Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.09.11Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: I►TI ii►`LI�Y7:`� APPROVAL OF AGENDA FROM THE FLOOR 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 11, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers Commissioners Boju6s, Deal, Dreiling, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Commissioner Keighran City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza The approval of the minutes of the September 11, 2000 meeting regular meeting of the Planning Commission was continued to the September 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The order of the agenda was amended to move Item I d to preceed item 1 a. The agenda was then approved. Alex Hidchenko, 1337 Paloma Avenue, applicant requested that item 3c, conditional use permit and special permits for an accessory structure at 1337 Paloma Avenue be called off the consent calendar and placed on the action calendar. The Reverend Charming Smith representing the Interfaith Hospitality Network (IIIN), spoke regarding the. Homeless Family Day Center proposal at 1720 El Camino Real noting that the program was designed to care for a maximum of 3 to 5 families with children, it would provide van transpiration to and from the host church site, all families would go through triple screening selection process; there are 75 other IHN programs operating successfully in the country; they have 650 volunteers ready to participate in this proposed program; feel that homeless families with children are a health care issue which is compatible with other uses in this building; will provide the city with information that in the past this area was leased to a doctor for medical office use, feel that this is critical information regarding the parking variance; do not know the number of homeless families which will have cars, but think the parking demand for the site during the day will be two to three spaces. Tom Roberts, 474 Cumberland Road, Homeless Coordinator for San Mateo County located in the Office of Housing and local resident; he is the representative from the county who is helping to get this program started, feel it has been done thoughtfully; pleased as a resident of Burlingame that the City will have an opportunity to participate in this effort; vill leave card so that the Planning Department can contact him if there are any questions. There were no more - comments from the floor. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. Minutes page -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 STUDY ITEMS 1. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR TEMPORARY HOMELESS FAMILY SHELTERS IN THREE EXISTING CHURCHES AND FOR A DAY CENTER FACILITY TO SERVE HOMELESS FAMILIES: d. 1720 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED C-1 - DAY CENTER FACILITY (REV. CHANNING SMITH, SAN MATEO COUNTY INTERFAITH, APPLICANT; MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL, PRQPFRTV QWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: can the parking variance be conditioned in such a way that it would not allow a future office use of this area; how many of the clients and project vehicles will be parked overnight on this site, is it more or less than 7; when updating the Housing Element a multiple family overlay zoning was placed on this area, would staff provide a history of this decision and review its entitlement. Chairman Luzuriaga set this item for the action calendar, if the information required is submitted in time, at the September 25, 2000, meeting. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. a. 1500 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1/R-3 - HOMELESS SHELTER (FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF RTTRT TNC.AMF. APPT.TC'ANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) C. 1310 BAYSWATER AVENUE - ZONED C-1 - HOMELESS SHELTER (REV. ALBERT VUCINOVICH, ST. CATHERINE CHURCH, APPLICANT; MOST REV. WILLIAMS LEVADA, PRCIPFRTY CIWNFR) CP Monroe presented the staff reports for these three items together since the program would operate within the same parameters at each of the participating churches. She noted the differences in parking available on each church site. C. Dreiling noted that he had had a business relationship with the First Presbyterian Church which he believed was within the last year so would abstain from discussing that item tonight and from voting on that use permit at the action meeting. Commissioners asked: a couple of neighbors had discussed this project with one commissioner and were welcoming it with keen interest, in that light would suggest that these three church permits be placed on the next consent calendar for action; perhaps this should be a regular action item because of the magnitude of the program and number of sites involved; consent items are noticed in the same fashion as regular action items and any item can be called off by any member of the public. Chairman Luzuriaga moved that these items be placed on the regular action calendar for September 25,2000, provided all the information required is submitted in time. There was no second to the motion. C. Bojues then moved to put items la through le, the conditional use permits for the churches on the consent calendar, and retain the Day Center project on El Camino on the regular action calendar. C. Osterling seconded the motion. I)iscussion on the motion: it is not appropriate to put a variance on the consent calendar, so the Day Center should be on the regular action calendar. Minutes page -2- City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes September!!, 2000 Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place the three church applications on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. 2. 1010 CADILLAC WAY - ZONED C-2 - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE FOR NOT ENCLOSING THE SALES LOT FOR A FIRST FLOOR EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP (KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; E. TAMFC TTANNAY PROPERTY OWNER CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: when will the traffic signal be installed at Cadillac and Rollins; do other auto sales lots meet the fencing/hedge requirement; this is a gateway site, this improvement is good for the applicant, would like him to address which components of the project favor the city and the passerby at this City entrance, refer to the proposed commercial design review guidelines especially gateway sites and provide a serious discussion; parking area in right-of-way is leased from the city, if this area were no longer available, how would it affect site use; lot of discussion in the staff report and negative declaration about how the addition to the building would affect sight lines for traffic but no illustrations were provided, please provide sight line graphics, what corrections/changes would need to be made if this were built, and how would sight lines affect the use of the site; this site is one of the first things one sees when coming off the Broadway off ramp which increases the expectation of what this building should be, would like to see the lighting plan for the interior and the exterior and more landscape information, the rendering shows nice landscaping but it is not reflected on the plan; what kind of landscaping do they intend to put along the Broadway edge; lighting is critical this industry tends to overlight; this building will be the first thing one sees and it is a very firturistic, metal clad structure, it raises concern since it is not representative of the city; this building is designed as a billboard and lighting will be key, at night it will look like a picture, want to review lighting; building is so horizontal needs vertical landscaping, a lot of trees that get big would strongly reflect the substance of Burlingame; agree this is a request for a variance for fence or hedge, trees would be appropriate replacement; would the applicant submit samples of the color scheme. There were no additional questions from the commissioners. Chairman Luzuriaga set this item for the regular action calendar at the meeting of September 25, 2000, providing that all the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time for packet preparation. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYARE ACTED ONSIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/OR ACTIONIS REQUESTED BYTHE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the applicant for item 3c, 1337 Paloma Avenue, had requested that it be removed from the consent calendar. He set 1337 Paloma Avenue, item 3c, as the first item on the regular action calendar. He asked if anyone in the audience or any commissioner wished to take any other items off the consent calendar. There were no further requests. 3a. 4 K.AREN COURT- ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (DAVID GUO AND MYLA PUYAT, APPLICANTS; NORI KAT%MA, DESIGNER; WFCTCHESTER N V TNT'T TNC, PRCIPFRTV (OWNER) Minutes page -3- City of,Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 3b. 2900 ADELINE DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO ATTACH AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO THE MAIN DWELLING (R.C. SMITH, APPLICANT; J.D. & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER; JAMES E. AND MARY TC)MT TNgoN PRnPF.RTV C)WNFRq) and 3d. 711 CONCORD WAY - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND T ESWINF.R; TF.FFRRY g ANT) JFNNTFF.R T. gANT)F-RQ, PROPF-RTV OWNFRq) C. Bojues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolutions. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve, item #3b, 2900 Adeline Drive. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining and C. Keighran absent), The motion to approve Items 3a, 4 Karen Court, and 3d, 711 Concord Way passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3c. 1337 PALOMA AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (ALEX AND GLORIA HIDCHENKO, APPTTC'ANTg ANDPRC)PFRTV (_)WNFRS- 11) k AggnC"TATF.q T)FCTONFR) C. Deal noted he has a business relationship with the applicant and C. Dreiling noted he lives within 300'-0" of the project, both abstained and stepped down from dais. Reference staff report, 9.11.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked staff: what are the required dimensions for the City sewer easement that runs along the back of this property. CE noted easements are 10'-0", with 5'-0" on either side of property line; the sewer line can be located anywhere within that 10'-0". Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public meeting. Alex Hidchenko, applicant and property owner, requested two changes to conditions of approval and submitted a sketch noting he would like to add a toilet to the accessory structure and to revise condition number 4, requiring trees of similar species to be planted in same location as removed pine tree. CP noted adding a toilet would require additional noticing for conditional use permit and advised Commission to continue project if they chose to entertain this added condition. The applicant noted the accessory structure will be used to work on cars and motorcycles, toilet will cut down on dirt tracked into home, the pine tree was topped and is unattractive, there is redwood tree immediately beyond pine tree to provide neighbor privacy, not enough sunlight or room to replant large -size trees, neighbors support removal of pine tree and planting smaller trees in different location, possibly along driveway between properties. CA noted replacement of protected trees is an issue for Beatification Commission and City Arborist. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: would support condition allowing pine tree to be replaced by two trees located anywhere on property, would achieve purpose of landscape requirements in helping to beautify properties with trees; Burlingame more densely populated now than when pine tree originally planted and feel mid -size trees would be appropriate to ,urrent use of this and surrounding properties; do not support added toilet, this intensifies use in accessory structure, .Would lead to greater impact on neighbors and potential to convert structure to a second living unit. Mimites page -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 C. Osterling noted that the large pine looked as if it had been a Christmas tree at one time, it had been unattractively topped, since the redwood is there the pine would be replaced with as much flexibility as possible to enhance the site ^'tom a design standpoint, moved to approve the project with condition number 4 revised to require two mid -sized trees co be planted anywhere on site. There was no second. CA noted Beautification Commission and Landscape Ordinance would determine the size and location of replacement trees. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to approve the August 29, 2000 plans for a new accessory structure at 1337 Paloma Avenue by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and an amendment to condition number 4 that the pine be replaced with two 24" box trees to be planted on the property, the conditions areas follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 29, 2000, Sheet G-1, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations; 2) that the accessory structure shall be used as a garage and storage area; shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional utility services and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that any waste line to the structure shall be limited to a maximum 2" diameter; 4) that two 24" box trees shall be planted on the property to replace the pine tree which is to be removed; 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. Bojue's. Chairman Luzuriaga requested copy of Planning Commission minutes be given to Beautification Commission. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice call vote on the motion to approve with the amended condition. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 voice vote (Cers. Deal and Dreiling abstaining and C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 8:05 p.m. 1541 LA MESA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KEITH RORR AT T, APPT TCANT PpnPF.RTV OWNER ANTI T)F.STGNF.R) Reference staff report, 9.11.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report and noted that the date of the plans in the first condition of approval should be July 21, 2000, instead of July 1, 2000. Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Keith Borrall, applicant, owner and designer, 1541 La Mesa Drive, noted the ridge of roof is actually 0'-6" higher than indicated on plans; was not able to access neighbors house, but submitted pictures taken from closest approximation of neighbor's view with story poles in place. Susan Jong, 1537 La Mesa Drive, submitted pictures from that property with the story poles in place, noting that the poles do not indicate where chimneys will be located. There were no further comments and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission comment: did view the proposed story poles from neighbors house, addition is visible, but will not block any views, actually increases privacy by blocking view of another neighbor's backyard; thanked applicant and neighbors for cooperative efforts to resolve view issues. C. Dreiling moved to approve the project, 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 July 21, 2000, sheets A-1-1 and A2-2, Site alan and Floor Plans, and date stamped September 1, 2000, Sheets A-3-1 and A3-2, Building Elevations and Roof Plan; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), Minutes page -5- ,City of,Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 5. 516 MARIN DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOE COSTA, GARAVAGLIA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARC'HTTEC"T; .STISAN CTMMQN.0 ANT) TOP,PRNNESE, PROPERTV QWN-Rq) Reference staff report, 9.11.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present and there were no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. C. Boju6s noted that amendment is scaled back version of the original approved project and moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following conditions:l) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 14, 2000, sheets A-1.1 through A-3.2; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), changing window size or location, or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all ie requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 6. 931 CAPUCHINO AVENUE - ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES FOR ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE AND FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS MCCARVILLE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MATTHEW kC..VNTTTTAT) IRAGOTTT,CTR,PRC)PERTYC)WNRRS) Reference staff report, 9.11.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Thomas McCarville, applicant and designer, presented the project; owners have improved house so it is an asset to the neighborhood, prefer not to alter the existing house by removing sunroom at south side in order to accommodate driveway, chose design of house to maximize rear yard at south side of property, lot is very deep and feel if detached garage were built in rear 30% of lot, backing out of this long driveway would be dangerous; existing sunroom appears to be part of original home and applicants feel this provides the physical hardship on property to justify parking variance. There were no further comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. ,,ommission comment: concerned with the length and design of the north wall, current design has large impact on neighbors; noted that north wall is extremely close to existing redwood tree, has research indicated wall will not hurt Minutes page -6- .City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 this tree; is spiral staircase designed to code, change may force a change to exterior design; based on knowledge of trees, feels that redwood tree would have no problem surviving given current placement of the north wall; if tree is blued, owner will need to make sure contractor takes necessary precautions during construction; house is charming and would support the parking variance in interest of preserving exemplary design of house; not if favor of parking variance, parking is a real issue in the neighborhood, are several elderly care facilities nearby which require parking for visitors, feel sunroom could be removed to accommodate a driveway and detached garage without compromising the design of the home, lot is larger than average and there is room for a detached garage; keep in mind that proposed project is way under the maximum floor area allowed; agree that parking is major issue here; is it possible to revise conditions so incremental construction will not result in additions without providing parking; condition approval so future additions will erase variance and require review by the Planning Commission. C. Deal moved to approve the project, 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 August 18, 2000 Sheets 1-3; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 17, 2000, memo shall be met; 3) that the parking variances for one covered space and parking in the front setback shall expire and on -site parking shall be provided to current code requirements for any future change to the footprint of the house as approved by these plans; 4) that the uncovered parking space at the front of the lot shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or pavers so that one all weather uncovered parking space is permanently provided on site; 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. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cmsrs. Bojue's and Vistica dissenting and C. Keighran absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:54 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 709 WALNUT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEORGE S. DOLIM, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RAMQNA MARTTNR.7,,PRQPF.RTV QWNRR) CP Monroe presented the staff report describing the project, noting that this project had received affirmative design review but when construction began it was discovered that the existing roof slope was not shown and the roof design would require modifications. Subsequent design review was required. The commission reviewed the proposed solution at preliminary study, directed the applicant and asked that the revision be brought to a second preliminary study meeting tonight. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. George Dolim represented the project. Commissioners noted when they first saw this house the roof was steeper, at that time had some concerns about the front elevation, now the roof has changed, the front elevation stayed the same and the building looks front loaded with the area over the entry extended beyond at the front door; the bathroom appears to extend out on the same plane as the bedroom on the right side of the first floor, the bath room needs to be moved back several feet; the second floor appears more massive than the first floor; trees are not intended to hide features of a building which are not compatible; resubmittal should include floor plans, assist understanding of what on inside is affecting design; second floor is not compatible with first, vents not work - triangular and square; what is happening on the south elevation with the cantilever, what is the relationship of the first and second floors on the south wall, relate the depth of the eaves on the first and second floor (they appear a be attached to the plane of the wall) find a better solution; design should be treated as a two story from the start with Windows aligned, bays added. Minutes page -7- , City. of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 C. Dreiling moved to direct applicant to return with revised project to the consent calendar at the next meeting if they can submit the revised plans with floor plans to the Planning Department in the next couple of days. Motion was econded by C. Boju6s. On the motion: it should be clear that the skylight on the rear should be removed and the skylight on the front tinted. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to return the redesign to the consent calendar if the corrections could be submitted in time for staff to review and prepare the staff report. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a break at 9:20 and reconvened at 9:30. 8. 1610 FOREST VIEW AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN HERMANNSSON, APPT.TCANT ANT) ARCHTTF.CT; DEAN ANT) TAMT R AT.T.V1 PROPERTY (lMTRq CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. John Hermannsson, architect, Middlefield Road, Redwood City, presented represented the project. He described the trellis structure. Commissioners noted in discussion with applicant: project is subject to design review in addition to the front setback variance; need a better plan description of the trellis structure; house is ranch style but the second floor is a completely different design, a different style, very massive especially on the left side; little bay windows are not in proportion and the outriggers on the front and rear are different style, the eave over hangs 2.5 feet at the front and 1 foot at the rear; lack consistency in detail between the first and second floor; skylight does not relate to anything in the design; design guidelines focus on consistency of finish so have addition but a house of one design at the end, this is a 1940-50's bottom and a craftsman bungalow on top, need to choose; could add craftsman detail heavy on entry and a number of elements on sides to get there; second floor plate is 8'-4" and first floor plate is T-0" not consistent with craftsman style, need to reduce mass; inconsistent second floor windows, round top and long narrow bays not seen in craftsman style; skylight is inconsistent with craftsman; roof on back and right side elevation, gable roof on top, hip roof on bottom, mis-matched; generally agree that arbor is alright, but would be happier if arbor was a part of the architecture of the house. There were no additional comments from the public. C. Vistica moved to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50p.m. 9. 1600 CARMELITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MAHMUT YUKSEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY CIWNF.R• RTCTTART) MUST- ARCHITECT) CP Monroe briefly presented the description of the project. There were no questions of staff. Minutes page -8- City, of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Direction about changes to this design had been given the applicant at the June 26, 2000, meeting and revised plans submitted date stamped August 23, 2000. Richard Foust, 180 N. Forth, "an Jose, represented the project. Commissioners discussed the proposed project with the applicant noting: feel point of previous review was missed, the cross brace and boards on this Tudor are too thin, the thin molding and trim are typical of a ranch house not a Tudor; revised submittal has a better roof pitch, need to revise the half timber and show more detail; this house may be a typical tract Tudor, but does not reflect the good examples (not the bad) in the neighborhood; the chimney on the right side is massive the base is 12 feet wide and the chimney 4 feet wide; the pitch of the roof should be steeper to be a true Tudor, have a special permit provision for height when it is needed to achieve a particular architectural style; window size at the rear needs adjustment, see if can improve proportion; not need too many battens to achieve a Tudor style; batten pattern does not work, only need a few often one at plate and a couple of curved to roof; if ask for special permit for height it needs to be a charming roof not just a taller building; could lower the plate; a Tudor style is comprehensive it includes the proportion of the rooms and spaces inside in the building, the size of the bays, shed dormers, the steep roof springing from the second floor plate, the scale of the windows should be human, small (now the windows on the front are closer to the style than those on the rear where the windows are too big), details need to be fine; height of the house should also be considered in relationship to the neighbors, what does the height do to the neighbors and what does the height do to the street. Lynn Higgs, 1640 Carmelita and Debra Magget, 1104 Cortez, commented, both are neighbors of the project. Concerned about the size, the exterior door to the basement, the code requirements for the basement access, current proposal is massive and tall, do not want an even taller building. There were no further continents from the floor and the public comment was closed. Deal moved to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made and a note that the entrance to the house should be addressed in design review. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: suggest to best use the design review process the applicant might want to do some preliminary work before submitting to the design reviewer; what is the front of the lot for setbacks, the shorter street frontage; can have entrance on the side, yes. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to direct the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 10. 2616 HALE DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (DONNA WILLS AND ERIC COLSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; WINGES ARCHITECTURE, ZT Lewit presented the project report. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. The applicant was not present. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. �. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next meeting if staff has all the information _. quired in time. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to Minutes page -9- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 place the item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of September 5, 2000 City Council Meeting C. Dreiling noted that the applicant for the hotel at 1755 Bayshore Highway had called him several times regarding that project. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that AB 2774 currently being considered by the legislature may provide some money for preparation of general plans. Would staff check it out. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. .h9.11 Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Acting Secretary Minutes page -10-