Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.06.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 9, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the June 9, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:06 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg ( arrived at 7:28 p.m.) Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. CEREMONIAL Chair Bojués noted that the Commission wished to recognize Cers. Brownrigg and Keele for their service and for being reappointed to the Commission and thank Commissioner Ann Keighran for her excellent service as Chair for the past year. In recognition the Commission had planned a small reception in the rotunda which will be continued until C. Brownrigg arrives. IV. MINUTES The minutes of the 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. All commissioners had not had time to review the Commission minutes for the meeting on April 28, 29, 30 and 31, so the approval of those minutes was continued to the next meeting. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 11, 2825 Frontera Way has been continued. It will be placed on the next agenda on which there is space; when it is scheduled the item will be renoticed. VI. FROM THE FLOOR Scott Danielson, 340 Pepper Avenue, spoke regarding the project at 344 Pepper, he noted that he had a meeting on Thursday with the property owner, but wanted to make the Planning Commission aware that they had the right to revoke the front setback variance for a swimming pool and the conditional use permit for the pool house, on the basis that they were represented as being in the side yard when in fact the pool is in the front yard and that there were other such swimming pools in the area, when there are no swimming pools in the front yard in the area. In addition for these reasons he does not feel that the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity and in fact the pool in the front yard represents an attractive nuisance. He asked Commission to take immediate action since the forms were being set for the foundation of the house and it was probably too late to change its placement. He would like the pool moved or eliminated and screening landscaping reinstituted. There were no other comments from the floor. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 2 VII. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1280 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARCEL MAP TO MERGE THREE PARCELS AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, THREE-STORY SELF STORAGE BUILDING (BOB DAILEY, APPLICANT; WARD-YOUNG ARCHITECTS, MIKE MUSSANO, ARCHITECT; DORE TRUST, DAILEY TRUST, STELLA LIU, ROBERT DAILEY, RAY MATHEWS, JENNIFER WALWARK, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked that the following items be addressed: • Applicant show these plans to PGandE and submit PGandE’s comments on the project; • Are the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week hours proposed for this facility typical for storage facilities in this area; • What type of lighting is being proposed for the outside of the building, the parking areas, and the inside of the structure, what will be the hours of illumination; • There are contradictions between the sheets of the plans regarding the location of the loading area and disabled parking - concerned about how pedestrians will circulate safely, needs to be addressed and plans corrected; • The appropriateness of the architectural expression of this building for this area is a question in this generally basic looking industrial area, this proposal is not consistent with the character; how does the proposed architecture fit with the design objectives of the SAP for Rollins Road; • The landscaping shown in the rendering and the landscaping shown on the plans do not match, should suggest some other ground cover than Gazenia which is hard to maintain and control; 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 7:22 p.m. 2. 1715 QUESADA WAY, ZONED - R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE-HOPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Have there been any complaints about on street parking from the school from the resident’s on Quesada; • There should be comments included from the administration and/or Principal at BIS regarding this project; • How many students were using this area when the Olympia program was operating from it. There were no more questions and the item was set for the consent calendar when all the questions have been answered, they have been reviewed by the Planning Department and there is space on the Commission’s agenda. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 3 3. 704 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRUCE KALDOR, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:28 p.m. Commissioners asked: • Provide a better explanation of the hardships on the property to justify the variance, for example a second story addition would eliminate the lot coverage exception, why not proposing; • Concerned about expanding the foot print of the existing house and some one later adding a larger second story; • There is little back yard left with this proposal, need a stronger rational for the exceptions; • Neighbor adjacent to garage should be contacted about the extension of the house and the new garage; • Simple to reduce this project to comply with lot coverage, reduce the garage some and the house some. Chair Bojués place this item on a future action calendar when there is space after all the information has been collected, addressed and reviewed by staff. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 4. & 5. 1230 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (VITAE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ZEDEN JONES, STARBUCKS COFFEE, APPLICANT; TSTN PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project. Commission asked the following questions: • How much seating is available at the Burlingame Avenue Starbuck’s site, indoor and outdoor; • Have seen a security officer at the Starbuck’s on Burlingame, describe the program; • When are the peak sales hours, how do they correspond to available parking on Broadway; • Will deliveries be made at the front or from the rear; • What standards does the city usually require of limited food services regarding trash, clean up and sidewalk cleaning; • How can the business encourage customer use of the public parking nearby, can an access into the store from the rear be created; • How will the “outdoor” seating area be secured at night or when the business is closed; • How many similar businesses have outdoor seating in the Peninsula, what sort of problems have arisen from such seating; have there been problems created inside the store from outdoor seating; in this evaluation should consider at least one site within a block of a high school. CA Anderson noted that this is an application for a limited food service which is a change in type of food service on this site but a permitted option if the criteria are met, in this case the applicant is also asking for an increase in the seating limitation for a limited food service business so that requires review as well. The commission set this item for the consent calendar after the information has been submitted, when there was space available on that calendar. This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 4 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. 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. 6a. 709-713 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR EXISTING NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS TO EXPAND AN EXISTING DUPLEX (JERRY WINGES, WINGES ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JACQUELINE DEPPIESSE, PROPERTY OWNER) ( 67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 6b. 1444 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EDWARD AND ELIZABETH WATSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. 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 7:45 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 7. 836 MAPLE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE (GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report June 9, 2003, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Gerard Mitchell, property owner, was present to answer questions and submitted a letter from the adjacent neighbor in support of the project. Commissioner asked why does that detached garage have to be forty feet long? Applicant noted that he would like to use the garage for vehicle parking and storage, there is an apartment building behind this site, would like to extend garage to rear property line, will create privacy between the house and apartment building. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that this is a good solution for the applicant and will create a noise buffer between the house and the apartment and freeway to the rear, and 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 and date stamped April 22, 2003, Sheet G-1 and G-2; 2)that the accessory structure shall only be used for parking and storage only , with a maximum enclosed square footage 520 SF; shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; and shall not include additional utility services (other than a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 5 2” waste line for utility sink and/or washer machine) and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and the Recycling Specialist’s memos dated April 28, 2003 shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 8. 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JESSE AND MARIA GEURSE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS, DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report June 9, 2003, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Plr Hurin noted that the applicant will not be replacing the existing windows on the first floor as a part of this project. If the Planning Commission feels that replacing the windows on the first floor, to be consistent with the new windows on the second floor, is important to the design of the house, a condition of approval will have to be added regarding the window replacement. There were no question of staff by the Planning Commission. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, property owner and designer, was present to answer questions. Commission asked if all windows will be consistent, if not, how will they be different? Designer noted that the existing windows on the first floor are double-hung, clear on bottom, top divided into eight panes, has a very distinctive pattern. The proposed windows on the second floor contain horizontal mullions with a stucco brick mould, the mullion pattern on the second floor windows will not match the existing first floor windows. Would like to replace the existing first floor windows to be consistent with the second floor windows in the future. Commission complimented the designer on the project, looks nice and will fit in with the character of the neighborhood, like the decorative spark arrestor on the chimney. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran 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 May 20, 2003, Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Building Elevations, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to final inspection, the applicant shall remove the birch tree in the front yard shown on the plans and replace it with a new 24-inch box size evergreen tree selected from the city’s street tree list as shown on the Site Plan, dated stamped May 20, 2003; 4) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 6 certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 7) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2003 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's April 10, 2003, memo shall be met; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Commission requested that the property owner seriously consider replacing the existing first floor windows in the near future so that they are consistent with the second floor windows. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 9. 3121 MARGARITA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MYRA HO, ABR ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EUGENE LAI, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report June 9, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Michael Jeung, architect, was present to answer questions. There were no questions or comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Visitca noted that this project has come a long way, that the design review process worked well, and that there will be no impact on views from the proposed addition, and 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 May 2, 2003, sheets A1.0 through A3.3, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; with all windows on both floors to be new, double-paned, vinyl frame widows with wood trim surrounding, except those with decorative planter shelves below; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 7 Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Recycling Specialist's April 29, 2002, memos shall be met; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 9) that the height of the story poles shall be verified by a licensed surveyor and that during construction the framing of the second floor, the second story plate line, and the roof ridge shall be re-surveyed by a licensed surveyor and submitted to the City Engineer for verification at each step, and that if the framing is different than the approved plans and approved story poles, the construction shall be corrected or the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 10) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: agree, project has greatly improved and benefited from the design review process, appreciate applicants' willingness to work with the design review consultant and Commission. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 10. 815 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED CAR PORT (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report June 9, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the uncovered deck above the carport and at the rear of the house is counted in floor area ratio? Only the area below the deck is included in FAR. The deck surface itself is not counted towards FAR since it is uncovered. Commission asked if there is a stairway proposed from the main floor to the unfinished lower level; can ask applicant to clarify. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Paul Danbold, property owner and applicant, was present to answer questions. Commission noted a concern with the proximity of the deck to the adjacent neighbor and asked how the neighbors' kitchen lines up with the deck; applicant noted that there is approximately ten feet between the carport roof to the neighbors' kitchen window, his kitchen window and neighbors' kitchen window are at same elevation, finished floors are at about the same elevation so deck has about the same impact on both properties, reviewed the proposed plans with the neighbor, will install planter boxes on the deck to increase the vegetative screen, will help to provide privacy between neighbors. Commission suggested that one possibility could be move the deck in three to four feet along the left side property line and relocate the door in the laundry room from the side to the rear of the house, people will tend to congregate near the door, relocating the door would keep people further away from the neighbors. Applicant noted that the he would prefer to sit on the portion of the deck which is behind the house, not over the carport since it is visible from the street, would like to have privacy too. Applicant considered an open trellis for the carport roof, but noted that he was unsure if the building and fire codes would allow an opening above a parking area; Commission pointed out that the decking railing could be moved over three to four feet and the remaining area could be covered with appropriate roofing material. Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 8 commented that it is important to relocate the laundry room door away from the side of the house to the rear of the house, this would discourage people from congregating on the deck above the carport. Further discussion: Still concerned with privacy, Commission suggested adding a vertical screen along the left side edge of the deck, parallel with the left side property line, the maximum height of the vertical screen would not exceed five feet in height, screen can be solid or open in design. If open, applicant should be required to plant vines so that they would grow up the trellis to increase the privacy; agree with solution to screen the deck above the carport, contractor does excellent work and feels confident that a nice job will be done. Additional discussion: still have a concern with the basement, suggest that there be no access to the lower level from the interior of the house, would like to see a condition added to prevent the unfinished lower level from being remodeled to a finished habitable space, since this area puts the site over on FAR, do not want to see use changed in lower level. Applicant noted that the stairway would be added along with the foundation work, would provide convenient access to the lower level, plan on relocating the washer and dryer from the main floor to the lower level, furnace and water heater are also located there. Commission asked what is the ceiling height in the lower level? Applicant noted that the ceiling height is approximately eight feet at the rear of the house and five feet at the front of the house, follows the exterior grade elevation, do not intend to use the lower level as habitable space. Commission noted that a condition can be added so that the space in the lower level does not became finished, habitable space. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the architect has done a nice job with the proposed carport and uncovered deck, feels comfortable that the architect and contractor will follow the Commission's direction, which includes relocating the door in the laundry room from the side of the house to the rear of the house, adding a five foot tall screen along the left side edge of the deck, and planting an evergreen vine to grow on the screen if an open trellis design is used. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions regarding the location of the door from the laundry room and the vertical privacy fence: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 29, 2003, sheets C1, A1, and A2, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the floor area ratio variance and special permit for attached carport shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3) that the door in the laundry room shall be relocated from the side of the house to the rear of the house; 4) that a vertical privacy screen shall be installed along the left side edge of the deck, parallel with the side property line and may be solid or open in design, the privacy screen shall not be installed on the returns of the deck; if an open design is chosen, the applicant shall plant an evergreen vine to grow on the privacy screen; the maximum height of the privacy screen shall be five in height as measured from the deck floor; 5) that prior to final inspection, the applicant shall plant three new 24-inch box size trees selected from the city's official street tree list and shall be planted in the front and rear yards as shown on the Site Plan, dated stamped May 29, 2003; 6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the attached carport/deck, and lower, main or upper levels, 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details of the attached carport/deck 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 9 Department; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details of the carport/deck to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; upon final inspection, the security deposited with the City will be released to the applicants as provided in the agreement between the City and the applicants; 9) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the carport roof/deck floor and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 10) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s May 12, 2003 memo shall be met; 11) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12) that the project shall comply with the grading/drainage and erosion/sedimentation control measures noted on sheet C-1, date stamped May 29, 2003; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 14) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: concerned that the drawings are inaccurate regarding the interior stairs, screen on deck will appear bulky, do not agree with adding a condition to limit the use of the lower floor to non- habitable space, it is existing and should be able to use as habitable space if all code requirements are met; Commission noted that the screen would not be adding to the bulk since it will not contain any returns, this will keep the mass down, vine covered screen resolves privacy concerns and will be an asset to the owner and neighbor, will be important to maintain the vine growth, lower level is existing and already counts in FAR, remodeling the lower level in the future will not add to the mass and bulk, see this situation often on sloping lots; maker of the motion and second agreed that a condition limiting the use of the basement is not necessary. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission requested that the revised plans, based on the direction given, be brought back as an FYI item when the changes are completed. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 11. 2825 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND REAR AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW REAR DECK (ROBERT AND REGINA CHAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED) This item was continued to the next available agenda after the submittal is determined to be complete. The item will be renoticed when it is set for public hearing. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 523 FRANCISCO DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOBY LONG, TOBY LONG DESIGN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRISTINE AND PAUL VEGA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2003 10 Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Paul and Chris Vega, property owners, and Toby Long, architect, represented the project. They said that they would be happy to respond to any questions and noted that they are not changing the existing floor, will excavate the existing basement area for a family room, the design addresses the potential water problem in the area. Commission asked: • are all the windows being added true divided lights of the same design as the existing windows? There were no further questions of the applicant and there were no comments from the floor. C. Auran moved to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote to place this item on the consent calendar when there was space on the agenda. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) voice vote. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of June 2, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 2, 2003. - Planning Commission Subcommittee Assignments for FY 2003-2004 Chair Bojués presented the list of Planning Commission subcommittee assignments: Bayfront SAP: Bojués, Keele, Keighran, Alternate Vistica; Housing Element Work Program Implementation: Auran, Keele, Osterling; Neighborhood Consistency: Bojués, Keighran, Osterling Alternate Brownrigg, Resident Representative Deal; North End SAP: Bojués, Brownrigg, Vistica, Alternate Auren. - Processing Hosptial Environmental Review Commission decided that it would be useful to have the applicant and staff present the project to them. Understanding the importance of time to the applicant and need to proceed to scoping, they suggested that this presentation be at 6:00 p.m. before the June 23, 2003 meeting. They asked staff to get them reduced copies of the necessary plans for them to review well before that meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m. and noted that there would be a reception in the rotunda to thank C. Keighran for her hard work as Chair for the past year and congratulate Cers. Brownrigg and Keele on their reappointment to the Commission. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary UNAPPROVEDMINUTES 06.09.03