Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051004PCmin CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 10, 2004 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the May 10, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineers, Phil Monaghan and Doug Bell III. ROTATION OF OFFICERS Chair Bojués thanked the Commission and staff for their support over the last year and passed the gavel to C. Osterling who will serve as the Chair for the coming year. C. Osterling introduced the other officers for the year C. Auran as vice-chair and C. Brownrigg as secretary. IV. MINUTES The minutes of the April 26, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended: page 2 add to the second bullet at the top of the page "part of that would be to revise paring and back-up space at the rear and east edge of the site"; page 4 add to fifth bullet at bottom "connect grade lines between houses”; page 7 paragraph 3 add to end, "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 of 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"; page 8, regarding emerging lots add to commission discussion "did not evaluate all situations, some lots below the grade of others or one side of the street would be treated differently than lots on the other side for example three existing lots become independently available for development on one side of the street and one lot emerges into three on the other side". A motion was made to approve the minutes as amended by C. Vistica. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. C. Brownrigg noted that he would abstain since he did not attend the last commission meeting. The motion passed on a 6-0-1-1 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, C. Keele absent) voice vote. The action on the minutes of the April 24, 2004, Joint City Council/Planning Commission was continued so that C. Brownrigg could make some amendments. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 2 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. VI. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VII. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JOHN F. BRITTON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RONALD A. PERNER, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Provide reason why former garage can’t be used; • Converting the existing garage to storage won’t make the variance go away, may not be viable, but should explore; and • Can you divide garage door into two and add a column in between 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 7:20 p.m. 2. 415 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-1/R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD A COLUMBARIUM TO AN EXISTING CHURCH (ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Is it a common use to have a columbarium in a church, do other churches have these; • Will more units be added at a later date, is this just the first phase; • Will this use generate a lot of visitors; • What will the visiting hours be; • Are there other requirements for a burial site, public health, city, etc.; and • Why is there not additional parking required. 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. VIII. 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. 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) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 3 PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3B. 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 3C. 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, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner did not wish to pull item 3c. 1148 Oxford Road off the agenda but wanted to add a condition of approval to require that all windows shown on the plans be true divided light windows. There were no requests from the floor to remove any times. C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution, with the added condition to item 3c. 1148 Oxford, requiring that the windows shown and installed be true divided light windows. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BURAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 10, 2004, with attachments. C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she resides within 500 feet of the subject property. She left the Council Chambers. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, was available to answer questions. He suggested discussing this project in three parts 1) house above grade; 2) basement; 3) two car garage, since it becomes confusing to discuss the entire project together. This was a challenging project, wanted to please the neighbors, but also design a buildable house. The house is only one and a half stories, bungalow style, which is a historical style that is found throughout Burlingame. Design is neighborhood friendly, there is an additional 1 foot setback on the side, 5 feet instead of 4 feet, dormer on the side that faces the neighbor only has small windows and they are for a stairwell and a closet. Because the design is one and half stories it does have unusable attic spaces over 5 feet in height that are counted toward the total floor area ratio. The Commission mentioned a 5 to 10 percent reduction in the total floor area at one of the past meetings, however it never got in as a bullet point in the minutes. The Commission also talked about taking some of the square footage off of the top and putting it in the basement, however the code prohibits locating bedrooms in the basement. Looked at reducing floor area, but can’t reduce to less than four bedrooms, so took out one bathroom and pushed back from the street. If you take out a large dormer it only amounts to 60SF reduction based on the attic calculations. The property owners hired a civil engineer to analyze the storm drain system in the area and the basement. There are no drainage problems that are not typical and can not be addressed. The basement is the result of the guidelines passed a few years City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 4 back, if this basement isn’t acceptable then the rules need to be revised. Only need one car garage, but have provided two spaces since that is what is there now and there is a parking problem in the area. Decided to leave both the basement and garage as originally proposed. Commission noted that the chimney on the right side is taller and asked if the windows will be true divided light windows. Architect noted that by code the chimney has to be 2 feet above the roof for a wood burning fireplace and that the windows will be true divided light windows. Bob Gilson, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, Gina O’Neal, 1516 Drake Avenue, and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue representing the Garcias, the Ochses, and the Bears who could not be present, had the following comments; noted that this project has been before the Planning Commission three times, the design harmonizes the neighborhood and is within the allowable floor area ratio and urge the Commission to approve the project; owner made good effort to address Commission concerns and removed deck and moved windows, included neighbors in the process, concerned with shingle siding, this would be the only shingle house on the block, would like to see lighter color treatment of the shingles and roofing materials, noted that houses in the neighborhood have lighter colors and appear less large, in support of a two car garage, necessary; appreciate efforts of the owners, but was only reduced by 184 SF, the design is neighborhood friendly, looked at other shingle houses in the neighborhood and notice that the older ones have turned darker over time, newer ones are lighter in color, would like to see more mature landscaping added to the landscape plan, thanks for addressing basement and drainage. Randy Grange responded that the they were intending to use a 40 year Elk roof shingle to add texture and it is not real dark, and that they were also planning on using an opaque light stain, not yet selected. Commission noted that lighter color may make the structure look larger and that a darker color may help visually to reduce the size. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: windows should be true divided light windows, add as a condition; good example of effort from both the neighbors and the applicant; two car garage is fine, think in this area that it is needed; great project, mass and bulk were substantially reduced by design, took advantage of the basement; porch makes this a community friendly house; on the landscape plan there is a Noble Laurel on the driveway side where the neighbor was referring too this will be an evergreen tree with a multi-trunk dark green and believe that it will provide adequate screening; commend architect on this job; color is not really within Commission’s purview, however a light color seems appropriate but not a bright light color. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 21, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5 and L1.0; with a 434 SF (20'-8"W x 21'-0"D) detached garage and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; with all windows to be true divided light; 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, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer; 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, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 5 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 shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the City Arborist's January 29, 2004 memo, and the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's, and Recycling Specialist’s December 22, 2003, memos 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. Bojués . Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstained and C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dias. 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 May 10, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-three conditions were suggested for consideration for lot 1 and twenty-six conditions were suggested for consideration for lot 2. Noted that conditions of approval for both lots refer to April 14, 2004, plans but should read April 28, 2004, plans. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Derek Chung, property owner, 1504 Alturas Drive and Michael Jung, architect, 4075 Papazuan Way, Fremont, were available to answer questions. Mr. Chung noted that he tried to address the Planning Commission’s concerns, which were mostly on lot #2 regarding the 15% driveway verses the 12% driveway. They decided to keep the 12% driveway. With the original plans they had a 15% driveway proposed , then during the design review process with Jerry Winges he suggested reducing the slope and thought it would be a better solution. Provided a cross section in the revised plans that shows both a 12% and 15% to show the difference between the two. Decided that the 12% slope was a better alternative for the following reasons: 1) safety for a better approach; 2) appears cleaner from the street without a big drop down; 3) practicality, don’t want cars to scrape when entering and exiting the driveway. Lot #2 has three retaining walls, the north wall steps down, is a terraced wall, 3’6” at the lowest point and 10’ at the highest point. Planning on planting vine plants to cover the wall, blue star creeper and rosemary, he submitted a picture. The wall will also have a stone veneer to soften the appearance. The neighbors at 1500 Alturas originally had a concerns with the ash trees proposed, however have changed the ash to flowering cherry and now the neighbor is happy. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 6 Commission stated they would like to see all the windows be true divided light windows. Stated that do not like shutters that don’t fit the size and shape of the window they are hung next to, would like to this as a condition of approval. Commission noted that due to the driveway slope on lot #2 there are places where the retaining wall will be 12’ tall, can anything be done to reduce the height of the walls. Owner shouldn’t expect a flat driveway on a hillside property. Retaining wall on north side is a problem, need to reduce height and appearance. Will be better and safer construction and will reduce difficulty with drainage problems if you bring driveway lower. Don’t build a 12’ retaining wall if you don’t have to. Mr. Jung responded that after final construction when the footing is burred and the site is graded it won’t appear to be 12 feet, the terrace was created to reduce the vertical appearance of the retaining walls. The 15% slope for a driveway run that is this short makes for an uncomfortable transition to a flat garage slab. Commission noted that up to a 20% driveway slope is allowed with a conditional use permit. The driveway has a 35’ length, should sink house down like the house on either side, reduce plate heights to 9 feet and increase driveway slope. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to see condition added that requires handing digging for base and arborist supervision during the construction of the concrete walkway near the Redwood tree, and that this walkway should be changed to pavers; big improvement on this project with design review, visual impact has been addressed, would like to add a condition that true divided light windows be installed, overall support project. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions as amended during Commission discussion. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for re- emerging lots, and the design review, hillside area construction permit and special permit for attached garage for both lots 1 and 2. The motion failed on a 2-4-1 (Cmrs. Bojués, Brownrigg, Osterling and Vistica dissenting and C. Keele absent) roll call vote. Discussion on the motion: can not support the project, it is fundamentally flawed; o.k. with the house on the right, but there are a lot of unresolved issues with the house on the left, are going to need to push it back. Commission consulted with CA Anderson and asked if the project can be divided, can Commission just vote to approve lot 1 and continued lot 2. CA Anderson stated that yes the project can be divided, but in order to approved lot 1 Commission must also take action to approve conditional use permit for approval of the re- emerging lots. Commission gave the following direction to the applicant for lot 2: • Need to lower driveway by increasing the slope to 15% and reduce the plates on the first and second floors to 9 feet; and • May need to push the house back, that might cause trouble with the two protected trees on the lot, but this is a large house and applicant may be forced to reduce to the size of the house to address this issue. C. Vistica made a motion to continue the action on lot 2 until the applicant has revised the plans and moved to approve the application for the conditional use permit for re-emerging lots and approve the application for lot #1 only for design review, hillside area construction permit and special permit for a an attached garage by resolution, with the following conditions as amended during Commission discussion: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 14, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 7 2004, sheets A1.0 through A5.0, topo, C-2 and L1.0, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building elevations, grading and drainage plan, and landscape plan; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s, Fire Marshal’s, and the City Engineer’s November 17, 2004 memos shall be met and the City Arborist’s December 11, 2003 memo shall be met along with the approved arborist’s report date stamped January 6, 2004; 4) that the 24” Weeping Willow tree located in the front of Lot #1 is approved for removal by the City Arborist as per Code Section 11.06.060(c); 5) that the 43” Coastal Live Oak located on Lot #2, immediately adjacent to Lot #1, shall not be removed and the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures , prior to any grading or demolition on the site. The tree protection measures, as defined in the applicant’s arborist report by the Green Jeannie (date stamped January 6, 2004) which has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, shall be maintained on site until after the final inspection and the City Arborist authorizes their removal; the contractor shall call for the City Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a grading permit shall be issued, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the certified arborist's report; failure to continually provide the tree protection and implementation of any of those requirements in the arborist’s report shall result in the property owner paying for an independent inspection of the site by an arborist selected by the City; 6) that a certified arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, and that a certified arborist shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and that a certified arborist shall be given written authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 7) that prior to demolition or construction the 43” Coastal Live Oak located on right side of Lot #2, immediately adjacent to Lot #1, shall be trimmed, raising the fringe only six feet over the existing roof line, this shall be done under the direct supervision of a certified arborist at a time during the project determined by the City Arborist; 8) that prior to demolition or construction 6” of mulch shall be placed 10’ around the trunk of the 43” Coastal Live Oak located on the right side of Lot #2, immediately adjacent to Lot #1, but shall not be placed directly against the trunk; 9) that prior to demolition of the rear deck temporary barrier fencing shall be placed at 8’ on the southwest side of the 43” Coastal Live Oak, and 28’on the northeast side of the trunk; 10) that after the demolition of the rear deck, but prior to the construction of the new homes, protective barrier fencing shall be placed as close to the drip line of the 43” Coast Live Oak as possible and shall remain in place throughout the construction of both houses on Lot #1 and Lot #2; 11) that the protective barrier fencing shall be a minimum of 4 feet high, and shall be made of pig wire, snow fence, or cyclone fence, with steel stakes or pipes as posts; there shall be no storage of materials or equipment, unnecessary trenching, grading or compaction within the protective barrier fencing; encroachment into these areas is forbidden; 12) Tree Maintenance: The developer shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5- year maintenance program for the 43” Coastal Live Oak, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the January 6, 2004 Green Jeannie report as well as such additional recommendations as the developer shall receive from a certified arborist; 13) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 8 partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 15) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 16) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 17) that prior to under floor 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; 18) 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; 19) 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; 20) 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; 21) 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; 22) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 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; 23) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 24) that the shutters shall be consistent with the size and shape of the windows; and 25) that all windows shall be true divided light windows. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue action on lot 2 pending plan revisions and approve the conditional use permit for re-emerging lots and the design review, hillside area construction permit and special permit for attached garage for lot 1. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 6. 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 10, 2004, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the story poles as installed had been surveyed. Staff noted yes. The commissioners all noted that they had made a site visit. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer; Denise Balestrieri, property owner and Sonya Son, property owner; Aneglo Arsella, 2731 Summet; Greg Kosko, 6 Hillview Court; spoke. The applicant noted that two of the three chimneys were removed because they were not needed change type and the third, wood burning with spark arrestor in the family room is only 2 feet taller than the lower ridge of the master bedroom area, and will not be visible. Commissioner asked if the roof could be designed with a 5:12 slope. Designer noted that it could be but would affect the volume inside the 9 foot plate, this building is one story and would like to keep the roof pitch, can't see the structure from the street, did study 5:12 and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 9 8:12, thought 6:12 looked the best; removed the chimneys because the neighbors did not want them; Commissioner noted concern about the plantings in the southeastern corner of the lot, to protect views need something not straight up, need a medium scaled tree-like-shrub whose height is easy to maintain and keeps a nice form; Commissioner asked if the windows are true divided lights; applicant noted that they were; Commissioner asked about the spark arrester on the remaining chimney, looks like it is 3 feet wide rising over the ridge. Neighbors commented: live in property to the right, was out of town, returned last night, looked out of window and this proposed project blocks a good portion of view of East Bay; story poles did not include area of chimney retained so do not know if it blocks view; strong concern about plantings along fence if over 6 feet (higher than fence) will block his view to the southeast and east, shrubs should be kept to a maximum 6 feet. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: design is nice, the structure is single story, it is 1000 SF under FAR, the plate height is 9 feet which is typical for first floors in the city, roof pitch is OK; field visit indicated that distant views from Kosko and Payne houses are not blocked, recognize problem with landscaping and would like a condition added that the landscaping along the fenced property line not exceed a certain height. Landscaping should be kept to the height of the fence. Concerned about the views from the house at 2731, could not view story poles from there since no one was home, uncomfortable acting until have made a site visit there; this lot calls for a one story house with interior court yard; nice house design, visited neighbors, no view blockage, can continue item for additional site visit; fence could have small shrubs in front or be softened with a vine planted on the inside and kept to a certain height, vines would grow through the fence and soften both sides. C. Vistica noted uncomfortable acting without seeing the view form the uphill neighbor so would move to continue this item to the next meeting so that the commissioners could view the story poles from the uphill property would also like to see a pole added to the story poles to indicate the height of the one chimney retained. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: the applicant could also return with a landscaping suggestion for the areas of concern along the fence. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue for additional site inspection, revision to the landscape plan to address plantings along the fence lines, and installing a pole to demarcate the location and maximum height of the one remaining chimney with spark arrester. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 7. 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 Reference staff report May 10, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Robert and Germaine Alfaro, 840 Newhall Road, property owners were present to answer any questions. Commission noted that plans did not call out window type, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 10 asked if windows were going to be true divided light windows. Mrs. Alfaro asked for clarification on what the Commission meant by “true divided light” windows. Commission clarified did not want thin, stick on mullions on plate glass window, suggested adding a condition of approval requiring true divided light windows with small panes and wood between. Commission noted that plans do call out stucco mold for the window trim, the Alfaros confirmed that the window trim will be stucco mold. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this is a big house, but it is on a big lot and is well designed. C. Visitica 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 April 28,2004, sheets 1 through 6, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building elevations and landscape plan; 2) that all windows shall be trued divided light windows and the windows will be trimmed with stucco mold; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s, Chief Building Official’s, Fire Marshal’s, and the City Engineer’s March 29, 2004 memos shall be met; 5) 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; 6) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 8) that prior to under floor 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; 9) 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; 10) 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; 11) 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; 12) 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; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 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 14) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:58 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 11 8. 1132 DOUGLAS AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (99 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER a. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report May 10, 2004, with attachments. C. Vistica recused himself from this item because he owns property within 500 feet of this site, and he left Council Chambers. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, project architect, 851 Burlway Road, was available, he explained that he revised the drawings to include a delivery space and added articulation along the west elevation, the trees along the left side were also revised. There has been an arborist report prepared for the oak tree next to the property on the left side. Commission thanked the project architect for coming up with a solution for the delivery space, preferred the changes made to the landscape plan, and asked the applicant what type of pavers would be used for the delivery space. The project architect noted that they were exploring two different pavers, one is a concrete block with spaces where grass can grow in between and the other one is plastic, interlocking pavers that are set a little lower to allow grass to cover them completely. Commission noted that on the front elevation the scale of the third floor bay seems to dominate the front entry, has the architect looked at that Mr. Meyer explained that he looked at that element and examined some options with the Spanish style that is being used. Tried to use the element to add more style, looked at making the window narrower, but that would accentuate the height of the building. Commission thanked the applicant for addressing the previous comments and removing the variance and acknowledged that it is a good project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran 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 April 28, 2004, sheets P1 through P6, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building elevations and sections, sheet C-1,boundary and topographic survey, sheet T-1, tentative parcel map, and sheet L-1, landscape plan; 2) that the property owner and/or contractor shall call for the City Arborist to inspect the protection measures and pruning of the 19.9 inch diameter Coast Live Oak prior to issuance of the demolition permit; 3) that the tree protection measures, as defined in the applicant’s arborist report by the Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. (dated April 19, 2004) which has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, shall be maintained on site until after the final inspection and the City Arborist authorizes their removal; failure to continually provide the tree protection and implementation of any of those requirements in the arborist’s report shall result in the property owner paying for an independent inspection of the site by an arborist selected by the City; 4) that a licensed/qualified tree trimmer/arborist shall perform the tree trimming as indicated in Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. report dated April 19, 2004; 5) that protective chain link fencing shall be installed at 10’ away from the Coast Live Oak, and there shall be no construction activity within this area, including storage of materials and/or equipment; 6) that a certified arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, and that a certified arborist shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and that a certified arborist shall be given written authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 12 the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of the Coast Live Oak adjacent to the site, and the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 7) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 8) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s and Recycling Specialist’s December 29, 2004 memos, the Fire Marshal's January 4, 2004 memo, and the City Engineer's January 20, 2004 memo shall be met; 9) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 59.49' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Douglas Avenue (24.49') for a maximum height of 35’, and that the turret on the right side of the building which houses the mechanical equipment for the third (upper unit shall have a maximum elevation of 61’, or 36.51’ from average top of curb, and that the turret shall not exceed 5% of the rooftop area; 10) that the finished grading of the garage floor, the finished slab of the garage floor, the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the construction and framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor shall be elevation 14.9’; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 24.9’; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 34.9’; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 44.9’; and the top of ridge elevation shall be 59.49’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 11) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 12) that prior to under floor 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; 13) 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; 14) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 15) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 16) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City’s water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 17) that the underground parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and that no portion of any parking area and/or egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities, there shall be no storage of automobiles, boats or recreational vehicles within assigned or guest parking stalls; and that the none of the parking spaces shall be rented, leased or sold; 18) that the guest parking shall not be assigned to any unit and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use of all visitors to the site; and that ‘guest parking stall’ shall be marked on the guest parking space and shall be located in a code compliant parking stall; 19) that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association however at least one space shall be assigned to each unit; 20) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 21) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 22) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 23) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 13 and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 24) that the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 25) that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 2001 edition; 26) that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame for structural stability; 27) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 28) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 29) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on- site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 30) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 31) that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 32) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 33) that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 34) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self- contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 35) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 36) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 37) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 38) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 39) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 40) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 41) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 42) that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 43) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 14 checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 44) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 45) that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Douglas Avenue; 46) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 47) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; and 48) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Vistica abstaining and C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:11 p.m. C. Vistica returned to the dias. 9. 299 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A LIMITED FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT (ALLAN D'AMBRA, APPLICANT; SALMA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 10, 2004, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the previous business on this site had been limited food service, staff noted it was. CA Anderson noted the previous applicant could have operated a deli as a limited food service, he would ask the Commission to add a condition that there be no sales of alcoholic beverages from this site because of its proximity to active bars in the immediate area. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Allen D'Ambra, applicant, represented the project. He noted that the bread would be baked elsewhere, they would add toppings and heat on site. Originally thought that they would use a conveyer oven, but wiring in the building is not sufficient so will use one or two table top ovens about 23" wide by 18" tall and 26" deep. Commissioner asked if outdoor seating would be provided; previous business had two foot square tables with a chair on each side along the sidewalk, would like to do, these are metal tables and will be brought inside at night; Commissioner expressed concern about trash, think that with this use will need to pick up more than once a day. Applicant noted that there will be a trash can inside which will be emptied as needed. CP noted that the conditions require the applicant to install a streetscape approved trashcan on the sidewalk and to maintain (empty) that as necessary. Applicant noted that their emphasis will be on quality. When asked about hours of operation, applicant noted that they indicated the latest hours they would consider, realizing that they could always close earlier but that they would have to return to the commission to extend the hours. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: don't see any negative effect from this change, only increasing the hours, am willing to make a motion but do not know what to do about the sale of alcoholic beverages, applicant did not respond to attorney's comment. Chair Osterling reopened the public hearing. Allen D'Ambra, applicant, spoke regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages, noting that the current tenant has a license to sell alcohol at retail in the bottle and they would like to do the same, no intention of selling alcohol to be consumed on the premise. CA noted that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 15 concern was selling take out alcohol which would be taken across the street to the bars, would be OK if not sold after 5 p.m. Applicant noted that they were planning to remove the bottles from the window displays at night, would like to be able to sell pizza and a bottle of wine for dinner, could stop selling alcohol at 7 p.m. CA thought stopping at 7:00 p.m. would work. There were no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. C. Bojués referring to his and other Commissioners comments, made a motion to approve by resolution with the following amendments to the conditions to stop the sale of any kind of alcohol from this site at 7 p.m. daily; that the on-street and on-site trash receptacles shall be emptied by employees of this business regularly daily as needed and more frequently as required by the city; that the applicant shall pick up trash on the sidewalk and in the gutter for 50 feet in each direction on each side of this business at least once a day and more frequently if required by the city and with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that this business location shall be occupied by a limited food service use, with no on-site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment; 2) that up to 250 SF of on-site seating may be added inside to the limited food service establishment only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the business shall provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city and consistent with the streetscape improvements and these cans shall be emptied daily or more often as required by the City; 4) the business shall provide daily litter control along sidewalks and gutters on all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 5) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 6) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 7) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 8) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 15, 2004, floor plan and building elevation; 9) that the shop may be open Sunday through Wednesday 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Thursday through Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and shall provide no tables and customer seating inside, and shall have a maximum of four employees at any one time; 10) that if and when the off-site trash/garbage/recycling area is removed this conditional use permit shall be reviewed and may be revoked if facilities acceptable to the City Engineer, Fire Marshal and County Health Department cannot be provided; 11) that the limited food service establishment shall provide, maintain and regularly empty trash receptacles as needed at the door and on the corners of California and Burlingame Avenue, or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 12) that alcohol shall be sold from this site only in the bottle and shall not be sold at all after 7:00 p.m. daily; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit with no alcohol sales after 7:00 p.m. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 2505 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIKE AND SHARON CALAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 16 Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Road, project architect, was available to answer questions. Noted that this is a straight forward project, property slopes down on the side where the trees will be removed. Even with tree removal the tree canopy is solid in the yards of adjacent properties. Commission asked if the property owners had spoken with the neighbors across the street. Sharon Calahan, 2505 Hayward Drive, property owner, stated that she took the plans for the proposal over to the neighbors and they had no objections. Commission noted that this is a modest proposal, but that there could be a view problem across the street. Although the code acknowledges this 18’ wide garage as a two car garage, does not seem like it would actually fit two cars. Owner should consider reducing the new storage area and increasing the width of the garage to allowed for easier access for the two parking spaces. Project architect responded that the code allows the existing condition and that it would require some additional engineering work to widen the parking area, owners were hoping to maximize storage space. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comment on motion: modest project, well done; concerned about view blockage for house across the street, would like to see story poles, they do not have to be surveyed; always safe to install story poles in the hillside area, not need to survey, just to make sure they are thorough. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the story poles have been installed and the Commission and neighbors have seen them. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués . Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the story poles have been installed as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 3, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 3, 2004. She noted that the City Council upheld the Planning Commission in two appeals, 2711 Martinez and 1537 Drake, development of Lot 11 and amendment of conditions for Lots 9 and 10 for additional tree mitigation measures, proposals for these two lots will return to the Commission for further review. - Review of the April 24, 2004 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Commissioners reviewed the four work program items identified for this year. Chair Osterling suggested that each Commissioner review their committee assignments, although retaining current assignments might be most workable. He noted that commissioners wishing to change subcommittee assignments might contact the City Planner before the next meeting and assignments could be finalized at the next meeting. CP noted the need to begin work on the Bicycle Plan immediately, and the zoning conformance for the Bayfront Plan should also be initiated right away. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan is on track for adoption in July, so zoning revisions would begin after that. C. Auran noted that some work should be done right away to look at the design guidelines and identify ways to revise the regulations to encourage the kinds of design features we want, such as front porches. This would be the assignment of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Staff will look into organizing a meeting of this group. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004 17 - FYI Memo From the Fire Marshal RE: Burlingame Fire Sprinkler Regulations for Single Family Houses Commission discussed briefly the contents of the memo provided to them, at their request, from the Fire Marshal. They noted that this is a significant requirement with potential for substantial accidental damage e.g. inadvertent leakage, to single family residential homeowners. The commission would like to see a comparison of these regulations to those of other cities. They also would like to have the Fire Marshal come and discuss the regulations with them as they evolve. CP noted that education is very important regarding this issue of fire suppression. She would ask the Fire Marshal to come to discuss the background of these regulations with commission. However, amendments to the Fire Code are the responsibility of the City Council and do not fall under the Commission's zoning responsibility. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Reception for outgoing and incoming Commission officers followed in the Rotunda. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary 05.10.04unapproved