is a little deep and heavy for this style. • Window patterns are monotonous, should use different sizes for different rooms to add exterior interest. • Could the design be reversed so that the driveway is on the right instead of the left, this would result in a greater setback on the right side where the adjacent building is closer, and might help address the shadow issues raised by the owner at 1457 Bellevue Avenue. • Concerned with the usefulness of the open space at the rear, like to see a toilet facility and sink there so people can make use of the open space. • Open space at the rear of the building has a symmetrical garden design with an axis, this needs to be respected in how the open space relates to the access to it from the building. • Design at the front of the building could be improved if the building were smaller, and the landscape variance could go away; can the curb cuts be reduced and can the driveway width be reduced, should also look at ways to bulk up the landscaping. • Provide clarification on front landscaping, it seems small scale for the size of the building, should include larger scale trees to soften the mass. • The exit stair from the garage at the front of the building at the northwest corner should be moved to the side of the building, the front is a bad spot both for security reasons and for the appearance of the building; placing the stairway from the garage on the side would also help with the amount of front landscaping. • Drawings for shadow study did not show morning shadow, please provide. • What is the groundcover to be used at the southwest corner near trees J and E, need to make sure the groundcover is compatible with the trees. • Both buildings on either side of the project have tall trees along the sides, would like to see how they are shaded by the new building, will they be impacted by being in the shade? • There is a Redwood tree shown to remain, but its canopy is shown to project 15 feet over the building footprint, need to address how that will be accommodated, will the tree be lopsided, will it survive. • Plans note that this will be a true slate roof, this should be maintained in the final plans. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. Chair Osterling noted that the item will be noticed when it is placed on the action calendar and neighbors will have an opportunity to comment at that time. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 2. 888 HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO ADD A HEALTH SERVICE (CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE) TO AN EXISTING ATHLETIC CLUB (PAUL BOLOGNA, APPLICANT; DANIEL CAPRINI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 3 SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. She read C. Keighran's comments on the project into the record. Commissioners asked: • How many people used the pro shop? • What percentage of the on-site parking is usually occupied? • Three treatment tables are proposed without partitions separating them from one another or the reception area, ask the applicant to explain how this will work for more than one customer or privacy? • What is the average length of stay for a client, will there be more than one client at a time, six a day seems low. • What would it take to remove 50 SF from the proposed use, it would reduce the parking variance from two spaces to one space. • Applicant should look at responses in variance application, needs to provide justification for granting variance, need to describe hardship with the property to justify. • How would service be affected if one treatment table were removed from the proposal? • Even though parking variance is small, we have recently studied parking ratios for uses in this area and this is not consistent for the base use, there have been other variance requests in this area so these compound and there is still a concern, the applicant should provide a record of the existing parking conditions on site at different times of day and days of the week. Chair Osterling noted that this item will be brought back on the Commission's action calendar when all the requested information is provided by the applicant. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 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. 3B. 828 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAN AND MOIRA LUCIER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (101 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Osterling noted that he had two requests to speak on the project at 1524 Vancouver Avenue, so would take that item off the consent calendar and put it as the first regular action item. He then asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any other item off the consent calendar. There were no additional requests. C. Deal noted that he would need to recuse himself from the action on the project at 828 Laurel because of a business association. C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent ). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3A. 1524 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 4 C. Brownrigg recused himself from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report April 25, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. She noted that the applicant was requesting to rotate the roof pitch on the garage 90 degrees so that the pitch would be from side to side; this change is reflected in the conditions of approval. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Gary Partee, owner and builder and James Chu designer, 39 West 43 Street, San Mateo, represented the project. Patricia and Steven Anderson, 1521 Vancouver; George Anders, 1515 Vancouver; Jim Shypertt, 1540 Vancouver; Mark Cosenza, 1532 Vancouver; Beatrice Burke, 2020 Adeline spoke. The applicant noted that he has been working with the neighbors since the April 11 meeting, delivered plans to the adjacent neighbors on April 6th and 7th, spoke to two, Bauer at 1528, liked it but preferred a Spanish style house; owner at 1525 Bernal okay, new house across street already. After April 11meeting knew had problem with 1521 Vancouver, met with her, are happy to plant larger street trees to screen from across street and to plant larger trees in lawn in front of house; agree to paint the house a mocha tan color with off white or toned down trim, not white like colonial down the street. Designer noted that the image that the neighbors have been circulating does not represent the true mass and bulk of this project, does not feel this project would benefit from referral to a design review consultant, there were no problems with the design elements at design review study. Commissioners asked: would you agree to larger street trees and larger trees in the front lawn as a condition of approval? Yes. What is the plate height of the proposed structure? Nine feet on the first floor and eight feet on the second floor, the height from existing grade is 25 feet and even with up slope on lot structure is within the 30 foot height requirement. What is wrong with the graphic by the neighbors? It is not to scale, so distorts mass and bulk. Several people in the neighborhood like the Spanish style house you built on Balboa-why do the Colonial could use that same design, structural work all done, just put on this lot; like the different style, newest house on block is colonial, three existing single story Spanish in row want to do something different, house on Balboa would be much taller especially with the increase in 5 feet from average top of curb, would need a special permit for height. Neighbor comment: told by developer originally to look at house on Balboa, which is Spanish style, told me pitched roof, aware of character of area wanted to stay in character, noted that feelings of neighborhood were tender regarding colonial style, feel existing is too close to the street and too tall, but it was built before she came to the street; it is the Keighran's dream house they will live there forever, this is a spec house, will not live here; looked at house on Balboa, it is beautiful, not think project was a Colonial until saw the plans; like Colonial houses but need a wider street and a greater setback than can get on Vancouver; design may be within regulations but not within design guidelines, misses the spirit of keeping the houses feeling small. Submitted a letter signed by 27 neighbors in opposition, not consistent with the interpretation of the city's residential design guidelines; three concerns, not attempt to meet with neighborhood during the formative time of the design, not heard the reason for the special permit for declining height envelope; consistent with residential design guidelines (page 7) which show sample houses that standout as inconsistent with neighborhoods noting increase in mass and markedly different architectural style; this project should be referred to a design reviewer. Like suggestion that Colonial be replaced with house on Balboa, neighborhood is mostly bungalows, need to keep street view open, Colonial best on flat lot with a big lawn, hard to absorb with 5 foot slope at front of lot up to a 25 foot tall building; like to see a two story house, Tudor would also work. Not feel two identical houses a problem on Balboa and Vancouver. Not opposed to change, good looking house, this is a smaller house on a smaller lot, big Spanish houses on Drake look like Taco Bell, signed the letter with the sketch which was not correct, the eave is lower than the existing City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 5 colonial on the block, any two story house will look down on the property across the street, trees will not make a difference; house is 14 feet narrower than the width of the lot; it is within the envelope only one corner exceed the declining height envelope. Live on corner, like different styles, could be a Mediterranean or Tudor, not many craftsman style, why not one of them? Applicant responded: Commissioners asked could you do an accurate rendering of the proposed project over the existing house? This house is 25 feet tall plus the 5 foot rise at the front, not think height a problem talked to neighbors on left where declining height exception was, no problem at that time, rendering was not required as a part of submittal. What is the height of the peak roof over the living room? Thirteen feet. Would you consider using the other house (Balboa) design? Can't decide without putting the elevation on this lot, don't know what other permits would need; not willing to do at this point because have to go back to the beginning. Do you know the total height of the Balboa house on this site? No. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: the sketch done by the neighbors is a disservice to the applicant, the existing structure is 13 feet, the project to the gutter is 4'6" taller, setback 4' more to the porch and 4' more to the house, it has a human scale front door; do not have a problem with the declining height special permit and no problem with this house, used to have ordinances whose regulations made it impossible to build Colonial and Tudor designs, changed declining height to a special permit to make it easier to develop these styles, voted for a house this height before and will do again, this is approvable, nice Colonial would be nice for the neighbors to paint it the proposed color scheme. C. Deal moved to approve by resolution the design review and special permit for declining height envelope, even if disagreed with style would not send to a design reviewer, designer is capable, add conditions to place bigger trees in the planter strip and two big trees in the front yard and the condition that the garage roof be rotated so that the pitch is from side to side rather than front to back, and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 13, 2005, sheets A.1 through A.6, L1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that prior to the removal of or planting of any trees within the City right of way, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Parks Department and that the applicant shall install two 24-inch box tall, large-crowned trees selected from the city's street tree list in the planter strip at the front of the house and shall install and maintain two24-inch box tall, large-crowned trees selected from the city's street tree list in the front yard of the house, positioned to screen the view of the mass of the house from the properties across the street, the City Arborist shall approve the tree selections and locations and determine the appropriate timing for planting, however the trees shall be installed prior to issuing an occupancy permit for this house; 3) that the roof of the garage shall be revised so that it is pitched from left side to right side rather than front to back in order to comply with the zoning code requirement for height of an accessory structure; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 6 as possible; 7) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 9) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 10) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 11) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 13) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s March 8, 2005 memo, the Recycling Specialist's March 9, 2005 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 14, 2005 memo, the City Engineer’s March 15, 2005 memo The NPDES Coordinators March 16, 2005 memo and the City Arborist’s March 23, 2005 memo shall be met; 14) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 16) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: sympathize with the neighbors, but the sketch is misleading, the house is well designed, it is not an "auto scale", that is a house with a two car garage at the sidewalk; façade is nicely broken up with windows, it is human scale and articulated, its under 30 feet tall including the 5 foot rise on the site; whether it is better to add one more Spanish style to the three Spanish style already there is subjective, in favor of this proposal, think the neighbors will be pleased when it is done. Think the impact will be small the current house is 13 feet tall this will be 16 feet at the gutter, the mass of the roof is pushed back 15 feet from the existing, so there will not be a lot of mass on the street. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review and special permit for declining height envelope. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, Cers. Cauchi, Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. C. Brownrigg returned to the dais and took his seat. 4. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER This item was continued to the meeting of May 9, 2005, at the request of the Planning Commission. The neighbors will be renoticed for the public hearing on May 9, 2005. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 7 5. 934 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DIRECT EXIT FROM A BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ALINE BIER, PROPERTY OWNER) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report April 25, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked can one add a condition that prohibits any expansion of development on a property. CA responded no, owner can always come to the commission and ask. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Aline Bier, property owner, and Jack Matthews, architect, represented the project, and Rudolph Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive spoke regarding the project. Noted bought this property 35 years ago, at that time had 4 fruit trees, planted an orchard to create a wall of vegetation at the front of the lot, large variety of trees, young parents stop to show their children the ducks and chickens. Commissioner asked why building a new house? There was a leaking sewer pipe under the house, had a 3 year struggle with the city to get it lined, when dug hole through closet to get to sewer pipe found human waste ponding under the house, house needed a new foundation; have not lived there for 16 months, since rental available next door, not safe to live over an open sewer. Rental has steep stairs, it is hard on my dog, want to go home. Commissioner asked would you tell us about the trees? Some trees are rare, participated in a program with Filoli, those who helped prune their rare trees were allowed to graft cuttings on to our trees in order to provide insurance for Filoli, should all their rare plants die they would have stock elsewhere that they can call on. Some of the grafts are now eight years old. Architect noted would not be here if a catastrophe had not occurred, house was built over sewer line installed in 1907, conclusion was best to replace house, unusual that structure is not creating new exceptions, want to replace house that is there, except for addition of second floor; there is a significant setback created by the easements along the right and rear sides of the lot, neighbors have reviewed the plans, signed a letter in support; asked if other houses built similarly to property line, there are four, one to the rear, the precedent is there; the property is a resource to Filoli and to the neighborhood. Would like to request a change to condition 2, think if the house burns down owner should not have to come back to the Commission , feel unreasonable, agree that if demolished or want to add on to should have to return to the Commission. Also condition 4, not allowing the living room and study to be separated by a door, such separation would create a third bedroom, there is sufficient parking on site for a three bedroom house, why limit? Known applicant for two years, am in favor of project. House is in terrible shape, she does not live there but uses the garage; enjoy the time and effort she has put into the orchard, she's an expert on plants and shares her expertise with others, she has lived there 35 years and knows and respects the neighborhood. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the proposed project as revised from study by resolution, noting that the economic externalities of this project were positive, saw 5 small children enjoying the trees and ducks on site inspection; there is a hardship on the property its trapezoidal shape, the location of the public easements, the siting of the existing house at the rear of the lot is off set by the hardships, typically such proposals take away from this city but this one adds to it, the city is protected by condition 2 which requires review if this structure or use is expanded on the lot, feel that in the event of destruction by catastrophe replacement should be reviewed in the event that other conditions on the site are affected, the motion includes the following amended conditions to include voiding the variance if additional structures are added to the site: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 8 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 18, 2005, sheets A-1.1 through A-3.3, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building or exit from the basement area shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the side and rear setback variances and special permit for direct exit from a basement shall only apply to this structure and shall become void if the structure is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement, or if any additional structures are built; 3) that the 260 SF basement shall only be used for storage, shall not be expanded in any way, and shall not contain any windows and shall never be used for living or sleeping purposes; 4) that the opening between the living room and study room shall remain at least 50% open, without a door, and shall not converted to a bedroom; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 15, 2005, memo, the Chief Building Official's February 16, 2005 memo, the NPDES Coordinator's February 17, 2005, memo, the Recycling Specialist's February 28, 2005, memo, and the City Arborist' March 2, 2005, memo shall be met; 6) that the recommended measures to minimize construction impacts on the existing trees, as listed in the arborist report prepared by Tree Shapers, LLD, dated February 10, 2005, shall be followed during construction; that a tree protection plan shall be submitted to the City Arborist by the property owner and shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; failure to protect the trees during demolition and construction shall result in stopping construction until proper protection measures, approved by the City Arborist, have been installed; if necessary the property owner shall pay a licensed arborist to regularly inspect the site during the construction to insure that the tree protection measures are adhered to; 7) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8) that demolition for removal of the existing dwelling shall not occur until a building permit has been issued; 9) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 10) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: Agree would add for the record, this project has a lot of variances but there is ample precedent, do not want a future developer of this property to look at it and add another bedroom or increase the use of the house or to add a second dwelling, it is built to the existing footprint which was a nonconforming condition, should not be allowed to expand or add another unit as allowed with the zoning using these variances; there is enough parking on site for three bedrooms now; preserving potentially rare species of trees is a reason to vote for variances to keep construction at rear of lot. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the variances and with the conditions as included in the staff report expanding condition No. 2 to include additional structures. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 6. 1615 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – DETERMINATION ON PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON A PROJECT AT 1615 WILLOW AVENUE - PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report April 25, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that the determination requested by neighbors Dr. and Mrs. Thomson who live at 732 Newhall Road was to contest that the garage being built at 1615 Willow Road did not conform to the Planning Commission's City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 9 approval. Commission was directed to determine if the Chief Building Official issued a building permit for the project at 1615 Willow Avenue which was not in conformance with the Planning Commission's decision and if the Planning Commission's decision was based on fraudulent information provided by the applicant which the City had no reasonable means of discovering the actual situation. CP noted that C. Keighran was unable to attend the meeting, but had visited the site and submitted written comments noting: why did the Thomson's not bring this item up when it was on consent. Plans were posted and show the garage with a pitched roof. Plans came back again on September 2002 and October 2002 and Thomson's still did not bring up any issues. Current structure is smaller than original structure. Original structure was 53 feet long and current structure is 24 feet long. Wanted to know if applicant would be willing to plant some landscaping on site at 1615 Willow. Feel applicant built garage according to approved plans and according to the Planning Commission's decision. Commissioners asked staff: could staff clarify if storm water is required to be carried to the street, there appears to be no gutter at the rear of the garage? CP noted storm water should be carried to the street, and will have this situation checked as a part of final inspection. Talked earlier on another project about rotating axis of garage, would that help in this case? CP noted no, because would leave a taller wall on the side property line which would not be code compliant. CA noted the order of presentation, to begin with the Thomson's who bear the burden of proof in this case, followed by the Phillips' who may respond. CA noted that the owner at 1615 Willow has a vested right to continue construction because he has a building permit issued by the city. The questions before the Planning Commission are: did the Chief Building Official rightfully issue the building permit and did the applicant misrepresent something with intent, something that the Planning Commission relied on and that the City had no way to find out if it was right. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing and asked Dr. and Mrs. Thomson to speak. Linda Mallette, attorney, representing Dr. Thomson and Mrs. Thomson spoke. This an issue that something went wrong with what the Thomson's heard at the meeting on August 10, 2001; they asked specifically about one view, the agent of the Phillips knew enough to respond, minutes show that that the Planning Commission relied on the agent's comments. Dr. Thomson: Four years ago came to the Planning Commission regarding 1615 Willow, only one area from my house where there is anything to see, put the kitchen window there in our remodel so over look the back yards of four neighbors on Willow. Wanted to be assured that that view would be maintained, that a flat roof on the garage was OK and if not the new garage would be far enough back or forward so we would keep the view. Jerry Winges assured that our view would be maintained and if anything be enhanced. New garage is 6 feet taller than the flat roof that was there, when saw framing called developer, sorry that he did not stop construction then; asked for a temporary injunction, it was denied because the before and after pictures were different. Dr. Thomson submitted to the Planning Commission various pictures of the old and new garage taken from his house. Commented on letters from 1615 Willow attorney and Jerry Winges, architect, noting that he did not think that they ever had a view from the kitchen window because of the fence and pitched roof. The fence is 7 feet tall and the previous peaked roof of the guest cottage was placed to leave about 1l or 12 feet to see through. Sorry that Mr. Winges said he guaranteed a view when he did not know where it was. Mr. Phillips knows where the window was, he knew what we were asking, the view has been obliterated, they did not stop construction and discuss, asked them 3 times March 23, March 30 and April 15, they chose to put the tiles on the roof, now it will cost more to change. We were specific, the only view was the garden window. His house is nonconforming, has a 2 foot side setback and a 2 foot rear setback, except for the patio area, there is not anyplace else; all 24 feet of the garage are in front of the window, we spend most of our time in the kitchen. We did not appear on September 10, 2001, because Mr. Winges answered our question to our satisfaction that our view would not be impeded, in fact would be dramatically improved. We were concerned about one window at our 20 foot patio. There were no further comments from Dr. Thomson. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 10 Chair Osterling asked Mr. Phillips if he would like to make a presentation. George Corey, attorney, 700 El Camino Real, and Jerry Winges, architect, 1290 Howard Avenue, represented Mr. Phillips. A determination hearing is unique; if the building plans conform to what the Commission approved can't rule no; if find fraud the city may rule differently, if can't find fraud your hands are tied, can't take away a vested interest without one or other finding. Know the plans conform to what approved, Chief Building Official checks. There was no fraud from the first meeting, the plan for the garage has not changed, have built exactly the same plan, the commission was not deceived in anyway. Reason to proceed: Thomson's and Phillips' will be neighbors for a long time; Mr. Winges will come before the Commission again. Dr. Thomson and his wife never mentioned the view from the kitchen window before the night of the first meeting, applicant had no opportunity to review ahead or respond. The Thomson lot is unique: it is very small, the kitchen window is in a hole; the structure was reduced from 53 feet to 24 feet along the Thomson's rear property line, new garage covers less than half the rear property line, increases the view, if they pointed to only one window and there was a way to protect, would have a vested right. Commission must rule only on this determination. Would like to find another way out. Architect noted: have been architect for the Phillips' since 2000; 3 ½ years ago met Dr. Thomson once for about 5 minutes, regret the whole situation, misunderstood, but nothing which has happened would have changed decision made, story poles would not have helped. Regarding view, did not know where kitchen window was, not paying attention to the window since the house has three stores which look into the Phillips' property with little view from the first floor; garage and guesthouse were 53 feet long, reduced to 24 feet, did not say flat roof, did not maintain that a particular view would improve, but that view from all windows on the bottom floor would improve; referred to the aerial noted that roof on the new garage is no higher than peaked roof on back portion, guest house, just moved forward, never heard from Dr. Thomson about that roof. View from the 3-story house at 732 Newhall, old flat roof 10.5 to 11 feet tall, see over to back yard of Phillips' with two trees which have been removed for remodel at 1615 Willow, houses beyond down the block did not mean "view" in August 2001. Have suggested that Phillips' plant additional trees in their backyard behind the garage tall enough to be seen over the garage, trim bushes and see new view to right, greater depth of view because Phillips' house is farther back. Commissioner asked: in the August 27, 2001 transcript, what did "no higher" mean? Winges noted it referred to the entire structure and no higher than the existing peak of that structure. Have you been inside the Thomson house? No; they filed a law suit and was told not to talk to them. Have the plans for the garage changed? They are on file, they were posted on the back wall of the chambers at the Planning Commission August 2001, meeting, there was no change to the garage throughout the review process. There were no further comments from the representatives of 1615 Willow Road. Chair Osterling asked Dr. Thomson if he would like to respond. Ms. Mallette, Dr. Thomson's attorney, commented they seem to dispute the loss of view, the loss is authentic, found in the picture of the old garage and the new taken from same vantage point. Since beginning have changed their characterization of the original structure, no longer two, but one. It is two can see that the roof lines overlap. Would note that fraud can be negligent fraud, did not see the window, not see the view, represented positively that view was dramatically improved. Relied on what was represented did not look more closely at the location of the garage e.g. 40 feet of the Thomson's lot was not affected. Look at record closely to see if it was a careless representation by Mr. Winges which affected the Planning Commission's action. Mr. Corey challenged that the Thomson's never told anyone that the view was important, spoke up when challenged; look at the new pictures, see two structures of different heights by a couple of feet, it is substantial; tremendous impact. Damages to Thomson's, they willfully proceeded when they knew it was disputed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 11 Commissioners asked: Two transcripts differ in record, exhibit 4 indicates said "existing garage and guest house structure" on August 27, 2001? Ms. Mallette, now sees as one structure when it was always 2. There were no further comments by Ms. Mallette and the Thomson's. Chair Osterling asked Mr. Phillips if he would like to respond. George Corey, attorney, responded. No one misunderstood that there was a unit at the back of the 53 foot long structure, the part with the peaked roof. Ms. Mallette says commission was defrauded by unintentional statement by Mr. Winges, if he had known more he would have acted differently. You cannot have been defrauded, the City issued permits for construction, you put the city at risk which you do not want to do. If there is a remedy to this surely the court will find it. Commissioner asked can a remedy be found? CA noted that such a remedy was between the applicant and the neighbor, the Planning Commission should not find a remedy. There were no further comments from Dr. Thomson or his representatives. The public hearing was closed. Commission Comment: It is clear that the plans have been out from day one, page 12 of the transcript focuses the issue; see room for interpretation on both parts what the city did, those plans were the same all the way through, what was approved was what was built. Agree, conforms to the Planning Commission approval. CA Anderson noted two questions before the Commission: conforms to the Planning Commission approval and was there some misrepresentation which was relied on, which there was no way to verify based on what the Commission knew or could determine. Commission Comment continued: view was lost by Thomson, went through the process, was reviewed and approved, no fraudulent representation of the project, may be some error in presentation; agree believe should "fix the problem not the blame", have lost a tangible asset but agree that the city acted appropriately on the application, recommend settle without recourse to the court and significantly reduce the height of the garage, the rest of the house does not have views, should respond to the neighbors at the rear. Agree plans were there to look at during process, lots of applications have requests made from the floor, it does not mean that they will all be incorporated into the conditions of approval, plans were there for all to see, no fraud, no guarantee of view in the zoning, have right to build the garage, have a view from the second floor. C. Deal moved to uphold the actions of the Chief Building Official in issuing the building permit and the City Planner's decision. Seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: It is not fair to expect the average citizen to know how to read plans and to dispute, however agree with the consensus on the two issues before the commission. There was no wrong doing, will uphold the decisions of the City Planner and the Chief Building Official, too bad would not speak more with the neighbor when the framing was being done, am disappointed. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the actions of the Chief Building Official that the building permit was consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission's decision was not based on fraudulent information which could not be confirmed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 7. ZONING CODE REVISIONS: AUTO ROW, SUBAREA D; BUILDING REGULATIONS SUBAREA A; LICENSING REQUIREMENTS; LOCATION OF CHURCHES PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 12 Reference staff report April 25.2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. C. Keighran was unable to be at the meeting but noted in written responses that she had reviewed the suggested revisions to the zoning and would prefer not to allow car rental uses in Subarea D. Commissioners asked if it was necessary to have the rental operation in a separate building so long as it was on a dealership site and was open only the same hours as the dealership. Staff noted that had suggested placing car rental uses on dealership sites, to respond to commission concern that there not be a lot of free standing car rental businesses in Auto Row. The text should be changed to require that the car rental operation be open "within" the hours of the dealership, so it would not be required to be open more hours than necessary. Will there be a chance that these rental operations will pick up rentals from the hotels. Staff noted that a number of the hotels have rental desks, also the larger rental operations which have moved onto the airport site, remain legal in Burlingame only so long as they keep a rental desk open, they are closer to the hotels and pick up this business. If rentals are not given from desks in dealerships, can the public rent cars as well? Intended to support auto service business, public could rent if complied with hours. See as indirect support to auto service business at dealerships but do not want to see auto row transformed into auto repair row in the future, storage of 120 cars for car rental indicates support for auto repair not for auto sales.; also a physically large area for auto storage. Concerned about regulating demolition permits in Subarea D and B. CP noted that these changes to the regulations for the downtown area should be considered to be interim since it was possible that a Specific Area plan would be prepared for the entire area in the next several years. The last step in such a planning effort would be to review all the zoning and modify it to comply with the plan, these provisions would also be reviewed in that new context. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kent Putnam, 65 Mission Trail , Woodside, noted he had requested the consolidated auto rental business to serve all the auto dealerships on Burlingame's auto row. He noted now that on site desks are not always staffed when needed, customers have to be transported to another site to pick up cars, not timely or efficient service. Has no problem with a separate building on a dealership site, since that is what he has and intends to use. Commissioner asked if walking down the street a half block would serve the customers equally? Yes better because the cars would be there. Would car rental serve Putnam dealerships only? No would be available to all dealerships, would be manned full time, and have cars available. Discussed the on site storage requirement, because of the daily volume and repeated use of the same cars felt that 120 cars for on site storage was too much. CA suggested that there could be a minimum based on a percentage of the monthly rentals and a maximum, for example 50. Where would the cars be washed? Staff noted that washing, repair, etc. were issues to be addressed in the conditional use permit, it is proposed that car rental operations, if more than a desk at a dealership, be a conditional use permit. Commissioners continued: Since Kent Putnam is here would like to ask what are the chances that auto row might moved to Adrian Road as proposed in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road specific plan? Kent Putnam noted it is always a business decision, if the economics work they would move. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission suggested the following changes/revisions to the proposed zoning changes: • That the on site storage requirement for car rental inventory be changed to 10% of the average monthly rentals and a maximum of 50 cars; • That there shall be no on-street parking allowed for car rental uses, including employees and customers; • That the hours of operation of the car rental operation on a dealership site shall be "within" the hours of operation of the dealership on the site. • That there be no limit on the maximum number of cars rented from a car rental site in Subarea D. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 13 C. Osterling made a motion to recommend the proposed zoning changes to the City Council for action with the changes to the text proposed. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Discussion on the motion: do we want to add a limitation on demolition in Subarea D, there are a few nice buildings there and it would be too bad to have them removed to be replaced with car sales lots; CA noted that there is a right to a demolition permit so to limit requires a strong planning policy such as preserving the retail frontage and the semi-historic character stated in the plans for Subarea A, Subarea D is more difficult since there is no development policy to promote pedestrian activity; Subarea B is more like A but is still diverse in the sense of pedestrian access, Chapin Avenue for example; probably best to sit tight until a downtown plan is prepared. Discussed amendments to Auto Row language; and amended motion to include proposed changes noted above. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the zoning changes for Auto Row, Subarea D, building regulations in Subarea A, licensing requirements for Fortunetelling, and location of churches to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). This item will be set on the Council agenda. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 483 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KIM AND TOM HAMILTON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; KURT FEHLBERG, ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Kurt Fehlberg, 5149 Willow View Court, Pleasanton, project architect, and Tom Hamilton, property owner, were available for questions. Commissioners made the following comments: • Need a different approach to limit the size of the roof as seen from the front. Some options suggested: o Could provide a break in the roof plan with a change in pitch somewhere, might be better construction with less dead attic space. o Might consider breaking up that surface by putting dormers in the attic space. o Roof could be broken up in front by making it higher with a wall band added for interest and not include dormers. • Combination of long sloping roof in front with the addition loaded in the back is not indicative of the neighborhood. • It is difficult to add a second story to this type of house, hard to place a small addition with one bedroom over a roof with a 4/12 pitch, there have already been a couple of bad additions done on this house in the past, concerned with the integration of the second floor into the existing roof, would like to see a stab at another alternative, this is out of character with the neighborhood. • For the chimney, understand the need to extend, but don't know if the building code will allow that type of chimney to be extended so high, think it needs a different type of chimney cap. • Need to see consistency with the muntin bars on the windows, on plans, some are shown with and some without, correct plans to be consistent throughout. • Vinyl windows are called out in the plans, generally the Commission's desire is to see wood windows with more beef and weight, then can use stucco mold. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 14 • Rear elevation needs more interest. • The left elevation is a stark wall in a single plan, could use articulation. • Would not be a big issue if there was a special permit for an encroachment into the declining height envelope if it is needed to enhance the design and add variety to the wall. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. 9. 1535 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GILBERT FITZGERALD AND CAROL MURPHY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jack Matthews, architect, 335-A Fourth Street, San Mateo, noted that this is an addition to a house with a 4/12 pitched roof, which offers some design challenges, the addition was designed to enhance the look of the house from the street and to create a useable back yard, this is a steeply sloping lot, which is why the structure as measured from the curb is over the height limit, there is one tree proposed to be removed and one fruit tree will be relocated. Commissioners noted that the architect had done a good job with the design and asked about the accessory structure, there is a playroom, a bathroom and a closet, what is its intended use? The applicant noted that this will be a multi-purpose space, the lot slopes steeply, the owner desires to have a covered level space to use, do not intend to use as a second unit. A condition should be added that the space not be converted to a second unit and no cooking facilities added. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: • The chimney is shown to be ten feet from the face of the building, however the building code requires that it be ten feet from any portion of the structure including the roof, so it may be too close, please verify. • If the entire ceiling joist is not removed for the new second story, the building may end up being taller than actually shown because it will take more than twelve inches of space between floors, address. • There is another existing accessory structure on the site, will it be removed, show on plans. • Concerned that the new second floor will impinge on view from a landscaped deck in the yard at 1527 Alturas Drive and with the view from the neighbor's house at 1531 Alturas Drive. Request that full story poles be installed for the main structure and surveyed so that the impact on views is made clear, • Provide a letter from the owners to the right to verify that this neighbor is okay with the design because the accessory structure will be closer to and larger than what is existing there now. • Like to see at least single pole to note maximum height of accessory structure so neighbors understand the height of the structure. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 15 • On the front elevation, there is a wrought iron railing proposed on the front porch, it seems to be a little light in weight, might want to consider something heavier, it seems like too fine of a detail for such a large house. • Steps to the front door are being redone, might want to consider pulling the living room forward in order to capture the views. • Add condition that the tall trees be trimmed and maintained at the lower level to open up new views for neighbors in exchange for ones affected by the project. • The view ordinance places a priority on protecting on views from interior spaces, does not address as clearly views from decks or outdoor recreation areas. • Neighbors should give contact information to the Planning Department to pass on to the Commissioners so that they can view the story poles from the neighbor's property. Ronald Ehlers, 1527 Alturas Drive, commented on the proposed addition. He noted that he is concerned with the view that will be blocked, there was an addition done several years ago on a neighboring house which blocks some of the view from that direction and presented photos of the view from his the basketball court; concerned with overall impact in the area as second stories are added, eventually the view will be completely blocked. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the story poles are installed and all of the comments have been addressed and the plans checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the story poles have been placed as directed and the information submitted and reviewed by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m. 10. 1624 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS KUJAT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; THORNTON WEILER, ARCHITECT) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description, and noted that a letter dated April 25, 2005 was submitted from the owner of 1625 Balboa Avenue, directly behind this property which addressed issues with drainage, visual impact and privacy. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Chris Kujat, property owner, was available for questions and noted that the addition is proposed because he has 3 daughters and needs more bedrooms, projects have been proposed on this site before, previous application was denied, and did not like the one that was approved, so he is now proposing this design. Commissioners made the following comments: • Will the solar panels now on the front of the house be removed or be relocated? • A lot of the houses in the neighborhood have second stories above the garage, this is the only one like this, should consider matching design to others in neighborhood. • There are inconsistencies in the plans, a dormer is shown on one elevation, but not shown on others, need to correct plans. • Knee braces are only shown on one façade and are paired with short, stubby overhangs, it doesn't come off well, need to come up with consistent style and character that is followed throughout the entire house; mass and location of addition are okay, but the house needs to be consistent in its style throughout. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 16 • Concern with the front roof pattern, proposing gable, gable and hip, might be better with hip, hip and gable. • Drawings should be corrected to show that the existing aluminum windows will be replaced and that all windows will have a consistent style and be made of wood. • Need to include a landscape plan with attention given to the back yard, a retaining wall could address some of neighbor's drainage issues, and landscaping would soften the impact of the second story. • Massing in the center of the house could be a nice departure from an addition over the garage, it is integrated well. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:30 p.m. 11. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WARREN DONALD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Warren Donald, property owner, and Jack Chu, Designer, were available to answer questions. Commissioners had the following comments: • Existing roof is imitation slate, the new roofing material should match the existing, need to correct the plans to reflect that the roof material will be imitation slate, not asphalt shingle. • Are there going to be gutters on the roof edge, if so, need to show them on the plans. • Need consistency throughout the drawings and more attention to detail, revise plans. • The existing mansard roof is difficult to work with, when approach the house from below it looks awfully big, this is one of the few houses that cannot be seen from other properties or the street. • Concern with vinyl windows, need to upgrade to real wood windows, will add character and quality. • Access to front door is up a path to the door which is on the far side of the wall, might help the design to emphasize the location of the door, could add a more prominent path. • The dormers in the mansard roof would look better if they were rounded at the top rather than gable, would have a more European look. • Need landscape plan to show approach to front entry, and use landscaping for emphasis. Paul Lynch, 2845 Canyon Road, property adjacent to site, this is a huge lot, can't see the house from the street or my property, the design is decent, but want to raise a concern about the future subdivision of this lot. Agree with the plans for this project, but would like to ask that a condition be added that the property not be subdivided in the future. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners asked if it was possible to add a condition to prohibit future subdivision. CA Anderson noted that you can't prevent someone from applying for a subdivision, but in the findings for this project, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 17 Commission can indicate the issues which would be faced, such as lack of street access, the slope of the lot, the existing easements on the property and the location of the creek, all of which would make it difficult if not impossible to subdivide the lot in the future. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions and corrections to the plans have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 18, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of April 18, 2005. Commission also discusssed briefly the rotation of officers which will occur at the May 9, 2005 meeting and the change in seating. - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1. CP Monroe noted that the applicant notified staff that they were going to remove the fireplace in the living room altogether,which would benefit the garage because the fire box would be removed from the parking area. They wish to retain the fireplace in the family room but convert it to gas, so no chimney structure will be required. Commission acknowledged these changes and the changes to the window sizes for required egress from bedrooms. However, Commission noted that in the future egress windows should be noted and properly sized on all plans and plans should not be accepted until they are so noted. The egress requirement is well known to architects, designers and contractors, and such requirements should be included and reviewed as a part of the original design review. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.04.25.05.doc