Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.02.10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 10, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the February 10, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 1; corrections to the January 13, 2014 minutes; bullet 2; revise to read that Commissioner Yie spoke with a neighbor on La Mesa.  Page 1; corrections to the January 13, 2014 minutes; bullet 4; delete “-clad wood”.  Page 4; Commission questions/comments; bullet 4; add “less” between “was” and “spacing”.  Page 7; Sixth bullet from top of page; revise “office to retail” to read “retail to office”.  Page 10; Commission Discussion; delete “not establish” and insert “an existing business” before “at this site”.  Page 11; Commission questions/comments; bullet 9; second line: replace “it has” with “they have”.  Page 14; Commission questions/comments; bullet 3; replace “over” with “and”, replace “looks” with “look”, and replace “shabby” with “skimpy”. Motion passed 6-0-0-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR None. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 2 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. 1. 1220 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Christopher Anderson, applicant and designer, Tom and Carrie Pendolino, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Chair Sargent pulled Agenda Item 1 (1220 Bernal Avenue) for discussion. The item was moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1220 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER, TOM AND CARRIE PENDOLINO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Tom Pendolino represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Asked if the divided light windows will include a spacer between the glass panels? (Pendolino – affirmed that a spacer will be included in the design. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones 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 January 14, 2014, sheets C1, A1 through A-4, A7, L1, GB1 and Boundary Survey, and date stamped January 29, 2014, sheets A5 and A6; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 3 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 the divided light windows shall include a spacer between the sheets of glass; 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s November 12, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's October 30 and December 16, 2013 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s December 19, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 1, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 2, 2013 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 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 12. that 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 4 13. 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 to the Building Division; and 14. 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 Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. 2. 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED APN – APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN (SEAN JEFFRIES, APPLICANT; 350 BEACH ROAD LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Asked if the sign could be converted to an electronic sign? (Hurin – no, it couldn’t be. Noted that a condition regarding maintenance of the sign is included in the suggested conditions.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Mark Farrar represented the applicant.  The sign will be removed at the beginning of phase two of the Burlingame Point development. Commission comments:  Requested clarification regarding the size of the sign. (Farrar – the sign itself is 10-feet high and the sign will be placed two-feet above the ground.)  Is there a timeline for the project? (Farrar – would like to start phase one later in 2014 and phase two twenty-four months later.)  Asked for clarification regarding how the site has been marketed. (Farrar – have done a lot of direct marketing with corporate users. Decided to use the freeway and airport marketing approach to supplement the other approaches. Felt that the current configuration would be noticeable to those landing at SFO.)  Are there plans for lighting the sign? (Farrar – none currently.) Public comments:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 5 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission discussion:  Concerned about the size of the sign and what it sets up for the remainder of the City. Has expressed concern about the sign at North Park Apartments. The sign is too large, and could set a precedent.  Doesn’t feel that the sign is necessary to allow the enjoyment of the property.  Had a similar initial reaction to the sheer size of the sign. Was more concerned about peppering the site with a multitude of signs on the property.  The exceptional circumstance is the size and location of the property. Consolidation of the signage into one sign allows it to be a bit more graceful and aesthetic.  There is no residential neighborhood nearby that will be affected.  The large sign is necessary to permit the project to be marketed effectively; it maximizes the viewing potential.  No other property has the amount of frontage of the subject site. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 10, 2013, sheets 01 through 03; 2. that any increase to the size or height of the freestanding sign along the north side of the property shall require an amendment to this sign variance; 3. that the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the support structure and vinyl fabric of the freestanding sign in good order; 4. that the freestanding sign shall be removed prior to the development of Phase 2 of the project; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  Clarified that the overall height of the sign structure may be no higher twelve feet and the sign itself shall be no greater than ten feet in height. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-0-0 (Commissioner DeMartini dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m. 3. 208 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A HOME OFFICE USE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (CHRIS VANDENBRINK, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RAZIEL AND HAVA UNGAR, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 6 Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Raziel Ungar represented the applicant. Commission comments:  All prior Commission concerns have been addressed in the revised proposal. 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 conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped February 3, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A3.0; 2. that the accessory structure shall be used only as a home office space, as shown on the plan date stamped February 3, 2014, and shall not be used for sleeping purposes or have a bathroom, without approval of any required revisions to the Conditional Use Permit; 3. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Conditional Use Permits as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 29, October 17, and November 27, 2013 memos, the City Engineer’s September 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal’s January 28, 2014 and August 29, 2013 memos, the City Arborist's September 4, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's September 3, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site 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; 6. 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; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 7 Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 4 (2308 Hillside Drive) as he owns property within 500-feet of the project site. He left the City Council Chambers. 4. 2308 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (EUGENE SAKAI, STUDIO S ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HARUMITSU INOUYE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014 with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Eugene Sakai and Harumitsu Inouye represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Pleased with the changes that have been made.  Agreed that the changes make a better project.  Interesting that the project is a modern interpretation of a “Four-Square” design with an attached garage.  The design will be different for the block but it is residential in its appearance.  The street contains an eclectic mix of architectural styles.  Was hoping that the architect could have taken the design a bit further. The example referenced on Drake Avenue previously is a better fit.  Feels the landscaping could be enhanced to make it fit better with the neighborhood. Describe the front landscaping a bit more – is the front page of the plans what constitutes the actual landscape plan? (Sakai – the planting plan picks up on the rectilinear design of the house. There is an earthen mound and a lot of color and texture that will be provided. The whole house is influenced by Japanese architecture and landscape architecture.)  Likes how the top roof floats. Design could be a bit stronger by carrying the horizontal band over on the sides to make it more of a decorative element and read more as a substantial architectural plane or element.  Is there a possibility to install louvers in the open area above the garage door? (Hurin – no, the louvers would add to the lot coverage.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 8  Make sure that the address numbers stay in scale with the neighborhood. The ten-inch letters are a bit tall for a residential neighborhood.  Top, right overhang should be equal with the left overhang.  Understands structurally why the sidewall was extended at the garage. However, visually it extends as a flat wall. Is there another solution that can be considered to support the overhang?  Likes the design.  Will the address numbers be lighted? Could be really bright. Could they be up-lit?  Doesn’t believe that the address numbers are actually drawn at 10 inches in height. (Sakai – could minimize the size of the address numbers and perhaps place them in a cove with a small LED strip below that would illuminate the numbers.)  Could also place the address numbers on the planter. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Community Development Director Meeker stated that since the architectural style of the proposed home differs from others in the neighborhood, if the Commission chooses to approve the project, it should clearly articulate its findings and how the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines so that the record of the decision is clear. Additional Commission comments:  Part of the appeal of the City of Burlingame and Easton Addition is the variety of architectural styles.  The massing of the home is handled well.  The plate height of the second floor has been reduced to be more consistent with the neighborhood.  The neighborhood can stand a variety of styles.  Design is different for the block, but the block is eclectic. Some designs are more traditional, others are of more recent vintage. The design still appears residential. The scale of the windows, the garage door, etc. adheres to the design guidelines. The project fits with the criteria.  No Neighbors are objecting to the project design. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the project. The motion was withdrawn to permit the public hearing to be reopened and for discussion with the architect to continue. Vice-Chair Davis reopened the public hearing. Further Commission comments:  As part of the motion, require that the address numbers be no greater than six inches tall.  The horizontal band – feels a 10-inch to 12-inch projection would be workable. Leave it to the architect to determine an appropriate solution.  Strengthen the appearance of the trim band at the first floor by wrapping it around the sides with a greater projection and bring back as an FYI. (Sakai – there is a two inch projection.)  The overhang should remain the same. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 9  There is not an example of this type of design in the design guidelines. Is not a modern interpretation of something that is already in the block.  Concerned that the other Commissioner’s concerns have been addressed fully. Is she comfortable with the existing 2-inch projection of the band?  Concerned that one may not even see louvers in the open area above the garage.  Doesn’t feel that the area above the garage would be noticeable if filled in.  Believes it is substantial enough.  Felt that this project could have gone to a design reviewer initially. There aren’t enough examples to compare to in the City.  Feels that the design is not quite “there” yet.  Doesn’t feel that the project should be pushed forward if there are still outstanding concerns that need to be addressed.  There is so much mass to the horizontal element on the front that it may appear too massive if filled- in above the garage. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones 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 January 28, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A3.2, sheet C.0, and landscape plans sheets 2, 5 and 8; 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 the address numbers shall be no greater than six inches in height; 4. That the horizontal band element that projects from the front of the structure, shall project out from the side elevations 10-inches to 12-inches, as deemed appropriate by the architect, and shall be subject to review by the Commission as an FYI; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 11 and September 9, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's September 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 9, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's December 16 and March 13, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 17 and September 11, 2013 memos shall be met; 7. 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; 8. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site 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; 9. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 10 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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 to the Building Division; and 16. 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 Yie. Discussion of motion:  Believes that the plans may call out the address number size incorrectly.  The design is different for the block. The block contains an eclectic mix of styles.  The project, as designed, is residential in scale and adheres to the massing encouraged in the design guidelines.  The scale of windows and doors fit with the design guidelines.  The design fits within a residential context.  There are more contemporary designs further up Hillside Drive.  There appears to be no objection by neighbors. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 11 Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:03 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5 (1545 Meadow Lane) as she resides within 500-feet of the project site. She left the City Council Chambers. 5. 1545 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER, ANTHONY AND SHANNON DELUCCHI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Tony Delucchi represented the applicant. Commission comments:  None. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  The variance is supportable as it is the least impactful location for an addition on the property.  The lot depth provides some mitigation of the setback.  The rooms would be unusable if the setback was enforced.  The existing side setbacks provide mitigation and the rear location for the addition provides a usable floor plan that is allowed on other properties. Commissioner Davis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 14, 2014, sheets A-1 through A-6; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 12 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Rear Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 4, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's November 27, 2013, January 10 and January 14, 2014 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s November 27, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 2, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 2, 2013 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 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 12. that 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 13 13. 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 to the Building Division; and 14. 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 Terrones.. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:09 p.m. Commissioner Bandrapalli returned to the dais. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion of Agenda Item 6 (1217 Mills Avenue) as he has a financial interest in property situated within 500-feet of the project site. He left the City Council Chambers. 6. 1217 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SCOTT GIESE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LI-SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Bandrapalli, Yie and Terrones indicated that they had met with the neighboring property owner. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Requested clarification of the reasons why the bay doesn’t qualify for an exemption. (Hurin – not enough window area, and too close to property line.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Scott Giese represented the applicant.  Was not a willful attempt to go against the approval.  Aware that declining height envelope is typically discouraged.  A set of plans approved by the Building Department were approved but weren’t reviewed by the Planning Department. These plans included the encroachment. Commission comments:  Felt that the shed roof element in the proposed modification is an unnecessary appendage. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 14 Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Feels that the change is de minimus, the special permit is approvable.  Feels that the optional treatment is the least appealing.  Perhaps in the future see sections of areas affected by the declining height envelope; would help to eliminate confusion in the future.  The home almost has two front elevations. Feels that the intrusion into the declining height envelope is in the least impactful location. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 29, 2012, sheets A-1 through L-1 and Survey Diagram and date stamped January 28, 2014, sheet A-5.2; 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 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 City Engineer’s September 24, 2012 memo, the Chief Building Official's November 2 and August 31, 2012 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s November 14, November 6 and September 13, 2012 memos, the Fire Marshal's September 13, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's August 31, 2012 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 for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 15 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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. 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 12. 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; 13. that 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; 14. 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 to the Building Division; and 15. 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 Sargent. Discussion of motion:  Make certain that the building and planning divisions are working from the same plans.  Supportable because the neighbors do not object to the change. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner DeMartini recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. Commissioner Sargent recused himself for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers. 7. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 16 BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (EMPORIO GROUP INC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AITKEN ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, PROPERTY OWNER) CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie noted that she had spoken with the project landscaper. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Dimitrios Sogas represented the applicant. Commission comments:  How did three protective trees get removed without the property owner knowing of it? (Sogas – is not on the property on a regular basis. Assumes that the contractor is following the approved plans. Noted that the arborist report number of trees doesn’t align with what was shown on the plan. Doesn’t object to solving the problem.)  Who oversees the construction? (Sogas – had a transition in the project foreman late last year, the tree removal could have happened at that time.)  Is the Italian Stone Pine on the neighbor’s property? (Hurin – noted that this site and the one to the right were once one property. When the arborist report was prepared, it was described differently. The tree was on the adjacent property.)  Is there any objection from the neighbor to the left? (Sogas – so far the neighbor has been supportive of the project.)  Note that many of the lintels above the windows appear to be floating above the windows. Is this a mistake, or are they drawn incorrectly. Thought that they were to be wood headers above the windows. (Meeker – will review this element of the design.  Has there been any interaction with the neighbor to the left? The deck has views into the neighbor’s yard. (Sogas – dropped off approval letters, but have not received a response yet.)  Would have preferred an FYI in advance of the changes being made.  It is the nature of the topography of the rear yard; it is like a big bowl, that the privacy of the neighbors can be affected.  The deck enhances the home and makes the back yard more useable.  Is okay with the deck as constructed, if the neighbor is not opposed. Public comments: Mike Liu, neighbor on the right side (2517 Easton Drive) spoke.  Now his rear yard has no privacy due to the size of the deck. (Commissioner – no matter what, they can see the rear yard.)  Perhaps add some trees to enhance the landscaping.  People that occupy the home can look across his fence into his yard.  Has installed trees on his side, but there is no more space for it on the lot. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 17 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Asked how much was added to the deck? (Hurin – the deck extends sixteen feet from the wall. It was previously shown as flush with the adjacent wall.)  Has a problem with the change. There is an additional 600 square feet of decking that stares into the neighbor’s property. The approved design would have minimized the impact on the neighbor’s privacy.  Feels the neighbor would have questioned the size of the deck if it had been proposed initially.  Protected trees should have been protected.  The owner should come up with a different design that takes the neighbor’s concerns into account.  The onus is on the applicant to come up with a solution to address the neighbor’s concerns. Should come back with a proposal for consideration.  Agrees that there may be some mitigation that could occur. Perhaps the deck could be reduced in width and additional landscaping provided.  Seems like the property was clear cut for development. Her eye was drawn to the right; additional landscaping could help. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to mitigate the impacts of the deck upon the neighbor; other changes are acceptable. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent recused). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 2112 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ROOSEVELT AVE. LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the principal of Roosevelt School. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Craig Suhl and James Chu represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 18 Commission comments:  With respect to the proposed construction next to the school. Has the applicant had any discussion with the school regarding the construction so close to the property. Is there any concern about noise going into the classrooms; are there any ideas about how to mitigate any impacts? (Suhl – hasn’t considered this. Has dropped off numerous letters to the neighbors. Neighbors are upset with the condition of the home. Hasn’t met with the school. No reason, is more than happy to meet with the principal. Chu – the garage can be built pretty quickly. The timeframe is very short. Will need to comply with the construction hours. Can speak to the principal to advise him of the impending construction.)  Is a chain link fence behind the portable classrooms. What are the applicant’s fence plans? (Suhl – has no intention of removing the fence with the ivy.)  Feels the proportions of the home are a bit off. The second story bay on the right is too close to the window below, which appears too small. Would prefer not to have an encroachment into the declining height envelope. (Chu – the declining height envelope encroachment is only about four inches. Can look at this area of the plan. The staircase is stepped back about ten feet from the living room wall.)  Suggested installing landscaping below the stairwell window.  Is there some way to create a bit more of variation on the design from other similar designs within the neighborhood?. Would like a new theme. (Chu – perhaps include a cantilevered element at the stairway and finishing material differences.)  Perhaps install a trellis at the garage door.  Look at the window below the bay on the right front.  Feels a window box or similar element could address concerns regarding the area below the stairway window. Public comments: Tom Eisen spoke:  Grateful to see work proceeding on the property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. 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 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:01 p.m. 9. 1512 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DION HEFFRAN, APPLICANT; GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP., PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL MOYER, CONSULTING ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 19 All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Will there be additional hearings because of the environmental analysis? (Hurin – no. Meeker – will automatically come back on regular action.)  Can the applicant work with the City to trim the landscaping on the parking lot? (Hurin – is already working with the City Arborist Bob Disco on this matter.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Dion Heffran represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Clarified that Michael Moyer is the consulting architect.  Asked if the applicant is familiar with the design guidelines? (Heffran – staff provided him with a review of the guidelines.)  Believes the design is too minimalist – does not read as “Mission” style, as intended.  There is too much mass.  No articulation, doesn’t address the design guidelines.  Feels that the existing house is more attractive than the proposed house.  Design is not welcoming at all.  The Commission does not support Styrofoam trim.  Would like to see windows on the east elevation. (Heffran – feels it is appropriate to reduce the windows on the east side.)  There is not enough articulation.  Feels like a design reviewer would be helpful in this situation.  Express the fireplace in a better manner.  On the front elevation there are things that can be done to enhance the design. Public comments: Margaret Feliciano, owner of the adjacent property at 1516 Ralston Avenue, spoke:  Concerned about the height of the building. (Hurin – overall height to the top of the roof ridge is 28 feet, 2 inches.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent moved to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion was seconded by Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 20 Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:21 p.m. 10. 712 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (DREW FLINDERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NATALIE HYLAND, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Davis met with the owner at the site, as did Commissioner DeMartini. There were no other ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Drew Flinders and Natalie Hyland represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Is the entry finished in stucco? (Hyland – yes, it is stucco.)  Is the shingle size the same as the garage? (Hyland – yes.)  Feels like the columns on the porch on the front of the house need to be a bit beefier.  On the left side elevation, appears a bit too much like a “wedding cake”. Is there a way to bring the tower down to integrate it better?  Perhaps install a chimney element to further break up the elevation.  Consider perhaps installing something along the rear patio wall to break up the solid wall.  Perhaps carry the stone around to reduce the appearance of the solid wall.  Perhaps provide a bit of a skirt on the right elevation, or something to break up that elevation.  Noted that the upper portion of the tower element is stepped back from the lower portion.  Consider increasing the pitch on the garage roof from the front to match the home’s roof pitch. (Hyland – is consistent with the Craftsman architectural style.)  Appears that you need to drive onto the lawn to get into the left side of the garage. Review this portion of the design.  Will the grids include spacer bars and be true simulated divided lights. (Hyland – yes.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 21 Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0 . The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:38 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion of Agenda Item 11, as he has a financial interest in a property situated within 500-feet of the project site. He left the City Council Chambers. 11. 1448 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (PEYLING YAP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JEFF CHOW, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Is a landscape plan required with the application? (Hurin – referenced the plan with the packet.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Peyling Yap, James Evans and Jeff Chow represented the applicant.  Spoke to a relative of the neighbor, they are supportive of the attempts to improve the property.  Also made an effort to meet with the neighbor on the other side. Commission comments:  The Tudor arch on the front doesn’t fit with the design of the home. (Evans – was attempting to refrain from making everything squared off, he likes the way it looks across the street.)  How are the columns attaching to the porch element? Are they needed? (Evans – the columns are not needed structurally.)  Porches are encouraged; consider opening up the front porch to eliminate obstructions. (Evans – asked if placing a cap on the column would be appropriate?) Yes, could still have a post at the corner of the porch.  W ould have stopped the flagstone lower on the elevation. (Evans – could extend the flagstone around the sides of the house.)  Eliminate Tudor elements that are not consistent with the design.  Perhaps square off the elements on the porch and add brackets.  Adding pop-out dormers to the existing roofline could have been a simpler approach. (Evans – were focusing on a Craftsman-style.)  Look at the window details, including trim, to make them more Craftsman-like.  Side elevations need more articulation, perhaps a belly band. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 22  With respect to the window sizes, the existing windows are nicely proportioned. Revisit the window sizes along the lower floor, make them a bit narrower and make them casement windows with simulated true divided light windows. (Evans – is a fan of natural light and has proportioned the windows to allow more light.)  Will all windows be replaced? (Evans – yes, will all be replaced.)  Is there a means of providing a planting strip on the left side of the house? Would like to see landscaping provided on both sides and the driveway narrowed a bit. (Evans – there are planters near the driveway currently.)  Specify landscape materials. (Hurin – don’t require specifications for small plants, only for the trees. Could specify the hedge or screening materials.) Public comments: Sheldon Low, 1449 California Drive, spoke:  Very small lot. Is 16 to 17 feet from the rear of his house to the property line.  Is concerned that the deck on the second floor may impact his privacy.  Is the bedroom on the second floor being extended out? There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The public hearing was re-opened to permit questions of the applicant. Additional Commission comments:  Requested clarification regarding the depth of the second floor deck and proximity to the neighbor’s property. (Chow – clarified that the area is 3 ½ feet closer.)  Requested clarification of some of the lines shown on the plans. (Chow – noted that there were some mistakes on the plans that will be corrected.)  Is there a means of providing more privacy for the rear neighbor? (Evans – can explore landscaping options. The site is a challenge as the house is set back further from the street than other homes on the block. Yap – the deck is primarily to make the rear of the house look better.)  Asked if the property was at the maximum FAR? Bedrooms one and two look very small. (Yap – the stairway constrains how the rooms can be sized.)  Should look at the gable vents. The public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments:  Asked the applicant to work with the neighbor to the rear.  Revisit the landscaping in the rear as well to provide more screening.  Could also narrow the width of the deck as well. Should work more like a master bedroom deck so that it does not become a gathering place. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 23  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner DeMartini recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. 12. 707 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW TO ADD A NEW DETACHED ONE-STORY SECOND UNIT AT THE REAR OF THE LOT (ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones and DeMartini noted that he had spoken to the property owner. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Does staff visit the site prior to preparing report? (Hurin – no.)  Existing garage appears to be converted to living space; there are no garage doors. To meet the parking requirement, will garage doors need to be installed? (Hurin – yes.)  Clarified that the conversion of the garage back to parking should be reflected on the plans when resubmitted.  Will the driveway be allowed to be counted as an additional parking space? (Hurin – for duplex uses, parking will need to be provided separately.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Robert Baumgarten and Mary Dunlap represented the applicant.  The garage has been converted to living space, but will revert back to a garage. Commission comments:  Revise the arch at the front door of the second unit to match the arch on the front unit entry.  Consider a window on the side of the garage unless it must be fire rated.  Is it possible to deepen the entry area? (Dunlap – can bring the roofline of the porch and the columns out a bit more.)  Does the carport need a solid covering? (Hurin – yes.)  Would like to see a comparison of existing conditions with what is proposed.  Perhaps consider a pitched roof for the carport.  Would like to see Redwood molding as a window sill.  What style of window is proposed? (Baumgarten – wants to match the windows on the existing house.)  Be certain to clarify the style and material of windows to be installed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 24 Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action 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 Regular Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:22 p.m. 13. 1125 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAÇADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (STANLEY CHAN, APPLICANT; OLIVE GROVE CAPITAL LP ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER; MARCO FUNG, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Noted a notice placed on the property.  Asked about the hours of operation for other restaurants in the area. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Marco Fung, Stanley Chan and Riyad Salma represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Has work started on the project? (Salma – no.)  Feels that the design integrating outdoor dining along Burlingame Avenue is exactly the direction that restaurants in the Downtown should go.  Likes the longer hours that are proposed.  Is the awning fabric being changed to allow more light to enter the building? (Fung – yes, want to allow more light into the interior and to make the building appear more interesting and less massive.  Consider moving the awnings to the bottom of the transom window to make them at a more appropriate height. (Fung – provides some sun control.)  What is the lighting plan for the exterior? (Fung – a sconce at the corner LED lights below the sign.)  On the south side of the building, are there any plans to paint the wall along the alley? (Fung – will do it if the Commission wishes.)  Asked about the horizontal band on the Lorton and Burlingame facades below the sign? (Fung – will be a brushed metal light box to illuminate the sign.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 10, 2014 25 Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action 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 Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 3, 2014:  Community Development Director Meeker noted that the recruitment period for new Planning Commissioners concludes on March 14, 2014. FYI: 2608 Hillside Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Scheduled for a public hearing. Appears there may be other changes from the plans that were not described in the FYI. The columns are detailed in the drawings but in the field they are thinner posts. An upper window box is missing. Planter under the wall with the two columns not in place; there is only a stucco skirt. Staff will review issues to see if there are other inconsistencies not described in the FYI. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrappali, Secretary