Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.11.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Tuesday November 12, 2002 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the November 12, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The following changes were noted to the minutes of the October 28, 2002 regular meeting of the Planning Commission: - Item #8, page 6,first paragraph should read “Commissioner noted that he was not able to visit to get onto the site” - Item #11, page 9, add to minutes that “Commissioner recommended that the applicant consider removing the eucalyptus trees that block the neighbor’s view”. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe noted that item number 5, 4 Mariposa Court and item number 10, 1537 Drake Avenue, have been both continued to the meeting on November 25, 2002 and will be re-noticed. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 808 EDGEHILL DRIVE – ZONED C-R – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW, THREE-STORY, DUPLEX ON EDGEHILL DRIVE AND AN ATTACHED SINGLE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE (MIKE JALILIE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CJW ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners requested that the following issues be addressed: • Look at eliminating side setback variance, very close to meeting requirement, this is new construction project on lot with out hardship; • Provide landscape plan, shrubs could be added between garage door and at corner of entry, vines can also be added at the entries to the dwellings and the three pillars along California Drive; • Concerned with parking variance, what are unusual circumstances on the property; • Can one unit be made affordable; • Provide explanation on why parking is needed on California, who will use it, will it be used for regular deliveries; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 2 • No reason for side setback variance; • Suggest covering entries to units, add overhang for benefit of residents; and • Where would people park to go to commercial space, will striping for parking be added along California Drive. Chair Keighran set this item for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted, reviewed by the Planning Department, and there is space on the action calendar. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. 2. 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, #310 – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B- APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH SERVICE (MARRIAGE/FAMILY THERAPIST) (ROBERTA ANDERSON, APPLICANT; HENRY HORN & SONS, TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. There were no comments from the Planning Commission and this item was placed on the consent calendar for the next Planning Commission meeting. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 3. 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY – ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF THREE NEW WALL SIGNS (ALAN FORD/MARCO ACOSTA, SIGN RESOURCE, APPLICANTS/DESIGNER; SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Planner Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Would like to see information on the sign height, number of signs and sign area for the surrounding hotels; • What is the size, height and area of the Hilton Garden signage, it is a similar size hotel; • Is this the standard size sign for this hotel, or is this sign larger or smaller than standard sign; • Concerned with height, but also sign on north and south elevations seems too big for the space it is on, a smaller size sign would be more usually appropriate; and • Is the color shown on the plans (red) the actual color that is proposed. CA Anderson noted that the Planning Commission should consider in reviewing this item comments on sign code changes they might propose for revision of the code requirements to update the what should be the norm. 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 7:27 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. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 3 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. 4a. 1336 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (DAVID JOHNSON, ALL SEASONS REMODELING, APPLICANT; DONALD WALLACE, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 4b. 1313 GROVE AVENUE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALBERT PASTINE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CATHY GLAZE AND LAURA SIMMONS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner asked if the clarification on the chimney height noted on the plans for 1313 Grove is sufficient for the Building Department. CP Monroe noted yes, that more information would be added consistent with the note during the building permit process. C. Auran abstained from voting on 1336 Drake Avenue, lives within 500 feet. C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining) for 1336 Drake Avenue and a 7-0 affirmative vote for 1313 Grove Avenue. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5. 4 MARIPOSA COURT – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HEDGE EXCEPTION FOR A 12’ HEDGE GRACE AND ROBERT DUMMEL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 25, 2002 MEETING) This item was continued to the November 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting 6. 1439 (41) CORTEZ AVENUE- ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RONALD AND PAUL DE DIOS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; HECTOR ESTIPONA, DESIGNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report November 11, 2002, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that FAR numbers in staff report and plans do not match, appears to be mistake on landscape plan showing 1 gallon magnolias, but they are not available that small, small street tree in front of house, should be larger scale, why was this address changed. Staff replied that the FAR noted in the staff report is the correct number, staff will check with the City Arborist to see if a larger scale street tree can be planted in front of the subject property and if so it can be added as a condition of approval, and condition can be added that all trees to be planted on-site shall be 24-inch box size, as is required by City’s urban reforestation ordinance. There were no further questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 4 Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Ron Riego De Dios, property owner stated that he attached pictures of neighboring homes and provided a schematic of the proposed house in relationship to the two adjacent homes to show that the proposal fits in with the neighborhood. They worked with design reviewer to reduce the size and bulk of the proposal. Joe Becerra, 1437 Cortez Avenue, stated he is not against this project, but objects to the size of homes that are allowed to be constructed under the code in Burlingame. Proposed house is too big of the lot, large size impacts the character of his house built in 1915. FAR law is too liberal need to change. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 1,2002, Sheets A1 through A5, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, and elevations along with a landscape design plan; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the 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 demolitio n permit; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s and the City Engineer’s July 16, 2002 memos shall be met; 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; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9) that all trees proposed to be planted on-site shall be a 24-inch box size; and 10) that the applicant shall contact the Parks Department to request that a larger scale street tree be planted in front of the subject property, and if approved shall be installed before the building permit is finaled. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Commission discussion: proposal is within allowable FAR, there are larger houses in the area, working with the design reviewer the applicant has reduced mass and bulk and has addressed Commission’s concerns; can’t support applicant, not enough has been done, height is not consistent with neighborhood; like the changes made to the project, but the footprint hasn’t changed enough, family room and master bedroom could be cut back, more could be done to reduce the bulk of this house; applicant has made a significant effort to comply with the residential design guidelines, there is a large house on each side of the subject property; design review process has worked well; design reviewer has worked hard with this applicant, big improvement. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keele dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 5 7. 535 ALMER ROAD – ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, FOUR-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GLUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (103 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCES B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report November 12, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Forty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked the Public Works department representative, Senior Engineer Phil Monaghan, if the applicant submitted written analysis regarding the 15% driveway slope verses the 18% slope, and does Public Works object to an 18% slope. Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan noted information on the slope of the driveway was submitted with the variance application, reducing it to 15% would require that the building be moved back on the lot, do not oppose 18% slope as long as there is a usable vertical curve. Code states up to 15% slope is o.k., between 15-20% needs review by City Engineer and over 20% slope need Planning Commission approval. Commissioner asked if this requirement is related to allowing access for emergency vehicles. Senior Engineer Phil Monaghan stated that is it not for emergency vehicle access, but to allow vehicle access into and from the garage without bottoming out. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. G’lush Dada, project designer, noted that this project was reduced from 6 to 4 units, in the process some of the bulk has been reduced. Commission asked why the number of units was reduced, was it because the cost of providing sub-grade parking for six units, because the shell of the building appears to be the same. Project designer explained that the changes to the project were due to construction cost, but also market demand changed to higher end units. Commissioner asked why applicant could not provide a 15% driveway slope and what would happen to design if project met the 15% driveway slope. Designer noted that there is a 5% transition slope from the curb, then 18% to another transition slope, the first parking space is a disabled accessible space which requires an 8 foot height clearance, need the 18% slope to meet the height requirement for that first space. Meeting the 15% slope would result in the loss of two extra parking spaces; can not move the building back because of the oak tree, the parking space maneuvering would be too tight. Commission expressed concern with the side setback variance, what is the hardship, seems easy enough to remedy this situation by reducing the width of the two extra parking spaces provided, since they are extra they are not required to meet the code required parking dimensions. Designer noted that the side setback variance is for underground encroachment, would rather have a side setback variance than a parking variance for 9 foot wide spaces, would have trouble opening and exiting the car with narrower parking space width. Commissioner asked why there is a need for 12 parking spaces, why not use the extra space for storage. Designer noted that because of the size of the units there has been sufficient storage supplied inside the units, guest parking is always a problem so they decided to provide two extra spaces on-site. Commissioner expressed concern with 9 foot plate height on first and second floors and 10 foot plate height on third floor, couldn’t design work with 8 foot plate heights, bulk needs to be reduced. Designer explained that the third floor is going to be the owners unit and change in plate height would not be proportionate to interior room size and design, and noted that there is not a 9 foot plate height through out the unit, only in family room and main living areas, bedroom plate height drops down. John Bauer and Donald Larking, 525 Almer Road, had the following comments on the project: worked with the neighbors on this project, has gone from 8 to 6 to 4 units; concerned with Black Acacia at the rear of the lot, would like to see it removed; would like a condition added to the approval that a wooden fence be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 6 constructed between 525 and 535 Almer Road; would like condition added that the Oak tree that extends over the property line and hangs over at the roof of 525 Almer be trimmed regularly; o.k. with 9 foot ceiling height on all floors; no complaints on bulk; this building will add value to the area; applicant did excellent job; there is a lack of adequate on-street parking in this area, support providing extra parking on-site, not less; project will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. CP Monroe noted a variance is not required for driveway slope between 15 and 20%, over 20% require a variance and is not an issue here since the maximum slope proposed is 18%. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the forty-five conditions listed, support the project because the mass and bulk have improved over the last approval, project has more interest along the streetscape, doesn’t want parking to shrink so side setback variance is supported based on the preservation of the oak tree and the extra parking. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: nice design; improvement over previous approval; do not see the hardship to justify the variance; no exceptional circumstances for the variances, this is not a remodel, it is new construction with no limitations, need to comply with the code; only minor adjustments are needed to comply with the side setback requirement and the driveway slope, without changing the project much; do not want to set a precedent with this variance since this is a good sized flat lot, easy to move wall in 2 feet without major impact on parking; would like to see plate height reduced, no need for large plate heights, will not affect design; o.k. with driveway slope proposed and plate height, creates sense of openness inside; volume of variance requested is small, only wrought iron grill in side yard, this is a trade off for the parking; would like to add condition of approval that fence be constructed between 525 and 535 Almer Road. CA Anderson asked if the Commission wanted to add two conditions to required that a wooden fence be placed on the property line between 525 and 535 Almer Road and that an arborist report be prepared to ad dress protection of the oak tree during the construction and its maintenance following construction. The report should be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before issuance of the building permit, the maker and second of the motion agreed. Chair Keighran called for a roll call on the motion to approve. The motion failed on a 4-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, Keele, and Vistica dissenting). C. Vistica moved to continue this item to have the applicant look at options to eliminate the side setback variance. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. Comment on the motion: driveway slope at 18% o.k.; plate height o.k.. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Since there was no action take, this action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:49 p.m. 8. 1838 EL CAMINO REAL, #180 – ZONED C-1- APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION USES (MARY J. WONG, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report November 12, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted there is no parking required but what if the applicant has 60 employees? Commissioner asked City Attorney if we are allowed to regulated the number of employees, CA Anderson City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 7 replied that yes, with a conditional use permit can be enforced by subpoenaing employee records for the site. Staff noted that as part of the review of this project the Commission will look at the number of employees proposed on-site for this business, and if they add employees after approval they are required to go back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner asked if the two year review listed in the conditions of approval for this project could be shortened, can it be reviewed in one year. Staff replied that the condition can be changed to be reviewed in one year, and then on a compliant basis, as it is hard to keep track of annual reviews. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mary Wong and Ryan Jesus, applicants, stated that the previous occupant in this suite had 150 employees, where most of their employees are contractors and work out of their house and go to their clients homes, but have desks at office, they do not all come into the office at once. Commission asked how many people are anticipated on-site at one time, how many in two years. The applicant stated that there would be no more than 8 people total, including clients, on-site at any given time, and that would remain the same in two years. Commission noted that floor plans show 15 workstations and conference rooms, why are so many spaces needed for 8 people. There are weekly meetings on Wednesdays, but only about 4 employees show-up. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keele moved to approve the application but wants conditions more realistic, revise condition #1 to take out maximum number of employees, revise condition #2 to fix maximum number on-site at one time to 8 and review conditional use permit for compliance in one year and/or upon complaint , by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the real estate and financial institution uses (mortgage loan office) shall be limited to 2,824 SF in Suite 180 at 1838 El Camino Real, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 8, 2002, First Floor Plan; 2) that the real estate and mortgage loan office on this site in Suite 180 may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week; the combined uses shall be limited to a maximum of eight people on site at any one time, including the owner, office manager, all employees and contractors and clients; 3) that the approval of this conditional use permit voids the conditional use permit approved for a real estate use in Suite 111 granted on November 13, 2001; 4) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, or total number of people on site at any one time which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 5) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year from the date of approval (November, 2004) and upon complaint; and 6)that the use and 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. Auran. Comment on the motion: does not make sense that there are 15 workstations, but only 8 people maximum on-site; can verify applicant’s statement, most real estate offices work that way, contractors have desk at office, but most work is done from home office and off-site; parking is a concern, but take the applicant’s word that only 8 people will be on-site at once; applicant can come back and amend permit if more people will be on-site. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 9. 3013 RIVERA DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – USE DETERMINATION FOR A FENCE UNDER THE HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION CODE SECTION 25.61.020. (34 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 8 Reference staff report dated November 12, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commissioners asked about the definition of accessory structure included in the staff report, noting it seems that it could include fences; CA noted that if Commission were to define a fence as an accessory structure that would apply throughout the city since a definition applies to a term throughout the zoning code. Could fences over a certain height be required to get a hillside area construction permit; could the code be amended to require that? CA responded if Commission thought that fences of a certain height should be regulated under the hillside requirements, the code could be amended; however, since building permits are not required for fences seven feet or less, implementation would rely heavily on code enforcement. It was also noted that a change in the regulations is not retroactive, so this fence would not be addressed by an ordinance extension of the hillside regulations to certain fences. To make the present fence subject to the requirements for a hillside permit it needs to be determined that al l fences were intended to be included under the current provisions of Chapter 25.61. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Bishop, 3013 Rivera, Craig Marrs, 3013 Rivera; Dr. David Conoff, 2958 Arguello spoke. Live in the hillside area, ask to have view protected, feel code should be flexible, not use a rigid interpretation suited to the 1940’s, want to have the city require that the fence be removed; our property is located on the top of the ridge on a flat lot, neighbor’s property slopes steeply upward toward our property; from our property look over neighbor’s roof below not see into house, not a privacy issue; moved in three years ago, previous owner had not maintained growth on site, cleared out a lot of dead brush; on September 19 neighbor, without notice, placed a solid wood fence on their rear property line; block view from our house which was designed to orient to the view; wanted to compromise with neighbor, contacted them but had no response. The structure installed is not a fence it is a vertical wall, it is 20 feet short of extending along the neighbor’s entire rear property line, it does not connect to adjacent side property fencing; staff report focuses on technical definitions, does not afford protection to view. Commissioners asked: where was the dead brush removed? Initially on the Rivera property, realtor had told us our property line extended 10 to 15 feet downhill, stopped when neighbor asked us to stop; neighbor had a survey, property line not 10 feet down hill so did clear some brush from neighbor’s property three years ago; the great majority of what was removed though was from Rivera property. Following meeting on site spoke to neighbor on phone, he felt that the code provides him protection, not need one-on-one solution that would cost a lot of money. Letter from neighbor submitted noted that after property surveyed a contractor hired by Rivera property owner was on their property cutting vegetation that they had recently planted; no, problem was a branch of a tree which is located across the property line. Would you want a wall of vegetation to be treated the same as a fence; yes if it blocked our view. Hedge and fence are the same in the city code, so should be treated the same for view obstruction. It appears that 2953 Arguello had no view until the brush and trees were removed? Had a view in 1999 when moved in, before we cleaned and cleared. Public hearing continued: Installed the fence for privacy and safety, lived in house on Arguello since 1990, had dense brush along rear property line did not need fence; in 1999 Marrs’ chopping removed brush on their and our property and damaged our privacy; they had no view initially but achieved one over time; discussed in 2000 they thought their property extended into my yard, had a survey done but they continued to trim and plants continued to disappear; as recently as September 2002 there were men in his rear yard trimming trees; wife told Mrs. Marrs if would not install fence, they would have to; researched city codes before installed fence was told that a fence was not a structure and not subject to Hillside Area Construction Permit; had more than 6 feet of brush at property line, only put in a 5 foot fence as measured from up hill City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 9 side; definition of structure excludes fence, everyone is entitled to safety and privacy; when built fence had a vested privacy right; all fences are excluded from the building code; the neighbor’s pattern of behavior has been sneaky, including providing you with a last minute desk item tonight, my submittal was given during business hours today; should be noted that this decision would open all fences retroactively for review. Commissioners asked: how can the fence be for safety when it encloses only part of the rear property line? Problem was to stop unknown workmen from coming into yard, concerned about someone being injured on his property; all other neighbors have fences, only one has gone over it. Could you add planting at ke y locations on your property to address your concerns? Yes, if it recreated what we had before, want privacy so that they cannot see into our yard and we cannot see into theirs. Could plants be planted down from the apex of the hill? Yes but not too far down or they would have to be taller to maintain the screen, if plants can achieve the equivalent of the fence, not need fence. Where the fence is now, was there vegetation all the way across? Yes, the same height or higher. What can you see of the Marrs? Now see top of one wall and the roof, before the fence saw from window sill to roof, from family room and part of patio and one bedroom. From site visit noted the uphill property view is best from shared property line, if back from edge not see into property below; where were 4 Pittosporum plants removed, on left side from his house. Was the worker in one of the pines not on the property line? No, on our property, Timberline Tree Company was told before not to trespass. Would you agree to a continuation to meet with your neighbor regarding the FAX he sent you at 3:00 p.m. today? Looked over proposal quickly, solution is deficient, not address many issues, do not want this postponed. This determination will have a big impact on the code, if neighbor was to add a second story it would look right down into your yard, privacy is not a planning issue. Have a legal right to a 6 foot fence, neighbor created the view by removing vegetation, had no view before. Commission gave direction to the neighbors to meet toresolve this issue and come back to the Planning Commission, you may not want to go where the Commission may end up, a lot of homeowners could be affected; the Peninsula Conflict Resolution people could help you craft an agreement which could be the basis for addressing the problem on an on-going basis. The neighbors indicated they would be willing to go to Peninsula Conflict Resolution. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: from site visit felt that property on Arguello was in a bit of a fish bowl, there is also an issue of trespass here, would not like strangers on property regularly; right solution is to plant something off the property line which would screen view into property below and allow view out, would mean neighbor below giving up 5 to 10 feet of his property, endorse idea of neighbors resolving this among themselves. C. Vistica noted that the neighbor does not need to put a bench at the edge of the hill, reduce i mpact by pulling back his use in the rear yard; encourage Commission to think about the larger ramifications of a modification of the code, could be substantial increase in Planning Commission review so moved to continue this item to give the applicant and his neighbor a chance to meet and reach a conclusion before they come back to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: see differently, Planning Commission does not regulate privacy, in this area only regulate views, sense here a lack of consensus which causes friction between neighbors, should be noted that privacy has little weight because it is not within the Planning Commission’s authority. There are transparent fences; property to the west of Marrs extends 10 to 15 feet down the hill, they have allowed bushes to get taller lower on the hill. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 10 Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the applicant and his neighbor have met and can return with a proposal. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Since no action was taken, this item is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR TWO ATTACHED GARAGES AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT THREE, NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (TO BE CONTINUED) This item was continued. 11. 716 CONCORD WAY- ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHARLES AND SUZANNE SAUL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GEORGE SKINNER; ARCHITECT) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked what portion of the ground floor level is counted toward the FAR, and how is FAR calculated if garage is detached. Staff explained that a storage room/workshop and the rear portion of the garage, shown on sheet A3 are about 387 SF in area and are counted toward FAR, the maximum ceiling height in this area is 6’-10”. If there is a detached garage there can be up to a 400 SF to be used credit for parking only. Commissioner asked if there is a 100 SF credit for utility area on ground floor, Staff confirmed that yes, 100 SF credit is given for mechanical areas on lower floors. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Charles and Suzanne Saul, property owners, stated that they have lived in Burlingame for 2 years. Their home is 65 years old and has had no renovation, there are single pane windows, no insulation, the house is an odd configuration with different levels. Tandem garage is not usable because of the heating ducts and plumbing fixtures that restrict the height, as low as 5’-4” in some spaces. A total tear down would be necessary to gain the square footage needed, but do not want to lose the character of this charming house. Commissioner stated concern with FAR, variance requires hardship, did the applicant look at other alternatives? Applicant responded that they were focused on design and lost track of FAR. Were trying to keep the bulk down and keep height below other houses on the street, just wanted to added family room, a master suite and another full bathroom. Commission asked that the applicant provide existing floor plans and elevations. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: virtually every house on this block has an attached garage, do not encourage detaching garage; FAR is quite a bit over maximum allowable, need hardship; mass and bulk of addition is broken up nicely; need to reduce amount of variance request; suggest reducing FAR request by 70-100 SF, would be more acceptable, equivalent to unusable space on ground floor that is being counted toward FAR; look at option of converting storage/workshop area on ground floor to living space; deck off of master bedroom is nice, but are not usually used. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 11 C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Existing floor plans are provided; • Existing elevations are provided • The proposal is reduced in total FAR by 70-100 SF; and • Applicant might also look at adding some articulation on the right side elevation. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Keighran 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:43 p.m. 12. 26 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HUGO CURLIONIS, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, stated that this project is a major reconfiguration, tried to pick up the details of other houses in the area. The request for a special permit for declining height envelope is for three separate windows on a dormer rather than one single window that is required to qualify for the dormer exception. Commissioner asked what kind of trim is proposed around the front door. Applicant explained that it is a beveled stucco wall. Commissioner asked what type of detail is proposed in the upper left corner on the front elevation. Applicant stated that is not decided yet, may be tile or glass block. 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 checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. 13. 1540 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-CAR ATTACHED GARAGE (BLUESKY DESIGNS INC, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRIS MCCRUM, PROPERTY OWNER) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Keighran noted that she lives within 500 feet of the proposed project site and recused herself from this deliberation. She stepped down from the dais. Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if oak tree in the front will be protected during construction, new pervious pavers are proposed around the tree, would like to see arborist’s report on tree protection. Commissioner noted that there are major structural roots coming up in the existing driveway now, should be considered by arborist. There were no further questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 12 Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Ken Coverdell, applicant and Chris McCrum, property owner, explained that the originally approved design was a larger structure with the garage doors on one plane, where they are now proposing staggered garage doors to reduce the blocky feeling. This proposal is closer to the meeting the required front setbacks for garage doors, they are not close to maximum lot coverage or FAR. The height of the new garage would be lower than the existing carport. They are proposing to raise the floor of the garage to allow drainage to flow toward the street, pavers are proposed to provide for a pervious service. Designed to allow room for uncovered space in front of garage, shortage of on-street parking on this block. Commissioner noted that the flat roof on the garage is out of character wit the house and the neighborhood, pitched roof would match existing house better, understand need for variance but design needs to be refined. Applicant stated that flat roof was proposed to be consistent with the craftsman style of the house, it would also preserve the bedroom window behind the garage, where a pitched roof would require them to open up the existing roof structure; Agree with applicant, flat roof goes well with this house. Key purpose of this project is to provide parking and security for his family. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when an arborist report is provided on the oak tree in the front, with tree protections measures proposed and the report has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: flat roof is good; disagree, every roof on the existing house has a pitch, pitched roof on new garage is the best architectural solution; bedroom window behind garage can be moved, no need to, garage wall is 7’-7”away from the window; applicant should note that Commission can pull this item off of consent, applicant should at least look at alternative of having a pitched roof and provide an explanation for its impacts. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed and an arborist’s report has been provided and approved by the City Arborist. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-2-1-0 (Cmsrs. Vistica and Bojués dissenting, Chair Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m. Chair Keighran returned to the dais. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of November 4, 2002 CP Monroe reviewed the planning related items at the City Council meeting, noting that two of the planning items appealed were denied without prejudice and returned to the commission with direction. The second reading for the rezoning at 350 Beach Road was set for December 2, 2002. - Distribution of 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar CP Monroe handed out a draft of the 2003 calendar, noting that the City Council would adopt their calendar at their November 12, 2002 meeting, and then the Commission’s calendar could be finaled. Staff should be contacted if there were any questions about the draft calendar. - FYI on 1301 Burlingame Avenue- Apple Store CP Monroe noted that the applicant had changed the color of the brick being used and wanted the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 12, 2002 13 Commission to be aware of the change before the action meeting. The new brick is a warm yellow color with gray grout. Commission had no comment. - FYI on 1205 Burlingame Avenue- Sephora CP Monroe noted the memo on the sign change for Sephora, signage for the store would remain within code requirements. Commission had no comment. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary U:/minutes/ approved11.12