Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.08.12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California August 12, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the August 12, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioners Bandrapalli and Davis Staff Present: Community Development Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and Acting City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Chair Sargent, Commissioner Terrones and Commissioner DeMartini abstained from approval of the July 22, 2013 meeting minutes because they were not in attendance at the meeting. Commissioners Terrones and DeMartini reported that they watched the videos of the items on the August 12, 2013 meeting but did not watch the meeting in its entirety. Commissioners Yie and Gaul identified corrections to the minutes of the July 22, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission Meeting:  Page 2, Commission comments, 2nd bullet – Should indicate that there is some area at the exterior of the building at the front that could be used for exercise stations such as a “paracourse.”  Page 3, Public comments, 2nd bullet – Should indicate they have been supporting a program in East Palo Alto for many years, and they have a track record of supporting the community.  Page 12, Public comments, 10th bullet – Discussion of Reference to obscured glass and shrubbery was intended to indicate that the neighbors could implement obscured glass or shrubbery for their own properties to mitigate those issues as well.  Page 12, Commission comments – Reference to the skylight was that it would be an expense, as well as the ongoing maintenance.  Page 13, Item 6, 2nd bullet – Typo: should read “big” open area. There was no Motion to approve the minutes due to a lack of quorum between those commissioners in attendance at the July 22, 2013 meeting and those in at the August 12, 2013 meeting. The Planning Commission will take up approval of the minutes when it has a sufficient quorum of commissioners who were in attendance at the July 22, 2013 meeting. There was no Motion to accept the July 8, 2013 minutes, as a quorum of Planning Commissioners had not had the opportunity to review the minutes. The Planning Commission will take up approval of the minutes when it has a sufficient quorum of commissioners who were in attendance at the July 8, 2013 meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 2 Planning Manager Gardiner announced that Item 1 has been removed from the agenda. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage at the subject property and has corrected other code enforcement matters. A hearing to review the Conditional Use Permit application will be scheduled for future consideration once the application is deemed complete by staff. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon 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. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 960 DAVID ROAD, ZONED RR – APPEAL OF DETERMINATION CITING UNLAWFUL USE OF PROPERTY UNTIL AUTHORIZATION GRANTED (MUNICIPAL CODE 25.16.120) FOR A PROPOSED VEHICLE STORAGE USE REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND APPEAL OF AMBIGUITY OF USE DETERMINATION (MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.16.145) (RUJUL ZAPARDE, FLIGHTCAR INC., APPELLANT; FRANK EDW ARDS CO, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER This item was withdrawn from the agenda. 2. 1412 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ATTACHED CARPORT WITH A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (JODI AND MARK CAMPION, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Chair Sargent recused himself as he resides within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Terrones assumed the role of Chair. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated August 12, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Commissioner Terrones opened the public hearing. Robert Nebolon represented the applicant:  At the last meeting discussed changes to windows, garage, research changes to the roofing materials.  Add vertical mullions to have the entire second floor consistent all the way around. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 3  Left original windows on the ground floor.  On the garage added new windows across the top with vertical mullions.  Original roof shingles are asbestos/cement fiber, diagonal-cut. Proposing to use diamond-cut asphalt, “French-cut” roof shingles design. Choosing a color that most closely represents the existing roof.  It is a 40-year roof so is extra thick. Commission questions and comments:  Lites into garage door were added.  Bars on the lower window were removed because it is an egress window.  Is roofing over library being replaced? (Nebolon: Just discovered it was recently replaced, so no longer planning to replace it.)  Concern there will now be three different types of roofs – want them to match. (Nebolon: Initially there was discussion that the roof needed to be replaced. It turns out it was replaced recently so the owners would not like to tear it off to replace it with new roofing unless the Commission feels strongly about it.)  For the record, the roof in question is over the left wing on the first floor. It’s a bedroom – the library is immediately flanking the entry.  (Nebolon: Can have extra shingles and store it for when roof over bedroom is ready to be replaced.)  To clarify, the note on plans says “new” roof over the first floor bedroom wing. This note should be removed from the plans if the roof is not being replaced – (Nebolon: Yes, the note will be struck from the plans.) Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie 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 Division date stamped July 29, 2013, sheets A4 and A4.1 and date stamped June 24, 2013, sheets A1 through A3 and A5 through A7.1 with the exception that Sheet A4 (West Elevation) will be corrected to indicate the existing roofing over the first floor bedroom wing will not be replaced; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 27 and June 11, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's June 24, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 3, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's June 5, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 3, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 4 shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Discussion of motion:  Changes are great. The plans will need to be corrected to show that the roof over the bedroom wing in the front will not be replaced. Commissioner Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1. (Commissioners Bandrapalli and Davis absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 5 3. 1521 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER; ANGUS GAVIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Sargent returned to the dias. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated August 12, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant:  Revised plan per Commission suggestions at the last meeting.  Have had the opportunity to talk to the neighbors. Their concerns are mostly with the trees. We told them we have not yet decided which species, size or location.  Can suggest a Condition of Approval that trees will be planted to provide some privacy screening to mitigate the issue. Eric/Applicant represented the property owner:  To address the privacy concerns, have reduced the amount of windows on the main bedroom.  Will have obscured glass on the second story where the stairwell is, and where the bedroom is.  Going to include a hedge on the side yard where the PG&E easement is but has not determined exactly which species. Commission questions and comments:  Over last three weeks why hasn’t the neighbor been spoken to? (Eric/Applicant: Spoke after the meeting here. Tried to meet with the neighbors last week, and they have had his contact information the entire time. The neighbor who is most concerned with the privacy was away at the time that he had available to physically visit the property.)  Is the PG&E easement the entire setback area? Will it be possible to plant a hedge there? (Eric/Applicant: Along the walkway there is an area for planters, on the side next to the fence.)  How tall is the hedge planned to be? What should we and the neighbors expect it to look like? (Eric/Applicant: It is expected to work to protect their privacy. Does not have an actual height worked out yet. It has to work for this property too so it does not obscure too much light. Their property is at an upslope so they get a view down into the property regardless. We will try to make that a view of a hedge rather than a person.)  OK with direction from PG&E on what can and cannot be done in that area? (Eric/Applicant: We only have a certain area we can build in. Will go up as high as allowed. Cannot plant in the actual easement area.)  How high can the hedge go there? (Eric/Applicant: Lines are about 12 feet up or so.)  Above the front porch looks like material changed from shake to siding. It looks good, but it has not been called out on the drawings. (Chu: Will look into it. It is changing).  On the floor plan it shows the larger front porch. On the site plan there is a wooden walkway along the right-hand side. (Chu: Correct, it is four feet wide.) Will there need to be a railing there? It would look good to have a railing there based on the elevation shown for the front. (Chu: Yes there CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 6 will be a rail. It will be designed by the landscape architect, probably wood). It would be a good idea to have a detail of the railing since it will be part of the design of the house.  Will the hedge on the left side be potted or in the ground? (Chu: It will be in the ground.)  Bamboo would be a great solution. It grows tall and straight, and provides a lot of screening. PG&E is probably OK with it. But look into the proper way to plant it, as it can be invasive.  Can one go from the porch to the deck? Or do you have to go around? (Chu: Can go between the columns.)  Concerned about the landscaping. We’re told there will be screening planting but don’t know where it is and what it will be. Looking at the plan and the utility easement, it looks like the easement is about five feet in from the fence line. If it turns out there can’t be planting there, there will need to be planting where the plans currently show a path. It may need to be reversed. Looks like it could work but not sure what we would be approving at this point.  The revised porch is shown on site plan, but not on the landscape plan. The site plan shows a roof, but doesn’t indicate whether the wood deck is at the same level as the porch. (Chu: The wood deck is at the same level as the porch.)  (Chu: The homeowner is willing to meet with the neighbors and go over to their back yards to see the area, and in particular the void where they can see the house. Thinks directly behind that area is where the shrub or privacy screening will be planted.)  (Eric/Applicant: The neighbor’s concern is with privacy into her back yard. The obscured glass will take care of the bulk of the concern, and we’re planning on putting shrubs against that fence either way. We’ll make the shrubs as high as we need to.)  There has not been hard and fast coordination with PG&E about what can or cannot be planted, and where. Not sure how that will get reworked. Have also heard that there is concern with the hedge not being too tall so that light is able to come into the subject property. Not sure what the commitment to the landscape plan is here.  (Chu: Suggest come back as an FYI for changes to the landscape plan.)  Will the FYI be what the applicant is proposing or what the neighbor has signed off on? (Chu: Hopefully both. The neighbor has brought a photograph of the tree she wants. We haven’t committed to that, but it is something we can look at.)  An FYI will not have a public notice. If we want to call it up for review there will be a public notice. There will need to be shown some form of commitment from the neighbors saying they have seen the FYI and concur, have concerns or object. If we don’t know if the neighbors have seen it and they have not received public notices, we don’t know if they’re in agreement.  Could require as a Condition of Approval that the FYI include a letter from the neighbor indicating whether they support it.  (Guinan: The process for the FYI is that it comes to the Commission, and if it is not what was intended or satisfactory to the desires of the approved project, it would then be called up and noticed by staff for a formal hearing. Proposal here is to address that for this particular item by having the FYI include a letter from the neighbor indicating that the parties had met and they had agreed to a particular species of tree, where it will be planted, and how high. If that is submitted it would obviate the necessity to call it up for a hearing.)  There were a couple of neighbors who had the concerns (1532 and 1540 Drake Avenue). You should talk to both of them. (Eric/Applicant: We talked to them after the last meeting, but have not talked to them since. Gave out contact information and had two days last week available to visit, but did not talk to them.) Public comments: Linda Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue, spoke:  Has been available to discuss – was only out of town last week.  1532 Drake slopes back. Has provided a panoramic picture. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 7  Appears the applicant has not planned the landscaping on our side. I’ve gone on the internet and visited nurseries to determine what to plant.  We’re concerned about privacy. Whoever buys the house will appreciate the privacy. It does not need to be a monster tree, but there are plenty of lovely evergreen shrubs that could create a privacy hedge.  There will be plenty of sun, even with a 15-foot tree.  Appreciate the obscured glass in the windows.  Just wants a specific answer to the landscaping before it gets approved. Doesn’t want to see a only little 8-foot shrub. Just wants to make sure there will be some height. Chris McCrum, 1540 Drake Avenue, spoke:  Appreciates the changes to the windows but the planting is important.  The neighbors will need to live with the outcome after the house has been completed and sold. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: • Privacy is often an issue, but can only do so much because of the sizes of setbacks. Applicant has said they will commit to providing landscaping in the easement, so we have been focusing on that. • Likes house and the changes that were made, but the landscaping has not been worked out. Afraid if it comes back as an FYI there will be fewer options – things come in as an FYI but things are already built and cannot be undone, so it is more difficult resolve later than sooner. • The condition is a side yard up against back yards, not back yards up against each other, so the setbacks are different between the properties. The new house will be closer to the property line than if it was a back yard. So it is important to resolve because it is a unique situation. • Feels the item should be continued because the applicant has not had a chance to meet with the neighbors. Wants to address the concerns now. • Could work to the applicant’s benefit because an FYI can always be called up, which would delay the review to the next meeting after that. Any of the neighbors could call the FYI up for a public hearing, and it can’t be heard at that meeting. • Applicant has committed to doing a good job, but once it is built they will sell it and will be gone. No prejudice to that, the new owner moves in and inherits whatever happens. There needs to be harmony with the neighbors. • Not sure if there will be agreement, but need to have a proposal. It would be great if there can be agreement and know that PG&E was OK with it. • Also wants to show integration of the deck with the house and the railings on the elevation. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application to the next Planning Commission meeting, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Chair Sargent. Discussion of motion:  No further discussion. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2-0. (Commissioners Bandrapalli and Davis absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:48 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 8 4. 1109 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANDREW PECEIMER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the application, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Chair Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continuje. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Bandrapalli and Davis absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1341 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARCO CAVALIERI, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (item continued from July 22, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting) Commissioner Gaul recused himself due to a professional relationship with the applicant. Chair Sargent noted that he had talked to the applicant about the planning process, but had not had a substantive discussion about the project. All commissioners indicated that they had visited the property. Reference staff report dated August 12, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Marco Cavalieri represented the applicant:  Wanted to have all three of the bedrooms on the second floor.  Wanted to move the kitchen and main living area towards the rear of the house so they could open to the back yard.  Special Permit derived by wanting to have mass of second floor off front of house, has staged second floor to middle/rear of house which limits the footprint of the second floor and encroaches into the right side.  Lowered main floor of the rear of the house by three feet, and has provided window enclosures to soften the mass along the right side property line.  Flat roof lines to bring the roofline down  Design is Mediterranean style, with arcade of arches at front entry showcasing antique columns. Recessed windows to create depth at the jams. Wood headers, bar beams, brackets, vigas, wrought iron at the windows, two-piece clay tile with a three-color soft blend for natural tones. Blind arches at some of the eaves to help bridge the distance between some of the windows. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 9 Commission questions and comments:  Likes design – it will fit in well with the neighborhood. Did a good job to limit mass so it is not too imposing to the street.  Is there a feature in the living room that you’re trying to maintain? (Cavalieri: There is a beautiful fireplace in the current study that we want to keep undisturbed. There are two arches in the main entry that are going to bookend each other – one will pick up the centerline of the fireplace. Mostly it is the mass of the second story – there are not a lot of large two-story homes in the neighborhood, so there is a shed roof that gradually goes up to the second floor. The first floor is about four feet above existing grade so didn’t want to add right on top of it.)  Did you consider building new? (Cavalieri: Built a new garage and re-did the back yard. Kitchen and living room are in the front of the house, but wanted to bring that to the back. Wanted to hold on to as much as possible.)  Having it step up helps to integrate the first with the second floor.  The left side wood windows towards the rear do not show wood headers. Was it an oversight or planned to be plain? (Cavalieri: Yes. Thought with the false arches it would be a bit much. Has a vision of the long narrow windows with a very dramatic sill, and these are not as long. Wanted to keep them simple.)  Master bathroom has an awkward layout with wasted space – though this is not something the Planning Commission comments on.  Spanish revival style captured well. Good argument with the declining height – working with an existing house, and worked the split level nicely. Not asking for more than the FAR or more lot coverage – it’s just the Design Review and Special Permit.  Looking at the vigas, is a simple 6 x 6 going to be enough, have enough substance? Will they need to protrude more or not? (Cavalieri: A traditional viga is a round timber, and this is a play on that. Did an English Tudor about fifteen years ago and developed a method that was able to mimic the hand hewing of wood. Might also add some copper as a flashing cap on the viga, but that would take it away from the traditional adobe look.) Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar. This motion was seconded by Chair Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Bandrapalli and Davis absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 6. 3072 ATWATER DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR AN INCREASE TO AN EXISTING PLATE HEIGHT FOR A SINGLE- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ERIC NYHUS, NYHUS DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 10 ARCHITECT; EMMELINE TRAN, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Gaul returned to the dias. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated August 12, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the project description. Questions of staff and comments:  Why is a special permit not required for turning the carport into an attached garage? (Gardiner: The carport parking has already been counted as covered parking. The only difference is garage doors are being added.)  The changes here seem so minor. Wondering if there would be instances where this could have just been an administrative approval. Maybe the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee could discuss situations like this where the change is really minimal, whether to require full Design Review. (Guinan: One of the subcommittees could look at that and refer any proposed changes to the City Council for consideration, but the current ordinance does require this particular permit.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Eric Nyhus represented the applicant.  Debated turning the shed room back down to avoid Design Review but it would have really affected the design.  One goal was to change roof so it would not be pooling water. The inside has been renovated in the past so they wanted to protect that.  The other goal was creating some volume in the bedrooms. Appreciate the Eichler design and likes the central vault. Wanted to bring that to the bedroom area and into the study and kitchen on the side. Commission comments:  It will be a great improvement to the neighborhood. The roof is so prominent; changing it from the foam roof to the standing seam will be nice.  What is reasoning for not using the house siding for the proposed garage doors? (Nyhus: Owners want a fresher Eichler approach. The wave roof does this, gives it a more contemporary look, and the doors will do that too. The interior has been re-done and it is a clean aesthetic, but they also really appreciate the Eichler design.)  Massing is nice.  Has there been opportunity to talk to neighbor at the upper left (3078 Atwater Drive) about any potential view blockage concerns? (Nyhus: Other than the public notice, no. We can reach out to them to confirm.) There is no change to the ridgeline, but with hillside area permits we sometimes require story poles. Want to make sure neighbor is aware of addition and doesn’t come back later thinking there were supposed to be story poles.  Roofing material color? (Nyhus: Change paint color of the outside to a warmer gray, and also go with a warmer gray, standing seam roof that will be darker. The owners are exploring solar panels, so if they go with a darker standing seam it might hide them a little better.)  Will there be new downspouts? Maybe a chain? (Nyhus: Yes, there will be new downspouts. They will need to carry more water so they will probably 5-inch, against the house. There is a concern about the volume of water and whether a chain could handle it, but could split the volume too with a chain projecting out and a downspout against the house.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 11  What type of wood will the gate be? (Nyhus: Probably lpe wood, something with warmth.)  W ould they consider a standing slatted wall out front to walk around, rather than a gate? (Nyhus: Owner really wanted a gate – a portal before the front door.)  The laminated glass at the garage – will it be clear glass? (Nyhus: Yes , it will be clear glass. There is glass at the back of the carport now that allows a lot of light in, so will maintain skylights at the back to continue to allow light in.) Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  Should we require story poles? It’s not going above the existing ridge line, just don’t want to see a neighbor later who could not be at this meeting.  Notices were sent and there are no neighbors here.  It is not a substantial increase and there is no increase in the the total ridge height. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Bandrapalli and Davis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 7. 1012 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO STORY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM ONE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MR. AND MRS. FRED BERTETTA III, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated August 12, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description, and noted that two additional letters in support of the project were received after the staff report was distributed. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant:  All bedrooms are on the second floor, opened back yard to living space.  Reduced the size of the existing detached garage to be within the FAR limit.  Have done neighbor outreach before coming to the meeting – three letters from neighbors.  House set back 8 feet to keep existing trees, which was the preference for both the owners and the neighbors. Keeps the privacy for both of them.  Gambrel roof with diamond pattern shingles. Have used the shingles on previous projects and they are a great architectural feature that does not cost much more than standard asphalt shingles. Commission questions and comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 12  Why maintain the one wall? (Raduenz: It was remodeled in the early 1990s so trying to save a little bit of cost. Also it is a good setback for the driveway – the driveway is a little narrow.)  On the front elevation how does the piece of horizontal trim above the pair of windows on the second floor work? Is it a piece of roof? (Raduenz: Returning the edge of the roof, so shingles will be shaped in a quarter round detail. It is an arched detail that will go over the trim.)  The garage on the Landscape Plan shows a door and a window in the front, but on the elevation it just shows a door. (Raduenz: Can have that changed. Was going off the existing survey. The garage was bigger on the site plan and it is bigger in reality, which is why we are cutting it down and taking out the door.) Will it be a double door? (Raduenz: There will be a single double-hung door because we cannot get within 10 feet of the lot line.)  The window on the left side elevation of the garage is almost as big as a door. Looks odd (Raduenz: It can be shrunken.) Why is it not a door, for convenience? (Raduenz: Could do that.)  Second floor bathroom #2 there is a window protruding into the shower. (Raduenz: It’s just a round 18-inch window, not large. On the exterior it helps the elevation, even though it is the side.)  It’s a perfect style for that area. There is a great shingle house around the corner.  Is the tile work from previous owner still on the inside? (Raduenz: Yes.)  Gambrel roof brings down the massing nicely and still gets the square footage that the applicant is looking for.  Mud room on first floor, maybe needs a door from the side yard. Would be beneficial to be able to come off the driveway and come in the mud room. Would not hurt elevation.  On the right side elevations, are those corbels? (Raduenz: Correct.) They should be called out on the plans. Commissioner Yie recused herself as he resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the chambers. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Bandrapalli and Davis absent, Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dias. 8. 1401 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GUERSE, GUERSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; M & H FOUNDATION, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 13 No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated August 12, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Regarding the chimney vents, do the gas appliances need to meet the same clearance requirements as wood-burning fireplaces? (Gaul: Typically no. There are clearance requirements but it depends on the manufacturer. It would be up to the applicant to make sure that is adhered to when they are building it. On the Type B vents the clearance is almost zero.)  On a corner property like this, does it matter where the entry is? (Strohmeier: Public Works allows the property owner to choose which street they want their address on. However, from the perspective of planning requirements the short side of the lot (Grove Avenue) is considered the front in terms of setbacks no matter what street the address is.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing period. Jesse Guerse represented the applicant:  It is an extensive remodel to an existing residence.  Trying to keep the existing foundation in its placement by adding on to the side yard and to the rear – adding a new garage. Commission questions and comments:  Want to make sure the chimney does not have a clearance issue.  Changing the front door to face Capuchino Avenue makes a lot of sense.  False balcony on the Grove Avenue elevation feels odd since it is a busy street. A window seat or window box would have a better chance of getting used if it is enclosed, as opposed to a false balcony. It is not a “deal-breaker” though. (Guerse: Will ask clients.)  Is there going to be a fence on Capuchino Avenue to capture the rear yard, and then turn to come back to the side elevation? Would like to have it identified on the site plan. (Guerse: Yes, there has been a conversation with the neighbor with regards to the fencing. The project will be enclosing the rear portion of the property. No fencing in the front.)  Would the fence rules be same? (Strohmeier: Still treats the short side of the lot as the front for fence requirements.)  Concern about the roofing material being complimentary to the architectural style. (Guerse: Going for a “Burlingame bungalow” style. Asphalt shingles are proposed.) Maybe concrete tile, or a 40- year shingle that has a lot of texture to it.  The front entry door looks long and narrow. Maybe use a bigger door or side lites so it has a bit more presence? Something to broaden it a bit. (Guerse: Might be able to fit a side lite in. Not sure there is enough room for two.)  If the study on the first floor becomes a bedroom, would the only way to enter a bathroom on the first floor be through someone’s bedroom? (Guerse: There is a small powder room under the staircase). Public comments: Lisa Ley, 1402 Grove Avenue spoke: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 14  Concerned about detached garage being torn down. Shared fence does not go all the way down, so when the garage comes down there will be 25-30 feet open space between the properties. Concern about what to do in the meantime to close up the space during construction – kids playing in the yard.  Glad to see existing property come down. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission Comments:  Concern about maintenance of the existing property. There is trash and beer bottles and garbage bins in the front yard. Would like it cleaned up.  Is there a requirement that properties need to be maintained while being reviewed? (Strohmeier: There are rules and regulations about during construction, but current condition of the property would need to be handled as a code enforcement complaint.)  Concern about balcony on the Grove Avenue side, but not a deal-breaker. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  Look at front door, balcony, and fencing enclosure when the application returns for action. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Bandrapalli and Davis absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:47 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  1818 Trousdale Drive – Planning Manager Gardiner reported that representatives of Sunrise Assisted Living will be conducting a community meeting to update the public regarding the project status and next steps leading to project completion. An announcement is posted on the City’s website. The meeting will be held at the Burlingame School District offices, 1825 Trousdale Drive, on August 21st at 7:00 p.m. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of August 5, 2013:  There was no City Council meeting held on August 5, 2013. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 8:48 PM. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 12, 2013 15 Respectfully submitted, ______________, Secretary