Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.02.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 25, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the February 25, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:12 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Bojués Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 11, 2002 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The Commission agreed to carry over the approval of the February 19, 2002 special meeting minutes to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time for review. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item number 7, 1204 Cabrillo Avenue was continued until additional information is provided to the Planning Department and can be reviewed by staff the item may be on the March 11, 2002 calendar. The item will be renoticed when it is scheduled for a commission meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1409 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND EXPAND RENTAL FLEET FOR AN EXISTING AUTO RENTAL BUSINESS (XABIER BERRUETA, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, APPLICANT; HONERLAN TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Keylon presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had the following questions and comments: • Noted that staff report states that the site is non-conforming in landscaping, however the existing landscaping on the site is not maintained, applicant needs to address how they propose to maintain the existing landscaping; • Applicant is requesting approval for storage for 60 vehicles, what is the average per day; • How many trips are anticipated, provide trip counts for the a.m. and p.m. peak periods; • Going north on Rollins Road there is a double yellow line and it is dangerous to make a left turn into the site, can the customers also use North Carolan for ingress and egress; • There are designated customer and employee parking spaces, please label them and call out the locations on the site plan; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 2 • What percentage of customers use the free pick-up and drop-off service, how does this work for trip generation at the site; and • This appears to be an appropriate use of this site, applicant can provide traffic information, no need for full traffic study. 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. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner had a question about the proposed item. 2. 1100 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (ROBERT SANDERS, LEFT AT ALBUQUERQUE, APPLICANT; NATHAN SCHMIDT, PROPERTY OWNER) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commission asked if the Police Chief had looked at this request since it does involve late night hours and alcohol sales. CP Monroe explained that this request had been reviewed by the Police Department as a part of a recent amusement permit request to extend the hours and have live entertainment on for this site. At that time the Planning Department identified the need for the applicant to amend the use permit for the site, resulting in this application. There were no other questions on the item. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with the conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1225 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GARAGE SIZE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE LENGTH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (BRET BOTTARINI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 02.25.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Brett and Sue Bottarini, property owners, were available to answer questions. Commission had the following comments and questions for the applicant: where is the boat currently stored; commission expressed concern with the plate height of the proposed garage and asked City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 3 the applicant if a 9 foot plate height was necessary; how tall is the boat; is it necessary to have 12 foot wide door; and is there going to be new paving in the driveway. Applicant stated that the boat is currently parked in the driveway behind the gate, and explained that the boat is 7’-4” tall and there is about 1 foot between the garage door track and the roof of the garage, would like to have room to be able to get into the boat when it is inside the garage for maintenance. Need to have 9 foot wide garage door to allow access for boat and trailer width (trailer is more than 8 feet wide), did not think two different sized doors would look aesthetically pleasing so put two wider doors in. There is currently a problem with storm water drainage on site, so at some point they plan on doing new paving in the driveway to level off and correct the drainage problem. Do not think they will do it at this time. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: 9 foot plate height is too tall, dropping it down to 8’-6” would help reduce the bulk of this structure; can see the need for height within the garage to allow for maintenance, but will be difficult to do maintenance inside the garage whether there is 2 foot clearance or 18 inches clearance; compliment owners for getting boat out of the driveway. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the accessory structure shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 30, 2002, Site Plans, Building Elevations, Window and Door Detail, Electrical and Plumbing Plan, with a maximum overall height of 14'-10" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge; 2) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living, sleeping, or recreational purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include a toilet or shower without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s January 14, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist’s January 14, 2002, memo shall be met; 4) that the plate height of the accessory structure shall be reduced To 8’-6” as measured from adjacent grade; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: depth and area of accessory structure are necessary to store boat and vehicles off of the street; reducing the plate height of the building would reduce the mass and bulk of the structure; note that the applicant has stated that the concrete work at the driveway would not be done immediately and should be removed from the plans. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the garage as amended with the reduction in plate height. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. 4. 1436 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DANIEL STRAMBI, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 02.25.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff if it was possible to encourage the City to replace the street tree in front of this property, it is out of scale with the house and the proposed landscaping. Staff noted that they could speak with the City Arborist and see what the policy was and whether this area was scheduled for tree replacement, and report back to the commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 4 Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Dan Strambi, property owner, and Alan Olin, architect, were present and were available for questions. Mr. Strambi noted that after looking around the neighborhood, he picked the (craftsman) style of his house because it picked up components of existing houses and complimented the neighborhood. Commissioner noted that there is a lot of second story roof exposure on the sides of the house and not a lot of second story façade exposed in order to reduce size of the house from the street. Attempted to address the Commission concerns from the last meeting, and have eliminated the need for a special permit, and now the roof works better and the mass is reduced with a better roof pitch, thanks to the Commission. Right now landscaping is overgrown, new landscaping planned will enhance the house. 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 revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 15, 2002, sheets 1 through 5, and that any changes to the 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, 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 City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal’s, Chief Building Official’s and Recycling Specialist's January 7, 2002, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Commission thanked the applicant for acknowledging the value of Commission guidance on the project; lowering the height of the structure helps reduce the bulk; good job. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m. 5. 17 CHANNING ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ATANACIO RODRIGUEZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LINCOLN LUE, ARCHITECT) (119 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 02.25.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Atanacio Rodriguez, property owner, stated that as requested by the Commission, a landscape plan was submitted. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 18, 2001, sheets A1 and A2, date stamped January 18, 2002, sheet A3 and date stamped February 8, 2002, sheet L-1, with the entire exterior to be covered in stucco and all windows for the existing house and proposed addition to have divided lights, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the Building Department shall not schedule a final inspection for the project until a 24-inch box size Magnolia, a 24-inch box size Raywood and three 15- gallon Maytenus Boaria are planted in the front yard, and one 15-gallon Maytenus Boaria is planted in the rear 5'-0" setback to screen the addition to the house; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 5 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 Fire Marshal’s October 30, 2001 memo, and the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official’s, and Recycling Specialist's November 5, 2001 memos shall be met; 5) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: landscape architect responded well to the Commissions request; like the condition added by Staff that the Building Department hold off on final inspection until after the trees are planted. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. 6. 120 COSTA RICA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TROY AND TRACY OTUS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 02.25.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, architect, and Tracy and Troy Otus, property owners, were present. They stated that the approved windows in the master bedroom and bathroom were installed and they realized that the windows aligned with those of their neighbors about five feet away and there was a privacy issue for not just them but also their neighbors. There is a non-conforming side setback with only 5 feet between the properties, so reducing the window size seemed to be the best solution, particularly in the master bedroom. This meant a change to the front window to provide a required egress window, the front elevation does not change, only the window changes for egress. Commission asked how this project ended up back with them, applicants explained that the building inspector notified them that the changes would have to go back to the Planning Commission. 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 original plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 2, 2001, Sheet1, and Sheet 3-8, and Sheet 2, date stamped February 15, 2001, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, approved by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2001, as modified by the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 4, 2002, Sheet 1, 3 and 6, , including a) removing a two panel, double hung window in the first floor master bedroom, on the south elevation; b) changing a three panel, double hung mullioned window to a three panel awning window to preserve privacy in the master bathroom; and c) changing the 4·0 x 4·2 glass window on the front elevation on the first floor, master bedroom, from a fixed window to a casement window (same size) in order to meet emergency egress requirements; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s December 18, 2000 memos shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the basement area/lower level of the house with a 7’-0” ceiling City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 6 height shall never be finished or converted to living area of any type. The unimproved area shall be walled off from the habitable basement area and shall be accessed through a door no larger than 5’ x 3 ’ whose design meets all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes for separation between two occupancies, living and storage; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: the applicant did a lot of work on this project the first time through the design review process; this is a gem of a house with a nice design; the addition really does fit in with the architecture on the block; good job. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review amendment to alter the windows as requested. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. 7. 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE WILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON This item was continued until the applicant submits additional required information requested by the Planning Department, staff reviewed the information and public notice will be sent. 8. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR BUILDING SIZE IN BURLINGAME AVENUE AND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS, NEW CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, AND CHANGE TO ZONING ACTION EXPIRATION (NOTICED BY NEWSPAPER) PROJECT PLANNER: MEG MONROE Reference staff report, 02.25.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed the proposed code changes and changes suggested by the Commission at study. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public on this item and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments and discussion noted: • Code does not currently have a square footage limitation on permitted uses, fear that by adding language regarding square footage limits on conditional uses will create an ambiguity in the code. if a permitted use goes in, but it is over the maximum square footage allowed, would it need review? The code change for size would only apply to new buildings with a first floor gross square footage of 6,000 SF or more in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area and 5,000 gross square feet or more in the Broadway Commercial Area. Any new building more than these square footages would be required to apply for a conditional use permit, regardless of the use. A new building would also be required to go through the Commercial Design Review process. No ambiguity is created because the purpose of conditional uses is to identify the uses which, with review, can be allowed in the zone. This requirement applies to new construction only, not a change in tenant or use in an existing building. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 7 • Concerned with limiting semi-private group classes to 6 people with retail component, especially in areas below the first floor, where the only concern is parking; are we micro-managing businesses; in Pilates case there are only a few people in each class and there is no real impact on parking; does 3 people per class include the instructor. A group instruction use in Subareas A and B and on Broadway now requires a conditional use permit and must be incidental to retail activity (not more than 25% of the business revenue). If we identified Health and Beauty Spas as a personal service retail use and allowed spa that wished to have group instruction to apply for a conditional use permit it would clarify the definition. Presently the definition as written exempts Health and Beauty Spas from conforming to the definition of group instruction. This could create a code administration problem in the future. But taking the exemption out would eliminate yoga class, for example, as a Health and Beauty Spa personal service use, since yoga is primarily a group activity not incidental to a primary retail use. • Notice that health and beauty spa definition states that there should be a retail sales component which includes “substantial” taxable sales, why is this not included as part of the definition for graphic arts and design business? City Council looked at the definition of a graphic arts and design retail business and determined that these businesses already pay a substantial tax. Their concern in defining Graphic Arts and Design Businesses as retail was focused on these businesses having a retail appearance on the street frontage. Commission noted that to be determined to be retail the Graphics Arts and Design Business would have to have at least 25% of the area of the first floor not only visible from the street but also devoted to retail sales. • Do not agree with changing Planning Commission approvals to two years without extension; if someone is serious about a project one year is enough time for an applicant to get building permit issued; should keep one year approval with option of one year extension. • Agree with need for two year approval, some projects are very complex and need that time to put the project together for submittal. To clarify the recommendations to Council, the action on the zoning amendment recommendations were split up and three separate votes were taken. Graphic Arts and Design Retail businesses and Health and Beauty Spa definition//class size Chairman Vistica moved to recommend the zoning code amendment to City Council, to add the definition of Graphic Arts and Design Retail business which would be a new conditional use in Subarea B an prohibited in Subarea A and; to establish a new personal service use, Health and Beauty Spa, as a pedestrian oriented use below the first floor only in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, and when the business has substantial retail taxable sales and a business need for group instruction require an accompanying conditional use permit for a group instruction. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 8 Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to City Council addition of a new personal service use, Health and Beauty Spa, which could include group instruction with a conditional use permit. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent) voice vote. Planning Approval Term Chairman Vistica moved to recommend to City Council that the provisions for extending planning commission actions as presently defined in the zoning code remain unchanged and that the Planning Commission approval term of one year, with the applicant option of requesting a one year extension be retained. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call on the motion to recommend to City Council that the provisions for extending planning commission actions as presently defined in the zoning code remain unchanged. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Auran dissenting, C. Bojués absent) voice vote. Building Footprint in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and the Broadway Commercial Area Chairman Vistica moved to recommend the zoning code amendment to City Council to require a conditional use permit for any new structure in Sub Areas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area which has a first floor gross floor area of 6,000 SF or more and require a conditional use permit for any new structure in the Broadway Commercial Area which has a first floor a gross square footage of 5,000 SF or more. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the zoning code amendment requiring a conditional use permit for buildings over a given size in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial areas to City Council. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1236 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ASHLEY MCNEELY AND ELISA ODABASHIAN, PROPERTY OWNERS (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Elisa Odabashian, property owner, 1236 Paloma Avenue, and Jerry Deal, project designer, 1226 Paloma Avenue, were present. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns to be addressed by applicant and noted on the plans: • Noted that on the special permit application for declining height envelope, the applicant comments that the ordinance allows encroachment into the envelope where appropriate to retain the architectural character of a structure, where is this in the ordinance; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 9 • Plans indicate that the eave dimension will match existing, the dimension for the existing eave and proposed eave should be shown on the plan; • Difficult to add a second story to this style house, why did you choose to have an 8’-4” plate height?; • Applicant should provide a planting plan for trees which will screen the second story, show species and size at maturity, as well as location on site; • Are there cathedral ceilings inside; and • What type of windows are proposed. Commission discussion: second story adds height, would like to see landscape plan with plants that can screen the taller portion of the structure; design is fine, understand the 8’-4” plate height; difficult to add to this type of house, applicant seems to be cheating a bit by reducing lot coverage with deck and rebuilding with a portion of the new deck under 30” so it will not count toward lot coverage; nice to see a project that is not at the maximum limits of the code. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the issues noted have been addressed by the applicant. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed and staff had reviewed the information. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:53 p.m. 10. 834 WALNUT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT AND LESLIE WITH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS, JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Scott and Leslie With, property owners, 834 Walnut Avenue, and Jerry Deal, project designer, 1226 Paloma Avenue, were present. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Inconsistent roof pitch; main roof pitch at center is steep 12/12 pitch, not a flat craftsman style pitch; everything else on the roof has a 5/12 pitch; main pitch is competing with others; • Roof is odd; all parallel lines; • Could roof be simplified over the porch; west elevation, steep pitch, 12/12, comes down over existing 5/12 pitch on porch roof, can that pitch break over the existing lower peak; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 10 • This steep pitch is on the side of the house and will not be as prominent as it appears on plan; have seen a similar design and it looks o.k.; • Roof plan has not been provided, would help to give a better understanding of the roof and sense of the pitch; and • Would also like to see landscape plan, looking for added large scale trees that will grow to two - stories in height, add at the rear and also the front, should visually make a statement. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the issues noted have been addressed on the plans and a landscape plan has been prepared and submitted. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: design is fine, nice articulation and detailing; not in favor of the motion, concerned with steep roof it is very prominent, think that the applicant can address the style concern with something better, stylistic issue; this project should not go right to the consent calendar, should go to regular action so there will be a chance to review revisions and comment; is there a benefit to having this project go to a design reviewer. The maker of the motion agreed to amended the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the roof pitch has been addresses and a landscape plan and a roof plan have been submitted and plan checked by the Planning Department. The second agreed to the amended the motion. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of February 20, 2002.+ CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 20, 2002. - Discussion of Tree Handout CP Monroe noted that the handout provided includes the City approved street tree list along with a list of pest resistant trees, provided by the STOPPP (San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program). Commission noted that it would be useful to applicants to identify which were medium and large scale trees on this list. Also the list includes site locations of example trees in the City so applicants could get a good idea of the size and appearance before they made a selection. These lists are guides only, and do not limit the applicant. Project at 1436 Drake raises the issue whether the commission can required that a street tree be replaced. Could staff check the policy with the City Arborist and report back to Commission. - Discussion of STOPPP (San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program) Presentation Handout CP Monroe noted that there are a lot of changes that were recently made to the Santa Clara County stormwater discharge permit, and that based upon what has been said by the regulatory agency, San Mateo County is anticipating the similar changes to our requirements in the next two years. The City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 11 STOPPP program is working to educate Commissioners and Council members about current requirements and potential changes. The presentation provided gives an overview of the STOPPP program and some of these anticipated changes. As a result of these changes, the Planning Commission will see more standard conditions of approval attached to projects that could affect storm water. Please look over the materials, staff will be happy to follow up on any questions you might have. - Commission inquired about the reason for the continuance of 1204 Cabrillo Avenue. CP Monroe explained that after the item had been set for and noticed for tonight’s meeting, staff received additional information which indicated that there may have been other changes to the project that were not included in the noticed for this hearing. The site was red tagged and item was continued until all the changes to the building could be documented for review and Commission action. Staff anticipates that the applicant will try to have the necessary information to staff for the next Planning Commission meeting. The item will be set on a subsequent agenda and renoticed when staff has received and reviewed all the information requested. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Acting Secretary MINUTES2.25