Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.08.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday August 26, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the August 26, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner: Brownrigg Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Chief Building Official, Fred Cullum. III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 12, 2002 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Two changes on the agenda were noted: Item 1, 2700 Summit Drive, was withdrawn and item 5, Update Rules of Current Planning Commission Procedures has been continued to the next agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE- ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION (ADIB KHOURI, APPLICANT AND OWNER; RAMON KHOURI, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN) 2. 2012 DAVIS DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (LISA STRIEBING, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Keylon presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: Sheet A7describes a reduction in roof area, appears to be an attempt to reduce lot coverage, but it is not clear. Staff noted that this area would have to be removed in order to allow for the addition; however, due to the courtyard design of the house, removing the roof area in the courtyard would jeopardize the design. This item was set for the consent calendar when clarification of the courtyard roof area (Sheet A7) has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:06 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 2 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. Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 3a. 1524 Los Montes Drive- zoned R-1- amendment to an application for design review, hillside area construction permit, side setback variance and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition (Lionel J. Recio AIA, c/o Sidney Hoover Architects, applicant and architect; Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh, property owners) (52 noticed) Project Planner: Catherine Keylon C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Commissioner asked if a condition could be added to limit the variance so that if the structure were demolished or the building envelope were modified in the future the variance would expire. The maker and second to the motion agreed to amend the conditions of approval. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions that if the structure were demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side setback variance would become void. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 826 ALPINE AVENUE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER A SECOND UNIT QUALIFIES FOR THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM (DAVID MANI, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report 8.26.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. David Mani, property owner 826 Alpine Drive, spoke noting that he wished to clarify, there is evidence in the city files that the addition to the garage was built in 1952, the question is when was the in-law unit built; there was a building permit issued for the addition to the garage in 1952, the house was built in 1948; his parents purchased the house in 1978, in 1991 the second unit was completely remodeled including upgrading the sheet rock, electrical and plumbing; he showed evidence of the original plumbing which showed “T” lines for hot and cold water and gas, extending into the garage addition; also showed pictures of what remained of the original electrical wiring; the addition to the garage is removed from the house, they may have called it storage when it was built but why did they add the second cold water line if they did not intend to use it for a second unit. Feels that amnesty should be forgiveness from the government, city needs affordable dwelling units, city condoned second dwelling installation at one time, he only wants to bring this unit up to code. Commissioners asked: what city document do you refer to that shows the garage addition being made in 1952? County Assessor’s record for the property. CP Monroe noted that the city has the hard copy of the San Mateo County assessors records up to 1960 when they computerized their system, a copy of the page is in the staff report and it shows that a building permit was issued for a 13’ x 21’ addition to the garage in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 3 September 1952. Is the unit you are referring to shown on the submitted plans, the dimension you refer to is not shown? Plans show in-law unit including shed area added by father later and also attached new addition to the rear for an office and a gym, if approved would remove the shed area and partially constructed office and gym and put the unit back to its original 13’ by 21’ long, garage area of 1952. Is this restored in-law area shown on the plans? No. Issue appears to be the plumbing, the Assessor’s Report shows one fixture in the garage (a toilet?) where is the rest of the plumbing in the in-law unit? The installation of the in-law unit was illegal, suspect it was installed shortly after the addition to the garage was completed, the builder is now deceased. Commission asked Chief Building Official Cullum to respond: in the original garage of 1948 construction there was a half bath at the right rear, when inspected saw some knob and tube wiring but in the addition all wiring seemed to be new in romex of a kind which was not used until the late 1970’s; the only dated evidence on the site was a toilet dated 1991. When looked at as a whole the second unit appeared to be built after 1991; no evidence that the in-law unit was built in the 15 months between completion of the building permit for the garage addition and the December 31, 1953, qualifying date for the second unit amnesty ordinance; a termite report prepared in 1973 for the sale of the house does not note the rear of the garage being used as a second unit, in fact indicated that the wall between the original garage and addition was open 50%. Commissioner asked about the age of the plumbing in the bathroom in the original garage. CBO noted that if the “T” were installed anytime close to 1954 it would look old. Commissioner asked if the termite report noted a kitchen in the garage addition. CBO commented that the termite report noted that the wall between the original and addition to the garage was open 50%, repair was needed to the window in the new portion of the garage as well as to the window in the original garage, the termite report did not show the door to the left side of the in-law unit as existing either; generally a termite report identifies existing conditions, for example it noted damage under the kitchen tile at the sink in the main house. Commissioner asked if the “T” in the water pipes noted by the applicant could be explained by the addition of a washer and dryer in the garage. CBO said yes. Commissioner asked about the condition of the rest of the house, was it also remodeled in 1970’s? CBO noted that he did not see the rest of the house. Applicant noted that the in- law unit was remodeled in 1991-93 when he moved into it in order to take care of his elderly parents. He lived in the unit 5 years giving care. He had a termite report done in 1998 when he purchased the house from his parents, the report did not identify the in-law unit, it was called garage. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: feel that the facts presented by the applicant are not adequate to refute the CBO; evidence is gray in both directions; interesting Assessor’s Report notes plumbing fixtures in 1948 but makes no mention in next years that there were plumbing fixtures in the in-law unit; it is the Building Department’s role to determine the vintage of the second unit, not feel personally qualified to date a unit, should follow staff’s guidance; need housing, the purpose of the program is to contribute to the affordable housing stock in the city, program is going to be reviewed as part of the Housing Element work program, the review may include a change in the eligibility date, but not at this time. CBO was not able to look at photos provided this evening, would that be helpful. CBO noted that he felt that there was nothing to be added to his inspection unless the applicant had found a dated fitting. C. Bojués moved to uphold the staff’s determination that this second unit did not comply with the second unit amnesty requirement that it was built before January 1, 1954, because insufficient information had been submitted to refute the Chief Building Official’s opinion. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 4 Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the staff’s determination on the date of construction of the second unit. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 5. UPDATE RULES OF CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES This item was continued to the Commission meeting on September 9, 2002. 6. 1108 CORTEZ AVENUE- ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (LARRY AND VERONICA MORSELLO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; BRUCE BALLENTINE, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report 8.26.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Bruce Ballentine, architect, 1109 N. Thomson Road, Lafayette, and Larry Morsello, property owner, represented the project. The architect reviewed the changes on the plans briefly. Commissioners asked about the material to be used on the outside of the structure. Applicant noted that it is called hardyboard, a fabricated fiber-cement-wood material which will look like wood siding when painted, but is more durable and cheaper; the boards are 3/8 inch thick and 8 inches high like real wood siding. Commissioner asked about the first and second floor plate height since it contributes to the over all height of the building. Applicant noted the first floor plate is 9 feet and the second floor plate 8 feet. There was discussion about the fluted corner boards and their proportional size to the battens. Applicant noted that they were 1 inch by 6 inches with a 2x plinth block at the bottom. Commissioner noted that a bigger corner board would read better because of the size of the battens; architect was concerned that 1 inch by 8 inch might look a little wide. Commissioner noted that the plate heights were consistent with recommended design guidelines and fit the style of this house, like the details added they spice up the design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noting that the declining height encroachment was consistent with the design guidelines, moved by resolution to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 16, 2002, Sheets C-1, L-1, and Sheets A-1 through A-3, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan, with 1 inch by 8 inch fluted corner boards on all corners of the building with a proportional plinth block at the bottom, fluted garage corner boards to remain at 1 inch by 6 inch; 2) 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; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official’s memos dated July 29, 2002 shall be met; 4) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 5 perjury; 8) 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; 9) 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. Vistica. Who noted in his second that he would like to add a condition that the fluted corner boards on the house be increased to 1 inch by 8 inches. The maker of the motion accepted the addition to the conditions. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 7. 1545 CAROL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (GORDON CLINE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; WEMCO LANDSCAPES, DESIGNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 8.26.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe clarified condition 2 noting that it should read: that the parking variance for parking within the front setback shall expire in five years and that the curb cut shall be removed and replaced by a curb and gutter that meet city requirements at the expense of the owner when the parking variance expires; in 5 years time the property owner may apply to the Planning Commission for a time extension for this variance , so long as the application is made prior to the termination of this variance action (September 3, 2002). There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Gordon and Billi Cline, 1545 Carol Avenue, property owner, represented the project. Neighbors Stephanie Schafuner, 1540 Barriolhet, Claire Evants, corner of Barriolhet and Carol; Ann Marnes, 1537 Carol; also spoke. Applicant noted moved to Burlingame in 1994 as a widow looking for a small house which could afford and remodel; added a family room and enlarged the main bedroom, replaced the car port at the rear with an enclosed garage, retained the parking space at the front; husband has a chronic pulmonary disease, cannot leave the house without oxygen tank, garage in rear yard is too far for him to walk; Carol Avenue is a narrow street and it is a benefit to the neighbors to get the car off the street; have removed vegetation in the planting stripe and will install interlocking pavers to make it easier for people parking on the street. Neighbors commented: On Barriolhet the garage is right next to the sidewalk, street is narrow if park o n street cannot see, do not object to parking in front in old driveway, the person who lived there before always parked at the front; people who rented this house before always parked in the front setback, support request; parking on Carol is terrible, anything can do to get cars off the street is to everyone’s advantage. Commission asked applicant: have iron gate at front across driveway on plans how do you get through to parking when closed; like to have gate to keep in grandchildren when visit, neighborhood is safe, usually gate is open. There were no more comments from the floor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keele noted that there are exceptional circumstances on this lot with the odd shape of the lot and the double street frontage which have dictated the location of the on-site parking, compounded by the placement City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 6 of the main structure on the site make it infeasible to put the covered parking at the front of the lot or in front of the garage, so moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions amended as suggested by staff: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 9, 2002, sheet 1; with a paved parking area 9' x 20' in the front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue; 2) that the parking variance for parking within the front setback shall expire in five years (September 3, 2007)and that the curb cut shall be removed and replaced by a curb and gutter that meet city requirements at the expense of the owner when the parking variance expires; in 5 years time the property owner may apply to the Planning Commission for an extension for this variance, so long as the application for extension is made prior to the termination of this variance action ( September 3, 2002); 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s August 12, 2002, memos shall be met; and 4) 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. Keighran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the variance request. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 8. 138 LOMA VISTA DRIVE – ZONED R-1- AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL MAGALONG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DESIGN STUDIO, DANIEL BIERMANN, DESIGNER) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 8.26.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Michael Magalong, designer, and Cheryl Hochstatter, property owner, noted that they were there to answer questions. Commissioner asked how does moving the bay window affect the views into the neighbor’s windows, are they aligned? When put in bay removed window to the left so has no effect on the neighbor. Commissioner asked if the bay window could be aligned under the peak of the roof and centered on the window above, may make the room asymmetrical but would improve the appearance of the outside of the house a lot, could also move the window in the family room further from the bay. Designer indicated that relocations as suggested would be all right, would make the family room window the same size as the center of the bay window with all the divided lights the same. Commissioner noted relocating the family room window would break up the large expanse of stucco on that wall as well. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved approval of the application with the amended conditions that the bay window be relocated to align with the peak of the roof and the window above and the family room window enlarged to match the center window of the bay and be relocated to the left, by resolution with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 9, 2002, sheets A1 and A4 through A9 and date stamped June 14, 2002, sheets A2, A3 and A10, including that all windows on the first and second stories shall be true divided light windows; that the bay window on the first floor be aligned with the peak of the roof and window above, that the window in the first floor family room be relocated to the left, be made the same size as the center piece of the bay window and that all divided lights be the same size; that all downspouts shall be copper downspouts; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 7 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 and Recycling Specialist's March 11, 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; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) 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; and 8) 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. Vistica. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the application as presented with the amended condition regarding the placement of the bay window and relocation and size of the family room window. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:22 p.m. 9. 1819 MONTECITO WAY - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (BINEY SAGOO, RYS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND NARMADABEN PATEL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report 8.26.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Biney Sagoo, RYS Architects, noted that the project has been reduced in overall square footage, the height has been lowered, and the front portion has been moved back. They feel that they have satisfied the neighbor’s concern regarding view blockage. Bernard Ross, 2805 Frontera Way, next door neighbor, stated that he has no objection to the addition, applicant has done what he asked. Asked Commission what does he do though if they begin building and the structure is taller than the story poles that currently represent the outline of the addition? There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to add a condition that requires the story poles to be surveyed to insure that the addition does not exceed the elevations currently represented with the story poles; could Staff also include standard conditions regarding surveying during construction; would like to commend applicant on working with the neighbor to re-design. C. Auran moved to continue this item to the consent calendar with the addition of the standard conditions regarding tracking height during construction and set for the Commission calendar once the story poles have been surveyed. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item to the consent calendar when the story poles have been surveyed and the survey accepted. The motion to continue passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 8 10. 1847 EL CAMINO REAL – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT (DAN LORENZON, APPLICANT; STEVE MUSICH, PROPERTY OWNER) (16 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 8.26.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if this a request for a sign exception or sign variance. CP Monroe explained that it is a sign variance, there are no longer sign exceptions, staff report should have included findings for sign variance. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Steve Musich, property owner, stated that the first sign on this store front was in 1975, and was higher than the existing sign. Payless Shoe Source requires a specific size sign, the size requested, for each of their locations. The lease with Payless states that they have that size sign. To fit within the sign code it must be mounted lower, it does not match the program followed by the other wall signage. He would like this sign to look like the original sign on the property, which was higher. The sign is only 9 feet above grade at the bottom, does not look right. Payless has a five-year lease, with two, five year lease options. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Concerned with size of the sign, Payless sign does look odd lower, should be same height as other signs; restrict sign for only this tenant; CA Anderson noted that you can not tie a sign to a specific user, can only place a time limit on approval; CA Anderson explained that exception and variance findings are similar, but variance findings relate more to the configuration of the property and associated hardships, i.e. is the site setback from the street; Payless is getting an advantage with a larger sign, would grant only for consistency, otherwise opposed; sign code is largely written for pedestrian friendly environments, but this is a huge shopping center setback from both El Camino Real and the parki ng lot; other large signs are found in this center; C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 26, 2002, (site plan and elevations 8½" x 11"); including an illuminated 24'-5" x 1'-10" wall sign and an illuminated two-sided 8" x 4'-0" shingle sign (per side) and there shall be no window or other signage on the site; 2) that any increase in the number or area of the signs on the primary frontage, which exceed the sign code requirements in effect at the time of application, shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that the wall sign and shingle sign shall be permanently attached to the building at 1847 El Camino Real by a means approved by the Building Department; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 5) that this approval for a sign variance for a sign height over 12 feet (14’9”) shall expire five years from the approval date, September 3, 2002; upon expiration of this approval, September 3, 2007, the sign shall be removed at the property owner’s expense, or before the expiration of the five year approval an application may be filed for a time extension of this action. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: sign is placed too low; size fits with surroundings; could not support 15 year approval, should come back after shorter time interval; size gives Payless an advantage, but is o.k. due to the fact that the shopping center is set so far back off of El Camino Real, location is a hardship; support approval for 5 years, then they would have to come back for review; this area is under study for the North City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 9 End Specific Area Plan, so things can change in the next 5 years; amend conditions for 5 years approval with an option for renewal. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve as amended. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Bojués dissenting; C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 1419 COLUMBUS AVENUE- ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND MICHELLE SMITH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked for a radius map for his residence. Staff provided noticing map to Commissioner, it was determined that Commissioner could vote on this item. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, stated that the second floor addition was designed to break up the mass, front porch was enclosed at some time and this design will be returning front porch to the original open condition, height request is because there is a change in elevation from the street to the finished floor. The FAR is close to the maximum allowed due to the 400+SF located below grade which is counted, but is not contributing to the mass of the structure. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan re-checked. Motion was seconded by C. Auran. • Consider adding transom/horizontal window high on the wall next to the front door. Comment on motion: right side of front door is a solid wall, can a transom window be added; excellent job; good example of compliance with the design review criteria Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6 -0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe noted that the August 19, 2002 City Council meeting was cancelled. - CP Monroe noted that the Planning Commission action (denial) on the design review and hillside area construction permit for 2843 Arguello Drive was overturned. City Council approved the project with a condition that the trees be trimmed to a height between plate height and ridge height of the existing house to preserve the existing view. Since the two deciduous trees at the front of the site are City trees it is counter policy for a private owner to trim them. The condition requires that only trees on private property trees shall be trimmed and maintained at the requested height. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 10 - Commission asked how FAR variances can be conditioned to prevent them from future abuse, should a remodeled house with a FAR variance be replaced with a new house. CA Anderson stated that it is o.k. to add a condition that the FAR variance for a specific amount of square footage over the maximum is allowed only for that structure, and clarify why in this case the Commission is granting a variance. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES8.26