Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042604PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 26, 2004 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the April 26, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineers, Phil Monaghan and Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commission reviewed the minutes of the April 12, 2004 regular meeting. C. Auran noted that he had abstained from the vote on item 2d, 1080 Howard Avenue. The Planning Commission were approved the minutes for the meeting as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1249 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (LINDA FRYE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. The Planning Commission had no questions. This item was set for the consent calendar at the next available agenda. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. 2. 508 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING FOR A NEW THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DINO ROPALIDIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAIME RAPADAS, A/R DESIGN GROUP) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ▪ Is the shingle siding (half round siding) shown sheet A-3 drawn to scale; they appear proportionately large, please make sure they are drawn to scale; ▪ Concerned with variance request for not providing a delivery vehicle space on-site, there may be enough room at the front of the lot to provide one, 66% front landscaping now proposed when only 50% is required, the area at the front is flat, feel that both landscaping and a delivery vehicle space can be provided; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 2 ▪ Applicant should explain further why it is impossible to provide a delivery vehicle parking space on-site, what is the hardship; ▪ Concerned with the usability of the common open space at the rear of the lot, does not seem very useable for the residents, poor access is provided, is there a better configuration so that residents will be encouraged to use the common area; part of that would be to revise parking and back-up space at the rear and east edge of the site; ▪ Concerned with the lack of landscaping along the side setbacks; and ▪ Concerned with the lack of storage space for each unit, should look at ways to add more storage area. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 1332 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHARLES BONNICI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; THUAN DUC TRAN P.E., DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3B. 1318 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FRANK PRENDERGAST, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PIERRE AND CAROL UHARRIET, PROPERTY OWNERS) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3C. 1117 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HECTOR SALDANA, PROPERTY OWNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Keighran moved approval of items 3A, 3B and 3C on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the projects at 1332 Capuchino Avenue (3A), 1318 Benito Avenue (3B) and 1117 Sanchez Avenue (3C). The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 318 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BARRY RAFTER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GEORGE RYAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 3 Reference staff report April 26, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. George Ryan, property owner and applicant, was present to answer questions, noted that he and the architect met with the design review consultant several times and tried to address the Commission's concerns with the project, hoping their efforts will conclude with a positive action. Commission noted that the project has come a long way, design reviewer noted some finer details which he felt could improve the project even more, why weren't these suggestions incorporated into the design? Applicant noted that he had to resubmit the plans before having an opportunity to review the design reviewer's suggestions, agree with the suggestions and is willing to incorporate them into the design. Commission noted that the stairway wall and window on the front elevation should be looked at and that the second floor bedroom windows on the rear elevation should be centered. Commission asked if the bedroom #2 windows could be enlarged to match the other double-hung windows; applicant noted that they would prefer keep the windows as-is because this is a child's bedroom, would like to maintain some privacy and room to fit in a bed. Commission noted that it is evident with this project that the design review process works very well, this project originally had some very rough edges, but the design review process has significantly improved the design, owners seemed to enjoy the outcome of the process. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that this is now a much improved project and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the revisions suggested by the design reviewer in the design review analysis dated April 16, 2004. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Feel that the applicant has a valid reason for not increasing the window size in bedroom #2, would like to maintain privacy for their children and have a useable bedroom and suggested that the motion be amended to not included changing the window size in bedroom #2; maker of the motion and second agreed. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 5. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 1 AND LOT 2 ZONED R-1- (DEREK CHUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL JUNG, ABR ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER a. application for conditional use permit for re-emerging lots b. 1504 Alturas Drive, Lot 1 - application for design review, hillside area construction permit, and special permit for an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling c. 1504 Alturas Drive, Lot 2 - application for design review, hillside area construction permit and special permit for an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling Reference staff report April 26, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. 26 conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Michael Jung, architect, 4075 Papazian Way, Fremont, noted that he and the property owners worked with the design review consultant to address the Commission's concerns with the project, the design was revised and the FAR reduced; at the last meeting the neighbor expressed a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 4 concern with the Ash trees proposed on the original plans, Ash trees were eliminated and replaced with smaller scale trees at the front; the drainage issue was addressed, a grading and drainage plan was prepared by a civil engineer and will be submitted for review by the Engineering Department at time of building permit submittal. Commission expressed a concern about siting the buildings on the lots, especially on the uphill site located on the left side, house on the left side is proposed with a driveway which requires tall retaining walls on each side; information on plans does not appear to be accurate, proposing a 12% driveway slope but can have a 15% driveway slope without special approval, suggest using a 15% driveway slope so that the length and height of the retaining wall would be reduced, a 15% driveway would also lower the plate height on the first floor which is now at 11', it makes sense to lower the building and reduce the amount of fill proposed. The architect noted that the design reviewer suggested reducing the second floor plate height and increasing the first floor plate height, he also suggested that the driveway slope be reduced from 15% to 12% for better use, a 10' first floor plate height and 9' second floor plate height can be achieved with a 15% driveway slope; noted that the vertical walls will be broken up by a tiered retaining wall. Commission noted that the retaining walls will be very high, looks like the walls will fit better if a 15% driveway slope is used. Commission also pointed out that at the last meeting they requested building elevations of the adjacent residences next to the proposed dwellings, didn't see them on the plans, necessary to see in scale also on street, one of these houses would be at an oblique angle, diagram presented shows both houses fully facing the street. Architect noted that photos of the adjacent houses are shown on the photo board, but not on the plans. Denise Platt Stewart, noted that she was representing her parents who live at 1505 Alturas Drive, grew up in this neighborhood but does not live here now, asked if plans are available for the public, parents received copies of plans for the original proposal; yes, reduced plans are available at the Planning Department. Noted that she was not clear on what the proposed front setbacks are; Commission noted that the Site Plan provides proposed setbacks and that the plans are available at the Planning Department. Ms. Platt also noted that she is concerned with the dust from construction and asked how long the construction would take; CP noted that it is difficult to say exactly how long it would take to build, the Planning Commission's approval is good for one year and the applicant may apply for a one year extension, and noted that both houses are not required to be built at the same time. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commission noted for the concerned neighbor that dust control is required and is accomplished by spraying water during demolition and grading; Commission summarized the following concerns: ▪ Don't think this project is ready for approval yet; ▪ Concern about siting the buildings on the lots, especially on the uphill site located on the left side, house on the left side is proposed with a driveway which requires tall retaining walls on each side; ▪ Suggest using a 15% driveway slope so that the length and height of the retaining wall would be reduced, a 15% driveway would also lower the plate height on the first floor which is now at 11', it makes sense to lower the building and reduce the amount of fill proposed; ▪ 10'± tall retaining wall can be reduced by a couple of feet, maybe can be as low at 8' tall by changing the driveway slope; ▪ There is an error in the way the elevations are drawn, one house should be oblique; connect grade lines between houses; ▪ Elevations including the existing adjacent houses were not provided, need to show the two adjacent houses along with the proposed houses on one street elevation; ▪ Staff report and arborist's report discuss a 43-inch Oak tree and a 47-inch Redwood tree, but the plans show them to be 48-inch trees, plans should be revised so that the tree information is consistent; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 5 ▪ Tree protection provided for trees on Lot 2 only, would also like to see tree protection on Lot 1 for Oak tree, the existing deck is located very close to this tree and would like to see the tree protected during demolition; ▪ Are the tree protection requirements stringent enough, there are many trees on Lot 2; reviewed arborist's report, applicant needs to clearly understand that roots are not to be severed, protection fencing should be set in the ground and not just on feet on top of grade, the distances for the protective fencing is adequate but needs to be fixed and installation supervised; and ▪ Concerned with the landscaping for the house on Lot 2, house next door will look at a tall blank retaining wall, suggest texturing the wall and growing vines on the retaining wall to soften the impact; consider stepping the wall even more to create more bed areas for landscaping. C. Vistica made a motion to continue the item so that the requested information can be provided by the applicant and he can follow the direction given by the Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Commission noted through the design review process that there have been many improvements made on this project, commend the applicant and design reviewer for working together; asked for clarification on how increasing the driveway slope from 12% to 15% would improve the project. Commissioner noted that a 12% slope provides easier access, but that 15% is acceptable to the City without special approval, a 15% slope also would help to reduce the plate height on the first floor presently at 11', main concern is the relationship with the house on Lot 2 and the house next door, the driveway visually makes the houses looked stacked up. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion continue the item for additional information and with the direction given. The item should be scheduled for the next available meeting when the information has been submitted, reviewed by staff and determined to be complete. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. CREEK SIDE LOT REGULATIONS - PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS (354 NOTICED AND IN NEWSPAPER) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report April 26, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe noted that the Planning Commission had held a public hearing on this proposed ordinance for new regulations on creek side lots on March 8, 2004, and at that time recommended the ordinance forward to the City Council for action. The City Council has the proposed ordinance on their agenda for Introduction on April 5, 2004, before any discussion they expressed concern that there had been no comment from the public at the hearing before the Planning Commission. The Council directed staff to return the ordinance to the Commission for additional public hearing after all affected property owners had been noticed directly. Using the Public Works Department’s list of creek side properties Planning staff mailed notice to 354 property owners and published a second notice of tonight’s public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation, the San Mateo County Times, as required by law. CP Monroe noted that staff had received calls of inquiry about the proposed creek side regulations from about 10% of those receiving notice. In the great majority of these cases, given the location of their segment of the creek, the property owner’s situation as explained to staff would not be materially affected by the new regulations. Commissioners asked staff: Clarify how the tree canopy would affect the allowed height of a proposed house on a creek side lot, can a protected tree be trimmed to allow an increase in height? Staff noted that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 6 the concept was to provide protection for the crowns of mature, protected sized trees as well as their root systems, this would be done by requiring design around the canopy instead of removing so much of it for the new house that it would effectively kill the tree; trimming up to a third of the canopy as is now allowed under the Urban Reforestation Ordinance and would continue to be allowed. Commissioner noted that it would be important to review how much of the crown was to be removed in these circumstances. CA noted that the proposed height of the structure and its impact on the trees would have to be verified by an arborist’s report and would need to be determined on a site by site basis. Would these regulations allow the buildable area to bridge the creek; what if the existing development already bridged the creek? Staff noted that one of the intentions of these regulations was to discourage cantilevering structures or building across existing creek beds because the sense of the creek environment is lost; however if a structure already spans the creek, it may remain and be maintained and even, in a number of circumstances, replaced under the provisions of the nonconforming structure regulations. There were no more questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. The following members of the public spoke: Kim and Carmel Clark; 2019 Devereux Drive, Denise Balestrieri, 1544 Bernal/1550 Bernal; Charles Bona, 1551 Bernal Avenue; Kevin Hicks, 1020 Balboa Avenue; Diana Hicks, 1020 Balboa Avenue; William Loftus, 1552 Columbus; Robert Cody, 1240 Drake Avenue; Mary Vienot, 1425 Bellevue; Kari Lopez, 1017 Drake; Mark Silva, 1132 Oxford Road. All were opposed to some parts of the proposed regulations for creek side lots. The issues identified were as follows: ▪ How do you measure the 6’ setback from the 100 year flood flow limit, vertically then horizontally? ▪ If ones use is limited to the portion of the lot which is contiguous above the 100 year flood flow limit and has street frontage on my lot, the buildable area on lot is reduced by one third to one half, would reduce my property value. ▪ Variances are very hard to get in Burlingame, so these restrictions are very severe. ▪ Hard to establish the 100 year flood flow limit so don’t know how this would affect my future plans for my lot. How would 100 year flood flow limit be calculated if creek is in concrete channel on property. ▪ Understand not want people to extend structures over the creek; but does this mean I could not extend a roof over the creek even if it only covered a patio. ▪ Penalizes creek side lots in terms of lot coverage and floor area ratio, creates a separate set of “citizens”. ▪ Do not feel should be obliged to have to get a conditional use permit just because have a creek on my lot. ▪ Do not have a problem with the 6’ setback from the 100 year flood flow limit. ▪ Why is the commission proposing new requirements? This issue needs more public comment. ▪ Creek runs next to my house now, if there was a 6 foot setback I would have to beg for something I have now as a matter of right; this ordinance would require existing creek side lots to get a lot of variances in the future. ▪ Notice should indicate that these regulations would affect the buildable floor area ratio on creek side lots. ▪ Dead or sick trees should be allowed to be removed. ▪ How would these proposed regulations affect creek side lots zoned multiple family; should be concerned about underground parking next to creeks. ▪ How will these regulations affect existing development on creek side lots. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: audience should note that the effects of these regulations may not be a sever as on their property as they think, live on a creek side lot and reviewed in that light, also Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 7 does not make the final decision on these regulations, only recommend to City Council so you will have a second opportunity to influence. Planning Commission subcommittee considered many of these concerns over many months and developed appropriate changes to address; feel compelled to defend staff on noticing issue, did notice as required and frequently; having said that wider involvement on this issue is appropriate, don’t know how to accomplish Subcommittee will have to discuss; not aware until tonight the level of concern about these regulations; Commission’s experience has been mainly with new construction on creek side lots on vacant area, understand people’s concerns about limiting remodeling opportunities on their property, in the case of existing development it is hard to determine how the regulations would work on all lots; the definition of creek will mean that it is different on each lot and depends on the volume of water through each lot. CA Anderson commented that Commission could refer the ordinance back to the Subcommittee, following their review Commission could hold a study session, sounds as if the 6 foot setback is not an issue, might develop templates for different lots to show how it would work “typically”. C. Osterling thanked the interested residents for coming and made a motion to return the creek side regulations to the Planning Commission Subcommittee for further discussion and revision. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: the regulations need work, the City Council was correct for asking for broader notice; commission needs to address the issue of big new houses on creek side lots that cantilever over the creek, however thought house on Bernal where a deck connected the garage on one side of the creek to the house on the other worked very well; concerned about relating the development to the contiguous area outside of the creek, particularly since the creeks are privately owned in Burlingame; property owners of creek lots pay taxes on the entire lot area, are required to maintain the creek which is privately owned as well as to comply with regulations by the Army Corps of Engineer and Department of Fish and Game, some lots presently developed would not be allowed to be developed with these regulations because construction has to bridge the creek in order to have sufficient area to build on. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the creek side regulations back to the Planning Commission Subcommittee for further consideration. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. Chair Bojués called for a five minute break at 9:05 p.m.. The commission reconvened at 9:10 p.m.. All Commissioners were present on the dais except C. Brownrigg. 7. EMERGING LEGAL LOT REGULATIONS - PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS (39 NOTICED AND IN NEWSPAPER) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report April 26, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe noted that at the Planning Commission meeting on March 8, 2004, a public hearing was held on these proposed regulations for development on emerging legal lots. At that time the Commission had recommended the regulations to the City Council for action. On April 5, 2004, rather than introduce these changes to the code, the City Council sent the ordinance back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing after the affected property owners had been directly noticed. Thirty-one property owners of lots on which current development has submerged original property lines were noticed. These current ownerships include combinations of two lots, three lots and adjacent lot-and-a-half configurations. The hearing was also noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, the San Mateo County Times, as required by law. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the key points of the regulations being considered tonight, noting that they are the same as the Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 8 considered at the public hearing on March 8, 2004. Commissioners asked if staff had received any calls on the proposed emerging legal lot regulations. CP Monroe noted that she had not and did not believe that any other staff member had either. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Robert Cody, 1240 Drake Avenue, Philip Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue spoke. The issues they identified regarding the proposed new regulations were: ▪ House is on two lots and did not receive a notice of this ordinance, came for creek side, neighbor who has two lots did not get notice either (staff said they would investigate); ▪ Regulations discriminate against people who own emerging lots, they get 30% lot coverage, where people with regular legal lots get 40%, doesn’t matter that goes to 40% in 10 years, its an added burden and reduces property values now; ▪ Staff analysis is flawed when show current lot coverage, should use lot coverage for new construction only as the basis for reducing lot coverage. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussion: Why were two lots on Drake not noticed; and how was this ordinance previously noticed? CP Monroe noted that sometimes the tax bill goes to Trust, direct notice list was based on information gathered when prepared first ordinance on emerging lots, the particular analysis included all emerging lots so should be accurate; not clear on circumstances of the two particular mentioned lots but will investigate. The public hearing on this ordinance tonight and previously was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law. Cannot support this ordinance although I did before, feel that the issue on development on these emerged legal lots is mass and bulk and application of the design guidelines is adequate to address this issue, when prepared did not look at all situations, some people affected a lot, regulations restrict people’s rights; need to rethink, the design guidelines are the place to examine the issue of mass and bulk on emerging legal lots. Concerned about the appearance of discretion using the guidelines and resulting lack of predictability for the developer, he doesn’t know what to expect, its OK to tinker with the FAR at least it tells what the limitation is , now saying not like that either; would like to hear from property owners-do they want Planning Commission discretion or numerical limitations; only problem with this ordinance is it creates two different standards for lot coverage, except for that, all for these regulations, it is the right direction and excellent solution. No win here; these modifications came from 100’s of hours of testimony from adjacent owners who felt that the value of their lots was affected by the cumulative impact on their blocks and neighborhoods of 2 and 3 lot emerging situations, should send this one on to City Council and see what happens; believe that there is a cumulative effect, it will change Burlingame if it is not controlled, design review is one way to do it without 30% lot coverage; FAR addressed well can put below grade, am strong for the two car garage with the basement, this is not a taking, it is softening the cumulative effect. Lots of mixed messages here, negative effect of houses next to each other, design review and FAR work together, reducing the FAR is not the solution would just take square footage out of the rear where it would not affect mass and bulk, goal is how the houses fit the design guidelines, need to tighten the design guidelines, basements OK alternative if they are an option not a requirement, every one should be treated fairly but how it affects the community is important, this does not do it. Commission discussion continued: Can support because these regulations strike the right balance of fairness and accomplishing the objectives we try to get by way of the design guidelines; don’t know what it means to “tighten up” the design guidelines, think that is inconsistent; read the proposed ordinance and the annotations and see a balance, the ordinance allows what is lost in FAR above grade in an optional basement, and it has a 10 year sunset on the lot coverage reduction; reemerged lots are developed by developers not homeowners, they are a division of a larger lot; these regulations strike a good, fair and reasonable balance with a mechanism to meet the concerns of the neighbors and gives tools to the Planning City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 9 Commission to work with. Don’t know the answer, the areas to work on in the design guidelines are addition of incentives to gain design elements; remove opportunity for 10 years then add it back, why 10 years. CP Monroe noted that 10 years was picked by the Subcommittee because it would give the neighborhood a chance to catch up in terms of other new and remodel construction and the occupant’s family time to mature and see if more space was required or needed in the house on the emerged lot. Regulations and design review guidelines work together. Design review has limits, FAR is a part of design. Feel this effort is a step in the right direction give all Commission has heard on this subject; did not evaluate all situations, some lots below the grade of others or one side of the street would be treated differently than the other for example three existing lots become available for development on one side of the street and one lot emerges into three on the other side. Chair Bojués made a motion to recommend the regulations for emerging legal lots without amendment to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: At joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting expressed concern about a lot of new homes looking the same in response to the current design guidelines, need to increase diversity, now have FAR to address mass and bulk, not need more. Like the idea of looking at the design review guidelines in conjunction with cumulative effect, it is important, need to look at the whole picture not just FAR to address mass and bulk. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend the regulations for emerging legal lots without change to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Crs. Auran, Keighran dissenting; C. Brownrigg absent) roll call vote. This item will go forward to the City Council for further action. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, SINGLE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that two letters were submitted by Greg and Deborah Cosko, 6 Hillview Court and Catherine Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive, requesting story poles be installed to show the proposed building envelope. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Denise Balestrieri and Sonia Sohn, property owners, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions, noted that they met with two neighbors at the site, they are in support of the project; reviewed the letter from the neighbor at 6 Hillview Court and is aware of his concern with height, proposed building is not that tall, existing house is approximately 19 feet from adjacent grade, will erect story poles to show the proposed height and envelope; the view of the bay is to the northeast, Mr. Cosko has a view towards the west, will not impact his view; error in staff report, existing house has an attached two-car garage, not a one-car garage as indicated in staff report. Plr. Hurin noted that type of protected view is not defined in the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance, only indicates that review shall be based on obstruction from construction on long distant views especially from habitable areas. Commission asked what is the current ridge height; designer noted that the existing ridge height City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 10 varies slightly but is four feet lower than the proposed ridge height at its highest point. Commission pointed out that the staff report indicates the proposed height to be 26'-10" above average top of curb. Greg Cosko, 6 Hillview Court, noted that he has a fabulous view of the airport and towards the hillside in the northwest direction, he loves the view and wants to preserve it, living room faces the subject property, do not see rooftops now, concerned about the new extension out towards the rear of the lot where their current view corridor is now, concerned about how the new increased ridge height and chimneys will affect his view, chimneys are a real issue since the shape may get quite large and block more view, it appears that the new ridge height may be five feet higher than the existing ridge height, would like to see story poles installed so that the view impacts can by analyzed, will provide before and after story pole pictures at the next meeting; concerned about the proposed landscaping, do now want to see fast growing tall trees planted, the existing pine tree now blocks view of existing rooftops. Commission asked if the Mr. Cosko would be available to allow Commissioner's to view the story poles from his house after they are installed; Mr. Cosko noted that he would be more than willing to make arrangements for the house to be available to Commissioners so that they can see the impacts. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commission noted that they couldn't ensure preservation of a view from trees, but asked if the two neighbors could come to an agreement about the type of trees to be planted; CA noted they could work together and come to an agreement, but also that the Commission can address the issue through review of the proposed landscape plan. Commission noted that the overall design is nice, designer has done a good job with the architecture, visited the site and also viewed from Hillview Court and Burlingview Drive, understand the neighbors concerns, story poles need to be installed to evaluate the view impact from the proposed new house. Commission noted that the plant species chosen for the proposed landscaping is generally small to medium scale, achieves privacy without blocking views. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the story poles have been installed and surveyed by a licensed surveyor, story poles need to include the location of the chimneys. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the story poles have been installed and surveyed by a licensed surveyor. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 9. 1148 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BRIAN AND GINA FORNESI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Brian and Gina Fornesi, property owners, were present to answer questions, noted that they like Burlingame and want to build a nice house in this neighborhood, want to add value to the neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the designer has done a very nice job with the design, the house is well-articulated and will work nicely on the block; wondered if the stone veneer proposed at the front could be extended to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 11 the sides of the house, it is not a make or break decision but the property owners may want to consider it, feel that the architecture can be enhanced with the stone material along the sides of the house. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next available meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 10. 836 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT ALFARO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that the proposed basement measures approximately 800 SF and asked if 700 SF is exempt from the floor area ratio calculation; yes, the remaining 100 SF is counted in the FAR calculation. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Robert Alfaro, property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, were present to answer questions. Commission noted that there is no hardship on the property to grant a variance for FAR, the proposed FAR is 4,335 SF, can easily take 75 SF out of the house and eliminate the variance; applicant needs to provide rationale for the oversized accessory structure. Designer noted that the attic spaces adjacent to the second floor was created in an effort to reduce the mass and bulk of the house by incorporating the second floor bedroom within sloped roofs, could use a 4:12 pitch roof and eliminate the attic space but it would ruin the design, calculating the attic space in the manner done forces a bad design, designed the roof support system so that the interior walls cannot be moved to create more habitable space as has occurred in the past with other projects. Commission noted that there are other ways to reduce the floor area so that it does not exceed the maximum allowed. The designer noted that he doesn't see the need to install story poles, proposed project is 4'-5" under the height limit, has a lot less second floor massing proposed than other houses; do not think the project should be delayed because the next door neighbor wants to do a survey of his lot, a survey was completed for the project house already. Commission expressed a concern about how the basement would affect the on-site drainage; designer noted that with any new house, all drainage is required to be taken away from the property and out to the curb and into a storm drain; a drainage system will be designed for this house and basement as required by the engineering and building departments at the time they apply for building permits. Commission asked if the drainage system for the basement is shown on the plans; no, details of the drainage system will be provided with the building permit submittal. Commission asked the property owner why the accessory structure needs to be larger than 600 SF; owner noted that he would like to have extra storage space for a barbeque, lawn mower and other equipment, found that without the extra storage space it becomes difficult to park to vehicles in the garage, some of the garage ends up getting used for storage, still will have a nice large backyard. Designer commented that the accessory structure is not one big 650 SF box, it is articulated and designed to match the house. Commission clarified that the proposed floor area for the house is 4,335 SF plus 700 SF in the basement, which is exempt from floor area; yes. Designer pointed out that the proposed detached garage and storage area is included in the 4,335 SF. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 12 Tony Malone, 832 Newhall Road, noted that he has no concerns with the proposed project, the property owner built a house next door and it is beautiful, he is not disputing the applicant's survey, but the surveyor had indicated to him that this block of Newhall Road is difficult to survey, there appears to be several house on the block built on property line; concerned with the proposed height and would like to see story poles erected, have a 125 foot tall redwood tree on one side and the proposed project on the other side, do not want to be boxed in; concerned with the proposed basement and how it will affect the drainage, his own sump pump runs constantly during the rainy season even when drizzling, the basements may be designed much better now than 70 years ago, do not want to see drainage onto his property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commission noted that the overall design of the project is good and provided the following additional comments and direction: • This is a big house with a basement and large accessory structure, see no hardship related to the property for the floor area ratio variance, can lower roof or eliminate square footage from the house, FAR variance needs to be eliminated; • Have mixed feelings about the FAR, this project is being penalized for the actions of another developer, grew up in a house with five foot ceilings, have difficultly calling this space "functional"; • Would like to see a tree protection plan for the liquid amber trees at the front of this lot; • Concerned with damaging tree roots to accommodate underground utility lines, where will the underground utilities be located; need to be designed to stay away from tree roots; • See no problem with the height, existing house is 20' and the proposed two-story house is 25'-7" tall, don't see the need to install story poles; • See no problem with the proposed basement, the drainages systems today are much better than in the past; • The neighbor's concern with the property lines on the block should be resolved between the neighbors, have a survey from a licensed surveyor for the subject property; and • Conditional use permit for accessory structure size is appropriate because the lot is large and can handle it, the structure is well-articulated and fits in with the design of the house. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the information requested has been provided and revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when information has been provided and plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 19, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of April 19, 2004. She noted that the Council upheld the Planning Commission’s denial of the amendment to the project at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue. The applicant may still build the house originally approved by the Planning Commission. Council also set two appeal hearings for May 3, 2004, 2711 Martinez and 1537 Drake Avenue, both appealed by neighbors. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 13 Finally on April 20, 2004, the Burlingame and Hillsborough City Councils created the Central County Fire Department which will serve Burlingame and Hillsborough. - Rotation of Officers The Rules of the Planning Commission state that the officers shall rotate at the first Commission meeting in May. Because both C. Brownrigg and C. Keele were appointed at the same time both are eligible to be Secretary this year. When this occurs the choice is resolved by chance. In the absence of C. Brownrigg, C. Keele drew to determine who would hold the office of Secretary for the coming year. C. Brownrigg was selected. At the May 10 meeting of the Commission: C. Osterling will be Chair, C. Auran will be Vice- Chair and C. Brownrigg will be Secretary. The commission will break at the end of the meeting to mark the passing of the gavel with cake. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary Minutes.04.26.04