Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080805PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 8, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the August 8, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, and Osterling Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg and Vistica Staff Present: Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 25, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive, noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting, Steve D'Ambrosio was directed to report back to the City Attorney with the results of the meeting which was held with Mills Peninsula Health Services regarding the conditions of approval for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project. The meeting was held on August 3, 2005, would like to put in the record that the meeting did not accomplish what we had hoped, the meeting focused on Condition No. 118, related to the mitigation monitoring panel, and did not resolve the issues with Condition No. 119, the mitigation fund. The purpose of the mitigation monitoring panel is to act as an oversight committee to the 146 conditions of approval, it was not a remedy to Condition No. 119, tried to get answers regarding mitigations for specific properties but did not, am now hoping that the item regarding the mitigation fund could be put back on the Commission's agenda. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 210, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY) (FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE, APPLICANT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi noted that he is employed by the master lessor of the subject tenant space; he recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had no comments on the project. This item was set for the consent calendar with no changes to the plans requested. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 2 2. 1400 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (CONNIE MORRIS, BROADWAY GRILL, INC., APPLICANT; ERIC HOLM, CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; NICK KOROS, TSTN PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he lives within 500' of the subject property, recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Commissioner Keighran noted that she has accepted campaign contributions from the property owner and owner of the architectural firm associated with this application, recused herself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted the following: ▪ Hardships for the parking variance include that the existing building was originally built to the lot line and there is no additional space on the lot to add more parking spaces; Council action to add more food establishments was based on an economic need in the Broadway Commercial Area; ▪ Add condition that the parking variance is tied to this use and building size; and ▪ Asked the applicant to consider using a paint scheme in keeping with the age of the building and its style when the exterior of the building is painted. This item was set for the consent calendar with no changes to the plans requested. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. 3. 1320 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RICHARD TERRONES, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Commissioner Keighran noted that she has accepted campaign contributions from the owner of the architectural firm associated with this application, recused herself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that there are hardships for the setback variances in this case because the house was originally built with nonconforming front and side setbacks and the addition follows this pattern. Commissioners asked: ▪ Clarify if the existing ceiling joists will be removed to accommodate the second story addition, may not want to remove them; and ▪ Verify that the window size in the second floor master bedroom complies with emergency egress requirements. 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 7:25 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 3 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. 4B. 1548 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WILLIAM AND SANDRA LINDSELL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran noted that he had received a speaker card requesting that Item 4A, 1145 Cortez Avenue, be called off the consent calendar. This item was moved to the regular action calendar. C. Keighran moved approval of the balance 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. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4A. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES ON-SITE FOR A LOWER FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant, recused himself from the item and left the dais. Reference staff report August 8, 2005, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners commented on a letter submitted by a neighbor and noted that the neighbor is concerned that with the removal of the existing garage, there will be a gap in the fence between the two properties, would like the applicant to address this issue in his comments. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Kris Hurley, 164 Pepper, representing the neighbor at 1149 Cortez, noted that the neighbor has concerns that the existing garage acts as a fence, when it is removed, there won't be a fence to keep a dog in the yard; also the height as proposed is above the 30' limit, would like to see it reduced. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that a special permit allows heights up to 36 feet for architectural consistency and this design fits the special permit criteria, it is a traditional style that blend in, there is only one section of the roof in the middle that exceeds the 30 foot height; the existing first floor is 3'-6" above grade, height is necessary to accommodate the second floor; a condition of approval should be added that a fence be built where the existing garage is to be removed; would like to see landscape plan clarified, it is cryptic and incomplete, would like to see the landscape plan come back as an information item. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, 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 June 29, 2005, sheets 1-7 and G-1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 4 windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5. 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; 6) 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; 7) that a fence shall be installed along the side property line where the existing garage is to be removed; 8) that the landscape plan shall be refined to show more detail and shall be brought to the Planning Commission as an information item prior to issuance of a building permit; 9) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 13, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 16, 2005, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2005, memo shall be met; 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; 11) 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; and 12) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining and Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m. 5. 1517 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL, SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (MICHAEL GINN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; HOLDREN-LIETZKE DESIGN, DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report August 8, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mike Ginn, property owner and applicant was available to answer questions. Commissioners noted that the house looks good overall, have no problem with the placement of the garage given the unusual shape of the lot, but want to point out that a portion of the side wall of the garage is shown right on the property line, want to make it clear that the eave cannot project over the property line. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the variances and conditional uses for the garage could be supported based on the unusual shape of the lot, the applicant has done a good job working with the constraints of the lot. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 23, 2005, sheets A0.1 thru A3.3; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 5 amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 18, 2005 memo, the City Engineer’s January 20, 2005 memo and the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator’s January 24, 2005 memos and shall be met; 8) 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; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) 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. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:42 p.m. 6. 1556 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JONATHAN SUE, SUE ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHEUNG TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report August 8, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Jonathon Sue, Sue Associates, project architect, was available for questions. Commissioners noted that the neighbors had expressed concern with the roofing material and asked the applicant to describe what materials are proposed. The applicant noted that the intent is to use metal shingles coated with a rough material to look like terra cotta, and presented a cut sheet describing the material to the Commission. He noted that the metal shingles would match the color of the existing wood shingles on the house. Commissioners asked if the existing antenna on the roof would remain with the proposed addition, and the applicant noted that it is in use and would remain. Commissioners noted that they had visited the neighbors across the street and next door observing the views from inside their homes, there is no problem with the gable end from the house across the street, but the view would be obstructed from the house next door. Commissioners asked if the applicant would consider lowering this portion of the roof to a 3/12 pitch. The applicant noted that the 6/12 pitch on the gable end portion could be eliminated and a 3/12 pitch roof incorporated to match the other roof pitches. A representative of Richard and Diana Wang, property owner at 1549 Alturas, read a letter from Richard City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 6 Wang into the record, noting that there are concerns with privacy with the proposed addition. The applicant noted that the two properties are both adjacent to an easement, there was a fence which separated the two properties along the easement, the neighbor removed the fence, if it were put back up there would not be an issue with privacy, the French doors shown on the plans would be blocked by the proposed deck. Commissioners noted that the design guidelines note that due to the smaller lot sizes in Burlingame, privacy cannot be guaranteed, fences and curtains can be used as appropriate. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the plans show a 6/12 pitch on the gable roof at the living room, if the gable is eliminated and a 3/12 pitch roof is incorporated, the neighbor will not be impacted, would suggest this change be made; regarding the neighbor on Alturas, cannot see a reason to make the changes requested. C. Deal moved to approve the application, 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 July 27, 2005, sheets A0.1 through P1.0 and topographic and boundary survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; and that there should be no skylights installed in the roof without an amendment to this permit; 2) that the gable roof at the living room shall be eliminated and a 3/12 pitch roof incorporated at this location; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 8, 2005 memo, the Recycling Specialist's April 6, 2005 memo, the City Engineer’s and Fire Marshal's April 8, 2005 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator’s April 11, 2005 memo, and shall be met; 9) 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; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) 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. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 7 7. 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A PARK AND FLY PROGRAM AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (GARY BRUTON, PACIFIC VALLEY INVESTORS, INC., APPLICANT; BURLINGAME HOTEL VENTURE LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) (7 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report August 8, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked about the parking survey, the staff report notes that the parking for the hotel and restaurant is shared, but the parking study shows separate parking counts for the restaurant, how was this decided. Staff clarified that although the parking is shared, there is an area that is primarily used by restaurant customers, and that area was separated out in the parking counts. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Wayne Levenfeld, 14103 Sobey Meadows Court, Saratoga, applicant, noted that they have owned the hotel since 1998, gone through good and bad times, many hotel guests do not have cars, they arrive by shuttle, a portion of the rooms are used by airline crews who do not have cars, also work with tour operators and travel companies, these guests also do not arrive with cars, so there is usually excess parking. The parking arrangement with Max's restaurant works well, at the restaurant peak hours of noon and 7:00 p.m., the hotel guests are generally not there; clarified that the maximum number of employees on site for both business is 24, but not all of them come by car, some use public transportation. Commissioners asked the applicant how the park and fly parking spaces would be designated. The applicant noted that painted markings would be used on the park and fly spaces. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that this application is a minor request, don't foresee an impact given that many of the guests at the hotel are airline employees or tour groups, this type of program is important to the hotels and needs to be done to help them out. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the park and fly program shall be allowed to operate at this hotel with a maximum of 15 vehicles, the vehicles shall only be parked in the hotel parking lot, and shall be located only in the designated park and fly spaces as described in the application materials submitted to the Planning Department and as shown on the plans date stamped June 29, 2005; no vehicles associated with the park and fly program shall be parked on any part of the adjacent public or private parking lots or on the street; 2) that the hotel operation shall provide along with the quarterly transient occupancy tax report to the Burlingame Finance Department, the number of rooms rented with the park and fly package and the number of days each car was parked on the hotel site; only one car shall be parked on the site for each hotel room rented as a part of a park and fly promotion/package; 3) that any increase of the maximum 15 vehicles parked on site at one time because of the park and fly program shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that the park and fly program shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in three years (March, 2008); if at that time the applicant would like to continue to offer the park & fly program from this hotel, an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required, if an extension is not required the park and fly program shall cease. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 8 8. 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – DETERMINATION REGARDING STATUS OF OFF-PREMISE ADVERTISING - PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Chair Auran noted that he would have to recuse himself from this item because he manages this property, and he left the chambers. Reference staff report August 8, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed the request for determination and history of the site. Commissioners noted that earlier use of the display window was as a public bulletin board and not advertising, regardless of when the display window was built, the original use was not for off-site advertising. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Ashook Patel, 1400 Burlingame Avenue, business owner, noted that he and his wife are the lessee/owner of the Burlingame Smoke Shop premises, the request for determination comes in response to the notice of violation sent on July 8, 2005 regarding a code violation regarding off-site advertising, noted he is unfamiliar with the ordinance, understood it was adopted in 1977, was not aware of the previous ordinance regarding signs adopted in 1956; noted that he entered into a ten- year lease with Peter Umland in February 2001, that lease agreement allowed reasonable rental and all rights to the bulletin board, it was his understanding that Mr. Umland had advertising in the bulletin board since 1976, it is clear in the lease that have right to use the bulletin board, if it is in violation, should have been cited before; consider this to be haphazard enforcement, will cause me financial distress, may not be able to continue operation of business. Commissioners asked the applicant when the business was purchased and you started using the bulletin board, what was in it. The applicant noted that there was an advertisement for Michael Horowitz, real estate agent. Commissioners noted that the lease states the right to use the bulletin board, but also states that cannot use for things contrary to zoning regulations. Scott Morris and Francis Morris, 1608 Ralston Avenue, noted that they had resided here for 20 years, the Smoke Shop is part of the charm of Burlingame, would hate to see it close because of a lack of income; remember seeing advertising here years and years before Mr. Patel took over, it is a struggle to keep small businesses alive, lucky that this site is not devoured by a corporate store, owner is an asset to the community, pleasant to customers, part of the ethnic diversity of the community. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: Regarding the complaint of discrimination, staff has provided a list of violations, have only reacted when someone brings a complaint, don't see anything in lease that talks about grandfathering, it is in fact a continuation of an illegal use, a private contract between two parties does not have bearing on City concerns regarding the code violation, but it is clear from the contract that the applicant has to comply with all laws; there is a sign ordinance for a reason, if allowed would see these everywhere in the downtown areas, it clearly states that it is not supposed to be advertising for other businesses; the bulletin board can be used for posters for community events, and for something sold in the store; when you look at the definition, it clearly states that there cannot be advertising for other than the occupant, although it appears has been going on for some time, have to look at the face of it, it is clear the ordinance is not being followed. C. Keighran moved to uphold the City Planner's determination regarding the status of the off-premise advertising. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the City Planner's determination. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Auran recused; Crs. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:53 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 9 CA Anderson noted that the applicant sells a wide variety of goods that can be advertised in this space, such as the Wall Street Journal, and could meet with the Planning Department to discuss opportunities. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CATHERINE ANDERSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT & EVA HUNG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Catherine Anderson, designer, 650 Loma Verde Avenue, Palo Alto, was available to answer questions. Commissioners noted that the proposed design is charming and heading in the right direction, like the half-timbered look; special permits for building height and declining height envelope are acceptable because this is a sloping lot and it allows the design to be enhanced. Commissioners made the following comments: ▪ Half-timber on sides of house is too much, building looks a bit overdone, reduce the amount of half- timber boards along the sides of the house; ▪ Have trouble following the plans, floor plans, building elevations and roof plan do not agree with each other, building elevations do not portray what is shown on the floor plans, elements seem to be missing on the plans, it appears that what is drawn cannot be built; go through all of the plans so that they coordinate with each other; ▪ Clarify plate heights (finished floor to top of plate) on first and second floors, provide dimensions on building elevations; and ▪ There appears to be errors and omissions on the landscape plan, please carefully review landscape plan and clarify; automatic irrigation should be incorporated. Commission noted that this project is headed in the right direction, but feel this project is a good candidate for a design review consultant to help with the inconsistencies and specifics of the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction and comment provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 10 10. 1213 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JAN BALDWIN, PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description, noting that a letter, dated August 2, 2005, was submitted by neighbors on the 1200 block of Cabrillo Avenue after preparation of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo and Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin, property owners, were available to answer questions, noted that an application for a tree removal permit to remove the existing 36-inch redwood tree has been submitted to the Parks Department. Commission asked that a protection plan be incorporated to protect the existing rhododendron along the left side property line; Commission also asked the designer to consider flipping the house and relocating the driveway to the left side of the property now that the existing 36-inch redwood tree will be removed, this would provide a better separation between the subject house and existing house to the south, would create a better balance and eliminate two driveways next do each other. Designer and property owner noted that they would prefer not to relocate the driveway, doing so would eliminate the rhododendron and would place bedroom windows adjacent to the left side neighbor, want to maintain privacy for neighbor. Spencer Lum, 1209 Balboa Avenue, noted that he is concerned with loss of privacy, second floor windows in stairway, laundry room and master bathroom will look into his house, would like to see evergreen screening planted along the left side property line to provide privacy. Commissioners made the following comments: ▪ Proposed chimneys at right and rear elevations are too massive, not consistent with the design of the house, chimney massing needs to be reduced and toned down, consider using a veneer to make them more subdued; ▪ Set back the second floor at the front of the house rather than projecting out as proposed to soften the front; ▪ Tree removal permit to remove the existing 36-inch redwood tree at the rear of the property needs to be issued prior to Planning Commission action; ▪ Redwood tree to be removed needs to be replaced with another tree, suggest planting a 24-inch box noble fir because it won't get too tall under the power lines; landscape plan needs to be revised; ▪ Consider replacing the proposed strawberry tree at the front of the house with a larger evergreen species; and ▪ Add evergreen screening along the left side property line to provide privacy screening at the stairway and laundry room. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: driveway as proposed along the right side property line is acceptable, house on the left side has a varied setback more than the minimum requirement of 4'-0" and the existing rhododendron would be preserved; see no issues with the windows as proposed along the left side of the house, window in the laundry room is small, bathroom windows will be treated to be obscure, stairway windows are high and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 11 therefore one cannot see through them into the neighbors house, do not want to see a blank wall, unfortunately cannot ensure privacy, encourage neighbor to use window treatments to maintain privacy. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made, plan checked and the tree removal permit process has been completed. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran 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 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of August 1, 2005. SP Brooks reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of August 1, 2005. CA Anderson outlined information received from hospital representatives and Steve D'Ambrosio, neighbor regarding the August 3rd meeting on the Peninsula Hospital Replacement project and noted that the applicant will be meeting with residents including regarding concerns with the mitigation fund proposed. Commissioners asked that the neighbors and applicant bring back a report to the September 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting under public comment. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\Minutes Template.doc