Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.03.10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California March 10, 2014 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the March 10, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Davis, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Bandrapalli Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to continue review of the minutes of the February 24, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission until the March 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Sargent suggested that a study item be added to a future agenda to discuss procedures for referring applications to design review consultants. V. FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Brownrigg spoke from the floor:  On rare occasions when the City Council is asked to provide a second opinion on a Planning Commission action, and reverses or refers back an application, it is a courtesy for the Council to offer an explanation to the Planning Commission.  1809 Ashton Avenue decision endorsed the Planning Commission decision. It was an opportunity for the adjacent neighbor to be heard since he did not receive notice of the project. The site design approved by the Commission was endorsed by the majority of the Council, with some direction for design mitigations.  2308 Hillside Drive application sent back for design review with a design review consultant. Endorses the value of having created the subcommittee that the City Council and Planning Commission decided at its March 1, 2014 joint session. Puts additional weight on the subcommittee: difference between diversity of style vs. compatibility. Council wrestled with decision and had strong opinions on both sides of the issue. Council’s ambivalence reflected Commission’s ambivalence. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 2  Suggest that if the Commission has a doubt about something, it should speak up and push the issue to a resolution. If there is thinking that it should go to design review, refer it to design review consultant. If Commission does not feel a design will fit in, it should say so.  Appreciates the work the Planning Commission does. 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. 1a. 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 Commissioner Davis pulled Agenda Item 1a (1448 Laguna Avenue) for discussion. The item was moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda. 1b. 1349 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DARYL BUCKINGHAM, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; SONIA WADHAWAN AND DEEPAK CHUG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Sargent pulled Agenda Item 1b (1349 Bernal Avenue) for discussion. The item was moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda. 1c. 401 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MARCI PALATELLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J DEAL ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER Commissioner Terrones moved approval of Item 1c on the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were explained. The item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussions regarding Agenda Item 1a (1448 Laguna Avenue) as he has a financial interest in a property within 500- feet. He left the City Council Chambers. 1a. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 3 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014 with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Jeff Chow represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  Concern with the window being too close to the roof ridge of the entry porch roof. Would need to either flatten the pitch of the gable or make the window smaller. With it so close there would be waterproofing issues. (Chow: Will either lower the peak on the lower roof, or alter the window size to ensure there is adequate room for weatherproofing.)  If the gable on the entry is lowered it might look odd; better to reduce the window size (Chow: Wanting to keep as much of the window size as possible.)  Direction is to make the window smaller, rather than flatten out the gable. Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis 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 February 13, 2014, sheets A1.0 through A4.0, G1.0 and SHT.1; 2. that a revised front elevation, and a detail of the window trim, flashing and waterproofing for the area between the entry porch gable and the window above be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval as an FYI prior to issuance of a Building Permit; 3. 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); 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 6, 2013, January 14 and January 23, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s January 6, January 15 and January 21, 2014 memos, Engineering Division’s December 17, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 16, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 9, 2013 and January 16, 2014 memos 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 4 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; 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 Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1. (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent, Commissioner DeMartini recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 5 1b. 1349 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DARYL BUCKINGHAM, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; SONIA WADHAWAN AND DEEPAK CHUG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014 with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Daryl Buckingham represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  Commission typically specifies simulated true-divided lite windows, or true divided-lite windows. Wants to make sure the windows will be one of these. (Buckingham: Yes.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent 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 February 11, 2014, sheets A.0 through A1.2, A3.2 and A-7, and date stamped February 26, 2014, sheets A-3 and A-3.1; 2. that the windows shall be aluminum-clad wood windows with either simulated true divided lites, or true divided lites; 3. 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); 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 25, 2013, January 3 and January 31, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s November 5, 2013 memo, the Engineering Division’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s October 24, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s October 31, 2013 and January 6, 2014 memos 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 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 6 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 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; 12. 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: 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. 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; 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 7 Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0. (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. 2. 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 DeMartini reported that he had met with the property owner prior to the design review study. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014 with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Drew Flanders and Natalie Hyland represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  Appreciate adding the second pair of front columns. The post between the top of the column and the bottom of the beam leave it a bit insubstantial. (Flanders: We can carry it up to the bottom of the beam.)  If you have them pulled back they should be one layer rather than two. (Flanders: Agree. Better to have the main beam going across sitting on the post and have the side ones hanging off.)  Might need to shift the outer columns over so they are not hanging. (Hyland: Yes. If removed, will push column up. It will look like it is under the gutter line.)  Looks good adding the fireplace. Gable ends help. Wrap the stonework more? (Flanders: Looked at some houses where they do that, and there isn’t a lot of room to do that. There will be planting in front.)  The columns on the right side look good too – very balanced. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  It’s pulled together well. Can go to approval. Add a condition about the columns. Commissioner Davis 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 February 24, 2014, sheets A1 through A5 and L1, with the provision that revised elevations showing modifications to the columns be submitted for review by the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a Building Permit; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 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 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 Building Division’s December 23, 2013 and November 25, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s December 23, 2013 and November 27, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s December 17, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s November 25, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s January 8, 2014 and November 25, 2013 memos 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; 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, 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: 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. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 9 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:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0. (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. 3. 1576 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LENGTH AND REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING TWO-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH A DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE (PETER COMAROTO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ENERTIA DESIGNS, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Due to Commissioner recusals and absences, there was not a quorum to hear this item. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application to the March 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item to the March 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed 3-0-1-3. (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent, Commissioners Davis and Terrones abstaining). IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1514 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW SECOND STORY DECK AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KENNY MOY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OW NER; DALE ANDERSON, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones indicated that when he visited the site he had the opportunity to access the rear yard, had a brief conversation with the builder, and the builder explained that they had been in conversation with the two side neighbors. Commissioner DeMartini noted he met with the owner and builder and received a tour of the back yard. Commissioner Yie met the builder, and the builder mentioned that they also reached out to the rear neighbor. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 10 Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Kenny Moy represented the applicant.  We are in talks with the neighbor. We’re going to grow plants to address the proximity concerns that we could peer into their living room, and will shrink the deck length from 12 feet to 8 feet and put some proximity screening.  Other neighbors have supplied a letter of support, they have no issues.  Story poles erected this afternoon. Neighbors gave some thoughts. Ideas for growing plants. 1512 Alturas has privacy concerns. Will shrink the deck length from 12’ to 8’ on that side, and add some privacy screening.  1516 Alturas has written a letter of support – no issues with the deck. Commission comments:  Can you go over some of the options with screening? It seems like a good opportunity to plant a tree and keep the pattern going of that larger tree. (Moy: Brought up idea of planting tree. Neighbor not in agreement, feels like they would be living under a bridge. Instead reducing length on the side to approach this.  Good to reach out to the neighbors. Concerned about 1511 La Mesa, that if you extend the deck out, you can look into their backyard. They haven’t been available for you to talk to. (Went to house and rang doorbell, nobody was there. Because of elevation can already see into their yard from the living room.) Will be made worse if the deck is extended.  Would like to see story poles – If people see poles they will know what is being proposed.  Seems square footage will be larger than neighbors. Would be interested in seeing relative size of deck compared to neighbors’ decks. Seeing less justification for this big deck outside of the bedroom. (Kane: Comparison can be made as a request, but cannot be required if the information cannot be obtained.) Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  The letter of support was from 1516 Alturas, but 1512 has the issue with the privacy.  Wants relative comparison of the size of the proposed deck compared with the others neighboring, if feasible. Perhaps reference Google Earth.  Story poles should be erected before the application comes back for action. Should show deck plus railing height. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 11 Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m. 5. 1477 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, WEHMEYER DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EVAN AND CAREN WEINSHEL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Robert Wehmeyer and Caren Weinshel represented the applicant:  Chose to do a remodel to retain the charm of the house.  Wanted to keep the scale and massing down. There are several houses in the neighborhood which are very large.  Kept the existing first floor footprint alone. It is a lot smaller than the houses around it.  The front porch was a big selling point, but it has a negative impact on the total square footage. Though this didn’t matter to the homeowner – we kept the old look intact.  Is about 7½ feet above average curb height in the front. However height is under 30 feet on rear, interior, and Adeline sides. The house behind is over 30 feet where it looks down onto this property.  Had a meeting on March 4th and invited the neighbors to come over and review the plans. They loved it and appreciated that we’re keeping the old house.  Will be retaining the original paint colors.  Have letters from two of the neighbors, plus a document with 10 or 12 signatures. Commission comments:  Glad you’re keeping the front porch. It would be a loss otherwise.  On the siding, is it being replaced? (Wehmeyer: We’ll keep it on the front, but on the side, it will be easier for us to get new in and recycle the old. It won’t look as clean and finished, otherwise. We’ll match it up.)  Is the existing siding 6 inches? (Wehmeyer: Yes, just a bit under 6 inches.)  Going to remove the existing carport? (Wehmeyer: Yes, it was rotting. We’ll keep the existing garage and the existing space where the carport was. It is the second parking spot. The trees will kind of soften that spot, and screen the fact that there is a car there.)  Is there any way to incorporate the addition into the existing roof line? It just feels like it is a 2-story layer cake on the front. (Wehmeyer: We looked at a lot of publications of older homes of this period and style. The top roof dictated what would happen with the lower roof. We wanted to pull it down, and the hip dictated how we would play with it. We wanted to keep the symmetry and the original windows. It did pose some issues – the roof lines were a big challenge on how to tie it all together. We didn’t want to design the biggest thing that could fit on the lot. We tried to pull it down by pulling the hips in.)  I like the front elevation and the Adeline Drive elevation. The other one doesn’t bother me so much since only your neighbor will see it and they are close to each other. On the rear elevation why not add a gable to help integrate the two layers? (Wehmeyer: The hard part is how it lays out with the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 12 two windows in the master bedroom. It’s all about the light. That’s why we decided to put the family room, etc., on the back.)  Okay with the special permit for the height, since the 2nd floor ceiling heights are 8 feet. Not asking for taller plate heights.  In regards to the special permit, it would appear that even if you take the tallest elevation on the front, you’re still no more than 27 feet. There is some support for the special permit in this regard.  Agree with the rear elevation, but the French doors look like they need some cover. There is a lot of exposure to this elevation. Maybe a trellis would be an option.  Confused on the Adeline Drive side: there are some existing windows into the dining room, and the plans say to use these, but the elevations show what looks like new windows. (Wehmeyer: There is an existing pair of windows into the dining room, and we are going to reuse that pair of windows. We’re taking windows that used to be the outside wall, and we’re going to reuse those in the new structure.)  Appreciate the efforts to keep the look of the old house as opposed to a cookie-cutter approach.  Great job with outreach to neighbors. The letters weren’t form letters, which is much appreciated. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Only concern is the rear elevation – either a trellis or gable end.  Could add a porch in the back since they are below the FAR.  Consensus that there is not a problem with the Special Permit. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. 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 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 6. 144 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NED WHITE, MCCOPPIN STUDIOS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JAY AND LISA KERSHNER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014 with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Ned White represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 13  Tried to retain character of existing house by keeping the addition primarily to the back of the property and keeping the defining details of the house. Keeping the porch and brick columns.  Unifying the window design, currently it is a mishmash. Hopefully it is being improved as well as expanded. Commission comments:  Nice solution to tuck the second story into roofline.  Are the knee braces on the South Elevation just on the lower gable? It might be a nice detail to add them on the upper gable. (White: I think we could support that.)  On the deck railing, is that a wood lattice? Site built? (White: Yes)  You’ve got siding on the second story, is it on the back as well? (White: The reason we did it on the front and not on the back, is that it just seemed that it might add some subtle character on the front façade.) I think it’s nice, but it’s nice to repeat it.  Clarify note in material legend to say simulated true divided lite.  The plans are hard to read. Would like to see hatch to differentiate roof from walls on plans.  Looks like it was built like this to begin with. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  In terms of the environmental scoping, there are no issues. Otherwise, this is a candidate for the consent calendar. (Kane: May go on Consent Calendar with the additional resolution for the environmental review.) Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. 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 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussions regarding Agenda Item 7 (2000 Carmelita Avenue) as she resides within 500-feet. She left the City Council Chambers. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 14 7. 2000 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; BRADLEY AND JULIE WILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Tim Raduenz and Bradley Wilson represented the applicant.  Didn’t want to tear down the existing house.  Corner lot, and two very large redwood trees, so there is not a lot of room to work with.  Centered massing on center of house, made dormers smaller.  Square footage has been maximized, but to note the existing garage is a little bigger than the average garage.  Tried to retain character of existing house.  Changed to horizontal siding on the second story to give it texture. Commission comments:  Sheet A3.1 labeling issue – two right sides.  Have you reached out to the neighbor at 1105 Bernal Avenue? (Wilson: Have only seen her three times in 10 years. She is a private person. Reached out, but did not hear any comments. Did hear from other neighbors.)  On proposed right side, the note at the top points to cedar horizontal siding. It may be a labeling issue – it’s labeled as board and batten on the gables. It’s a nice detail – will it be that way all around? (Raduenz: Yes.)  Fence should not extend to corner. Does Planning check the fence heights in final inspection? (Hurin: Will verify in inspection if it is a new fence.)  First reaction is tall house, but fits Easton Addition. (Raduenz: There are a number of houses in the area which are 2-story. Will be in scale with the two large trees.) 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 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 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent, Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 15 concluded at 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS Discussion of appointment of two Planning Commissioners to serve on a joint City Council/Planning Commission committee to review and propose amendments to the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook:  Need to hash this out more because it’s unclear on what direction to go.  Could look at images which can be translated into a design guideline book – can develop a consensus.  It’s possible to represent this exercise without being an architect.  The ultimate arbiters are the City Councilmembers.  The audience will be architects so they need to understand.  Not sure that what will come out of this will be a design guideline book.  (Kane: It’s under the discretion of the chair to appoint who he sees fit. It’s also true of the mayor. It’s subject to discussion, and this is why we are vetting it, but it doesn’t have to be decided tonight.)  Consensus to schedule a study session to discuss the issues, as an agendized item.  (Gardiner: Should not presuppose an outcome. At the top level it is a policy discussion; there are different schools of thought in terms of style and neighborhood context. From that will be implementation suggestions. At this point it’s too early to anticipate the scope of any changes, if any. The object of the joint committee is to get clarity on what to do.)  Advantage to having a commissioner with institutional knowledge of the issues.  Is this an ad hoc committee? (Kane: It’s more defined by the task then the duration.)  Maybe we could appoint by task.  (Kane: For purposes of continuity of the work, it’s optimal not to switch members of the subcommittee mid-stream. But it’s up to the commissioners.)  Skeptical of whether modern design can fit in with neighborhoods in the city. Wonder if that point of view has been represented and expressed to the City Council.  Subcommittee needs someone who understands modernism and its place.  Members of the committee should bring an open mind, and that we can have a more clear direction to people who are designing for this town.  The discussion should be about context.  The question is how to handle projects in the flats. There has been one approved modern project – is that a template for the future or an aberration?  Perhaps the guidelines will be dependent upon neighborhood. What is appropriate in a ranch neighborhood? In an Eichler neighborhood?  Suggestion is rather than appoint now, agendize the general discussion so we can hear from all commission members. One of the commissioners is not here. Let’s agendize so we can have a substantial discussion across all commissioners, and at the conclusion, have some sort of nomination to that committee.  How will the Council be appointing members? (Kane: The mayor has not made his appointment yet. It’s the Council’s mandate to move this forward, and while the chair can do anything he wants, it is within his discretion to appoint. Can put a study item on the agenda, but suggestion is to do it as a study session prior to the meeting.) Staff will conduct a follow-up poll to see when Commissioners will be available for a study session prior to a regular Planning Commission meeting. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 16 XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 3, 2014:  2308 Hillside Drive to return to the Planning Commission for referral to a design review consultant.  1608 Ashton Avenue approval upheld, with direction to return to the Planning Commission to consider additional mitigations between the subject property and the neighboring property at 1613 Ashton Avenue. FYI: 904 Bayswater Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. FYI: 1225 Floribunda Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. FYI: 3072 Atwater Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Scheduled for a public hearing. Questions regarding why not able to use the siding, and whether stucco is consistent with Eichler design. Concerns are regarding the siding, not the garage door. FYI: 1417 Vancouver Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. Director Comments:  Housing Element Update Workshop #1 to be held Tuesday, March 18th from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. at the Burlingame Recreation Center. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeanne Davis, Secretary