Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.05.27 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California May 27, 2014 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the May 27, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None. Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Kathleen Kane; and City Manager Lisa Goldman. III. MINUTES Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Loftis to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2014, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 2, Item 1 (2714 Easton Dr) Commissioner DeMartini met with the brother of the property owner and had received a tour of the property;  Page 2, Item 1 (2714 Easton Dr) first bullet should clarify crawl space be counted in the FAR;  Page 2, Item 1 (2714 Easton Dr) second bullet should clarify the overhang is not added to lot coverage;  Page 3, Item 2 (1321 Capuchino Ave) was approved 7-0-0-0;  Page 5, Item 3 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) first bullet should read “district in which it was designated”;  Page 5, Item 3 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) the motion was to recommend adoption to the City Council, and appeal procedures do not apply;  Page 8, Item 5 (4 La Mesa Ct) second to last bullet should read “Living Room window could be raised”;  Page 12, Item 5 (4 La Mesa Ct) first Commission comment should read “break up the expanse of glazing, combining with other materials to reduce the amount of glazing”;  Page 16, Item 7 (2501 Hillside Dr) Commission comments third bullet should read “seems out of step with the neighborhood”;  Page 20, Item 9 (1521 Willow Ave) Commission comments second to last bullet should read “if the ‘stilts’ timbering were removed the skinny windows would be more special”;  Page 21, Item 9 (1521 Willow Ave), the motion was to Continue, and is not appealable;  Page 27, Item 13 (1517 Chapin Ave), the motion was to place the item on Regular Action;  Page 29, stated conclusion times were a.m. Motion passed 7-0-0-0. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 2 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  Item #3 (2714 Easton Drive) was continued at the request of the applicant, so will not be heard at this meeting.  The FYI for 1378 De Soto Avenue will not be reviewed because submittal materials were not received in time for the agenda packet. V. FROM THE FLOOR Tony Perez, Anderson Windows, spoke on 1818 Trousdale Drive:  Can’t see any benefit to the City to make the change in windows.  “True-divided lite” is not the correct term – it should be referred to it as “simulated divided lite.” The sample provided by the applicant has simulated divided lites.  Mentioned sustainability and longetivity, with a reference to a property in Palo Alto. Anderson was specified in that project, but switched it to a lesser-quality aluminum-clad window that proved problematic. Anderson has been contracted to replace all windows in that project.  Choice today to save some money could cast a shadow for a long time. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT City Manager Lisa Goldman provided an overview of the Burlingame Infrastructure Needs:  Community Center – $35M-$40M. Presentation to be made at the July 7th City Council meeting.  Downtown Streetscapes – side streets and surrounding areas – $25M  Downtown Parking Garage – $10M-$20M  City Hall Safety Improvements – $11.5M  Downtown Parking Lots Resurfacing – $5M  Bayview Park – $4M  New Parks Yard – $3.4M  Fire Station Improvements – $2.4M  Police Station Improvements – $1.6M  Aquatics Center Improvements – $250K  Carriage House Improvements – $150K $98M-$113M total, based on staff estimates. Community survey to seek public input on prioritization of projects. Commission comments:  What is the annual capital improvement budget? (Goldman: $3.2M)  Capacity for sewage treatment? Is that on a different track? (Goldman: There have been some infrastructure projects recently completed. Public Works did not put it on this list.)  What would be the cost of building a new City Hall? (Goldman: $20M-$25M range, depending on whether or not land would need to be acquired. Would want to build something bigger – not fancy, but anticipating future space needs.)  What would the budget be for safety improvements at the Community Center? (Goldman: Does not make sense from a programming standpoint – does not meet the needs of the community.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 3  Downtown parking garage mentioned 350 spaces, but have heard that figure may need updating. (Goldman: Probably still pretty close to what is needed.)  Unfunded pension obligations? (Goldman: Was $76M. Last September opened an Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) irrevocable trust, with set asides each year. Trust will grow over time to bring down the liability.)  Challenge is the prioritization. Sophisticated methodologies for making the choices such as “Choosing by Advantages” by Jim Suhr. (Goldman: Trying to get pulse of community first, then will look for methodology for making choices.)  General Plan timing? Maybe it can give some direction to some of these other decisions such as where a parking structure might be located. (Goldman: Request for Proposal going out soon. Won’t necessarily have the level of detail represented by these projects.)  Will there be risk assessment discussions for these projects? (Goldman: Not in the classic sense, but will consider the relative risks and benefits of each project.) 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. 2. 1321 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PATRICK GILSON, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Sargent moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gum. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 2714 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE TO CREATE NEW HABITABLE AREA IN AN EXISTING CRAWL SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BILL CUNNINGHAM-CORSO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DIEBEL AND COMPANY ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN This item was continued at the request of the applicant. 4. 515 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT DOMENICI, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. DeMartini reported that he got a tour of the project site from father-in-law of applicant. DeMartini also spoke to the applicant. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 4 Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Robert Domenici represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  There has been discussion of the two rear windows on the left elevations being changed to half windows to protect the neighbors’ privacy. (Domenici: Mr. Suarez at 511 Marin Drive has reviewed the drawings. There have been discussions of changing some windows for accommodating concerns for privacy with the swimming pool. Would take his thoughts into consideration.)  Has a structural engineer been retained? (Domenici: Had held off on a structural engineer until determining if project could be done. Have now subcontracted a structural engineer.)  Project is not substantial – it is a simple project. But if after the structural engineer is engaged and the project needs to be changed, it will have to come back to the Planning Commission as an FYI or amendment.  Does not look like what is shown on model matches the roof plan. (Domenici: Aware there were some issues with the drawing. Were going to go forward to prepare for building permit if this gets approved and if there are changes would come back.)  Project is approvable, but not clear what is being approved in terms of the roof construction.  Massing is relatively straightforward. Declining height envelope issue does not appear substantial.  Roof is resolved in the model, but what is on the model is not the same as what is on the drawing. (Domenici: Understands that if the design changes will have to come back to the Planning Commission.) Public comments: Jamie Domenici, 515 Marin Drive, spoke on this item:  Currently the bedroom window lines up directly with the neighbor’s window. If did nothing, windows would still be looking at each other.  Existing deck also looks into all the surrounding properties. Wants to take the deck down.  Project is a simple upgrade and will be better than the existing situation. Privacy will be better.  Intent of roofline is to extend the existing appearance. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Easily approvable project, but uneasy don’t know what the roof will look like.  There is an awkward situation where the new roof of the bedroom passes by the dormer.  Would either come back as FYI if not significant changes, or amended project if it turns out there need to be significant changes.  It is in the rear of the house so the appearance of the front will not be impacted.  Can do FYI before issuing the building permit.  Consider adding a condition on the windows, that on the proposed left elevation (Sheet A-4.3) the two windows become half windows.  There is not an absolute right to privacy. Feels uncomfortable imposing a condition on the windows if the neighbor has not come to either this meeting or the last meeting. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 5 Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing: Jamie Domenici, 515 Marin Drive, spoke on this item:  Typically houses in the neighborhood have windows in proximity to each other.  The neighbor in question wrote a letter in support of the project.  The open part in the model of the roof is the existing area and is not changing.  Neighbor is pleased to see the deck removed. Commission comments:  Letter from neighbor is in support of the project and has not come to meetings or communicated objections to the windows. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application including findings for special permit, 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 April 7, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A5.1, LA1, T24 A and B, and Boundary Survey; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit the revised roof plan shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review as an FYI item; 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 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 6. that the conditions of the Engineering Divisions January 17, 2014 memo, the Building Division's December 23, 2013 and March 10, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's December 27, 2013 memo, the Fire Division's December 26, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Divisions December 23, 2013 memo 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 plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 6 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, 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 Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1-0-0. (Commissioner DeMartini dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. 5. 1521 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ROBERT AND JESSICA LAWSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 12, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 7 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions:  Revision is good – breaks up the tower.  Was there an issue with the entry? Added the pencil windows to the side of the doors. (Robertson: Did that to amalgamate the design, create some uniformity. Thought the repeating pattern worked.)  Likes the changes – looks like it has always been there.  Appreciate not removing the oak tree. Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  None. Commissioner Terrones 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 May 1, 2014, Sheets 1 to 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 Engineering Division's February 24, 2014 memo, the Building Division's February 14 and March 31, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's February 18, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's February 18, 2014, and the Stormwater Division's February 26, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 8 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 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 Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 9 Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 7 (4 La Mesa Court) for non-statutory reasons, and Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself because he has a quasi-business relationship with one of the neighbors. They both left the City Council Chambers. 7. 4 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRISTOPHER AWOYINKA AND SUZANNE MCGOVERN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 12, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini reported he had met with the neighbors at 1510 La Mesa Drive, 2 La Mesa Court, 6 La Mesa Court, the applicant, and the architect. Commissioner Yie met with the applicant and the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court, 2 La Mesa Court, and 1510 La Mesa Drive. Commissioner Loftis met with the applicant and the neighbors at 1510 La Mesa Drive. Commissioner Gum met with the applicant and with the neighbors at 1510 La Mesa Drive and 6 La Mesa Court. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-one (41) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant:  Had a meeting with neighbors on Monday. All were present except Mr. Crow.  Did everything asked, except for taking away the overhang. Concerned that would ruin the architecture, and does not believe it would take away from the neighbor’s sunlight. Commission comments:  Was the eave added in the most recent revision? (Raduenz: It was added a while ago. Was not a concern previously.)  Letter from neighbors request lowering office ceiling height to allow more light? (Raduenz: It is a major architectural feature of the front. The project is within zoning parameters – would rather not lower plate heights.)  Building has been moved again. (Raduenz: Has done what was requested by neighbors. Neighbors at 2 La Mesa are not happy because it has been moved closer to them, though they had been supportive previously. The house is very far back from the setbacks.)  It is not the job of the Planning Commission to determine where on the lot the house should be sited. It is 30 feet at one corner from 6 La Mesa Court, 27 feet at the other, which is a significant distance.  1510 La Mesa Lane wanted screening on the flex room. (Raduenz: Has added baffle system on top floor to mitigate the glass; trees screen the lower levels.)  Would it be possible to pull back the overhang? (Raduenz: Could take it back by one foot, so it is two feet on the side. Not having an overhang at all would ruin the look.)  Are the neighbors satisfied with the deck being dropped by two feet? (Raduenz: They did not object to it in the meeting.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 10  There have been some positive changes to the building. The baffling breaks up the expanses of glass but does not compromise the design. (Raduenz: It is a good addition. It still provides the light and view, and provides privacy to the cross-canyon neighbors. There will be anti-glare glass.)  Would lowering the office ceiling height help the light at 6 La Mesa? (Raduenz: There are a lot of trees already.)(Awoyinka: That portion of the lot receives early morning sunlight for about an hour. Any changes would only enable one hour of additional sunlight. There is more than 26 feet between the properties, which is more than enough.)  On left side of the elevation will be frosting the first and second windows, but not the third window? (Raduenz: Not frosting anything in the Living Room. Is frosting the 30” x 9’ window, and the large window in the front to protect the privacy of the neighbors’ front deck. Also frosting both small windows in the middle bathroom, and frosting the bedroom window in the middle floor. Also raising the bedroom window 30 inches.)  Will the bay tree (#9) be retained? (Raduenz: Yes.) Grecian laurel will be replaced by Catalina cherry trees? (Raduenz: Yes.)  1510 La Mesa Lane said they wanted one additional thing – shielding the flex room. (Awoyinka: Have done as much as possible with the baffles on the top floor. Had talked about having baffles of the middle floor, but it took away from the aesthetic. Believes keeping the bay tree will provide screening.)  Comment on dropping the office height? (Awoyinka: Has already shifted the house two feet.)  The baffle system is to reduce glazing? (Raduenz: Allows ambient light to get in but also creates privacy for the neighbors across the canyon.)  The ceiling height of the office area is ten feet, not eleven feet, as noted by the neighbor. Public comments: Matthew Machlis, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:  Concern with the glass on the façade.  Baffles are good, retaining bay tree is good.  Plans at meeting showed panels on the center room. Plans submitted were different from what was agreed to. Just wants to go back to the plans that were shown on Monday.  Wants to ensure the trees are retained and kept healthy.  Ensure blackout curtains and occupancy sensors for the lighting be in the documentation. Robert Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:  Improvements to the original design include the bronze siding, and top floor setback. Louvers and treatment of the glass on the top two floors is an improvement, but still over 50% of top two floors are glass. Will be mitigated somewhat by non-reflected coatings.  Process has had incremental changes in a flawed design. 40-feet structure with 4,000 square feet of floor space is a big visual intrusion into the canyon. Mass and glass remain the two big problems.  Issue is not the style of architecture. Problem is the massiveness of the structure and the amount of glass on the rear elevation.  Seems a lot of things about the design do not conform to the Neighborhood Design Guidelines.  An acceptable house can be built on this site, but this is not the one. Laura Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 11  Concern over blockage of light. Not sure where the one-hour of sunlight calculation came from. There is a lot of ambient light throughout the day.  Has been hard to keep track of the changes in the plans.  Ways to mitigate the situation: drop the tall 10-foot/11-foot roof, reducing the overhanging eaves.  Design guidelines state there should be sensitive placement and height of buildings to avoid substantial blockage of existing sunlight patterns.  Would not want to modify the side of the 6 La Mesa Court to get sunlight. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant:  The house is situated 26 feet away from the neighboring house so would not be detracting from the overall sunlight. Could not build a house in the Easton Addition if this was the standard. There is a flat roof. Commission comments/questions:  Would it be possible to drop or wrap the eave facing 6 La Mesa Court so it does not block sunlight, like it is done in the front? (Raduenz: Does not think the eave affects the sunlight – it is projecting out, not up. Could bring it back to 2 feet.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Lots of lines being drawn in the sand. Not the job of the Commission to manage lines in the sand.  No evidence that making the changes being requested will actually achieve the goal that is claimed will be achieved.  Believes the building meets the design guidelines. It is massed appropriately for the site, so the only question is whether there is too much glass.  Applicant has made a lot of changes to appease the neighbors. The FAR has been reduced, it is single-story from the street.  Every step along the way has been an improvement. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit, 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 May 21, 2014, sheets T1.0, GN, GP, SP, C-2, Boundary and Topographic Survey, A1.0 through A5.0, L1.0, L2.0, FAR and Tree; and that prior to issuance of a building permit the Landscape Plans shall be revised to show six, 24-inch box Catalina Cherry trees (Prunus ilicifolia) in place of the Grecian Laurel trees (Laurus nobilis) located along the left side property line; and that the glazing along the rear of the house shall be anti-reflective; 2. that all existing trees to remain, as shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L1.0, date stamped May 21, 2014), shall not be removed or damaged, and the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared which documents how each tree on the site should be protected during construction; this report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the contractor shall call for the Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a building permit shall be issued; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 12 3. that if any existing tree on the site dies within five years of the final inspection of the project, it shall be replaced with a new, 36-inch box tree with a species determined to be appropriate by the City Arborist; the new tree shall be replaced in the same location unless it is determined by the City Arborist that the location should be adjusted based on the site conditions; 4. that the applicant shall submit a detailed foundation report for approval by the Building Division and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Division prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 5. that a certified arborist shall be on site during any grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation and digging for removal or installation of any utilities; 6. 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); 7. that any changes to the size or envelope of the lower, middle and upper floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 8. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 9, November 15 and August 28, 2013 memos, the Fire Division’s December 19, November 25 and September 9, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 25, 2013 memo, the Parks Division’s December 5, November 18 and September 6, 2013 memos and the Stormwater Division’s November 18 and September 4, 2013 memos shall be met; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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 May 27, 2014 13 13. 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; 14. 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: 15. 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; 16. 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; 17. 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; 18. 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; 19. 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; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Aesthetics 20. The project sponsor shall be subject to the design review process to evaluate the aesthetics of the construction of a single family dwelling in the R-1 Zoning District; 21. The project sponsor shall be subject to a hillside area construction permit to evaluate the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties, with emphasis given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit; 22. The landscaping shall be provided on the site as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. All landscaping shall be installed prior to scheduling the final building inspection; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 14 Air Quality 23. During construction, the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 24. The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist’ 25. The property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated November 4, 2013. All tree protection measures shall be taken prior to beginning any tree removal activities, grading or construction on the site; 26. All clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing installed under the supervision of a licensed arborist and inspected by the City Arborist; and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas shall be protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching as designed by and installed with the supervision of a licensed arborist to standards approved by the City Arborist; 27. A licensed arborist, hired by the applicant, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently if necessary and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Division that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 28. A licensed arborist shall provide a post-construction maintenance program to the property owners with instructions on how to maintain them and identify warning signs of poor tree health; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 15 the property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finalled by the City; Cultural Resources 29. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out; 30. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame; 31. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered; Geology and Soils 32. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations performed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 16 recommendations from the engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction; 33. There shall be no pile driving as part of this project; 34. The foundation for the single family dwelling structure, swimming pool and any pool decking shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design; 35. Grading activities shall be limited to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff; 36. The project shall be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability; and the construction plans and design shall be approved by the Building Division and all necessary permits issued before any grading, tree removal or construction occurs on the site; Hazards and Hazardous Materials 37. That the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit; 38. That the project shall comply with the following requirements set by the Central County Fire Department: a) All attic spaces created shall be equipped and protected by fire sprinklers. b) The entire house construction shall comply with California Building Code Chapter 7A requirements for buildings in a Wildland Urban Interface. c) The landscaping shall be fire resistive in nature and be in concert with the publication; “Living with Fire in San Mateo County”. Hydrology and Water Quality 39. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; c) Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; d) Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 17 e) The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. Noise 40. The hours for drilling shall be limited to Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with no drilling on Sundays or Holidays. The remainder of the construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; 41. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: a) Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). b) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. c) Loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment shall avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals. Transportation/Traffic 42. No parking shall be allowed along La Mesa Court in order to maintain a 20-foot wide fire access lane for fire apparatus. During construction, construction vehicles and storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion:  The meeting between neighbors was constructive.  Believes the concerns of light have been addressed.  Hillside Area Construction Permit describes distant views from habitable areas. Appears the distant views from 2 La Mesa Court will not be affected, even with the house shifting one foot.  Discussion on the landscape plan with the laurel tree being changed to cherry – should be reflected in the approval.  Add condition that if any of the trees die, they be replaced in the same locations and the minimum tree size be 36” box. If there is an issue with the tree location, the City Arborist shall be contacted.  Impressed with the work of the two teams together. However does not believe it fits the guidelines and the neighborhood. Struggles hard to get buildings to fit into the neighborhoods, but does not think this building fits.  Time limit for tree monitoring to be 5 years. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused, Commissioner Gum dissenting). CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 18 Commissioner Loftis moved to approve the application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused). Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioner DeMartini moved to approve a motion that if any trees on the site die in the next five years, that they be replaced in the specific location of the previous tree and that the minimum size shall be a 36” box tree. If there is an issue with the location of the tree, it shall be subject to approval by the City arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused). This item concluded at 8:57 p.m. Commissioners Terrones and Sargent returned to the dais. 7. 1534 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING (RYAN MORRIS, VIOTTI ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHERYL TAN, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Ray Viotti represented the applicant:  Extended the overhangs to 24 inches where possible;  Revised the window layout in the front to make the windows more consistent throughout the house;  Pushed back the lower roof on the second floor so it does not stand out as much;  Revised the second story windows on the front.  Main issue that has come up is a privacy issue with neighbors at 1538 Los Altos Drive. Site is on a downhill slope. Has worked with neighbors; looked at drawings and site study provided by neighbor and proposed landscape screening. Once trees are grown up they will provide privacy.  Previously had view into 1538 Los Altos Drive back yard, landscaping grew to provide privacy. Anticipates being able to provide similar screening. Commission questions/comments:  Considered extending overhangs beyond 24 inches? (Viotti: Would count towards lot coverage.)(Hurin: There is additional lot coverage available, but eaves beyond 24 inches are also subject to setbacks and height requirements.)  Changes are better, but having a challenge with the forms. Seems too tall for being at the top of hill and being nearly 30 feet. Considered a flat roof on the second floor? 8 feet and 8 feet on both sides? (Viotti: Starts at 7’-6” on the second floor to keep the massing down. If went with 8 feet + 8 feet + crawl space would still be at 20 feet on the downhill side. The highest point as CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 19 proposed (29 feet) is at uphill side. Flattening the roof would lower the peak but cause the downhill side to be taller. The second floor addition is centered on the lot.)  With the roof jutting up at the top of the hill, it looks very proud.  Massing is OK. 1526, 1522 and 1518 Los Altos Drive are all comparatively large two-story structures. Question is whether it complies with the design guidelines? East elevation works, but front does not. (Viotti: Constraints in the program coming from clients.)  Why is entry not further out? (Viotti: Already at average front setback.)(Hurin: In other instances the Commission has suggested making the front entry pad larger to create a more inviting presence, so that approach has been used here.) Needs more of a sense of arrival, such as railing.  Given that the existing porch cover projects further out, could the existing porch cover setback be retained? (Hurin: Not without requesting a setback variance. If the existing structure were being maintained they could do that, but could not extend out with an addition that does not conform to the average setback.)  There is only 2 feet for the cover over the entry. (Viotti: Would like to make it larger but would have to request a variance.)  Front elevation looks like it needs a center, but since none of the lines on the front elevation align it requires a split gable. It looks complex.  Could the front steps wrap the front of the stoop? Might make the entry look more inviting and approachable from the street. Public comments: Wayne and Jill Shen, 1538 Los Altos Drive, spoke on this item:  Picture window exposes the back yard to the new house. A tree is not going to work because the new house will be on the south side and will be on higher ground. It will block sunlight.  The wall of the proposed house is flush with the driveway. The driveway is 11’-10”, and beside that is a 3’-5” soil area. There is then a 4 feet drop to the next door yard. There is not enough room to plant trees big enough to screen the big 6-panel window.  All active areas in the backyard would be exposed from the big corner window.  Would expect trees would need to be very big to screen such a large window area.  1538 Los Altos Drive is four feet lower, and the new house is elevated 5 feet from the foundation, so overall there is an 8- to 9 feet in difference between the ground levels.  Two-story high wall is too intrusive, towers over neighboring yard.  Uphill neighbor is same level as the subject property so does not have the same issues. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  There is not an ordinance to protect privacy. The design guidelines require that privacy issues be considered, and that issues of window placement and views into other windows be considered. The issues become increasingly important when there are window walls and where windows are at or near the setback. However there is not an ordinance that requires privacy, or that would require the setback to be increased or windows to be modified to provide privacy.  The first floor is 13 feet from the adjacent property, and the second floor is 17 feet from the adjacent property. Not reasonable to ask applicant to increase setbacks, but could ask applicant to reconsider the windows.  Windows are located where they are for the primary view.  Wide range of quality in metal windows. FYI once the window selection has been made? CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 20  This is not concerning looking into another window – it is concerned with a view into a back yard. If decision was that nobody could look into anyone else’s back yard, nothing could be built. It is a matter of degree.  The tree screen shown in the rendering suggests that it would indeed block the views from the second story window into the adjacent backyard, provided they are of sufficient height and girth.  There is an example in the Easton Addition with 30-foot Lombardi poplars that provide an enormously effective screen between two houses. That type of thin-profile tree that grows tall might be an option. Then it becomes a trade-off between privacy and sunlight. 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 May 16, 2014, sheets T0, A1.0 through A2.2, L1 and GB.1; 2. that the landscape screening be required, and that the City Arborist be consulted to recommend a tree that is fast-growing and would achieve a height of approximately 15’-7” as indicated in the submitted plans to achieve the screening; 3. that there be consideration given to giving further prominence to the front porch such as steps or other additions, and that these changes be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit; 4. that the specific choice of aluminum windows manufacturer be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit; 5. 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); 6. 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; 7. that the conditions of the Building Division’s March 18, 2014 and February 14, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s April 2, 2014, March 21, 2014 and February 18, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s February 24, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s February 18, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s February 26, 2014 memo shall be met; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 21 is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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: 14. 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; 15. 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; 16. 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 17. 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:  The neighbors should sort out what is the better solution, landscaping or privacy?  If there is another solution that the neighbors can work out, that could come back as an FYI.  Will be voting against the motion because there are design issues that are not resolved. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-3-0-0 (Commissioners DeMartini, Gum, and Yie dissenting.) Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:42 p.m. 8. 1419 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 22 AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KIERAN WOODS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy represented the applicant:  Page 5 in the plans needs to be changed so that the gable with the hip roof is changed to a Dutch gable so it is consistent with the rest of the house. Commission questions/comments:  Front window still looks too tall. Original drawing had a different window that looked better. (McCarthy: Can go back to the previous window. Agrees it looks better.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Page 58 of the design guidelines states that arched or round-top windows should be avoided as they did not occur originally in most architectural styles present in Burlingame. However it works here, fits well. For the record have taken into account the design guidelines but does not believe they apply in this particular case.  Arched window here is handsome, enhances the front elevation so needs to be considered in context. Guidelines state “should” instead of “shall” so there is some discretion. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. 0 The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. 9. 2020 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 23 STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J.D. ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ANTHONY AND THERESA CAPRINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Would they not be able to use the attic space because they would need to add dormers? (Gardiner: The access configuration to the attic space is being modified so it would become inaccessible and therefore not be counted towards FAR.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Anthony Caprini represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  Much improved from the last meeting. The last version was very heavy on the right side and had a lot of complicated forms. This is simplified, and it looks like it was built this way originally. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  None. 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 May 8, 2014, Sheets A1 to A10, L1, and SF1 through SF4; 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 Engineering Division's February 4, 2014 memo, the Building Division's January 17, 2014 memo, the Parks Division's January 27, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's January 24, 2014, and the Stormwater Division's January 21, 2014 memo shall be met; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 24 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site 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 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 Loftis. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 25 Discussion of motion:  This is an example showing that design review works. The revisions make it better.  The previous design reduced the floor area by 96 square feet but was adding more mass and bulk. In this version the floor area is being reduced by 48 square feet but the addition is de minimis; it actually unifies the roof form. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 10. 50 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, ONE- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; CHRISTOPHER J. KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 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 Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant:  Opened up front porch – made it wider and added trim. Commission questions/comments:  Changes to arches are good. Have lightened them up.  What will the trim be around the arches? Stucco or wood? (Chu: Could be either.) It’s fine in either.  Not big changes, but they make a big difference. 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 date stamped May 15, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1 and L.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 house or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 26 4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s February 27, 2014 memo, the Parks Division’s March 3, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s March 19, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s March 3, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s March 3, 2014 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; 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; 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 27 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 Gum. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 1412 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO ADD A NEW ATTACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; MATT NEJASMICH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Is there a minimum width for a driveway? (Hurin: 9’-6” for a single family home. The existing driveway is existing nonconforming.)  Is the proposed driveway length sufficient for a second car? (Hurin: Yes. On an existing house it can be measured to the back of the sidewalk.)  Is the right side 3-foot setback being retained to utilize the existing foundation? (Hurin: That addition was already approved. Only looking at the garage addition in this application.)  Rebuilding the former carport would not be simple? (Hurin: Since the existing nonconforming carport has been removed, any nonconforming status goes away. If replacing in the same location, would need to request design review, special permit for an attached carport, and a side setback variance since it would be virtually on the property line. There could also be fire and building code implications as well. The existing driveway width is nonconforming so a variance would need to be requested for driveway width as well.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. Matt Nejasmich represented the applicant:  Project has not gone along as planned. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 28  A real garage that is off the property line and properly sized will be preferable for both the property and neighbors. Has a letter of support from the neighbor.  Usually the goal is not to have garage in front in terms of design, but in this situation it is probably the only good option.  Would reduce the house size if the garage were set further into the house. Commission comments/questions:  Only choices are detached garage in the back with nonconformities, or attached garage in the front.  Is intent to have brick on the front façade? (Nejasmich: May need to submit a FYI to have siding. The brick on the front façade has been removed. Will retain brick on the right side at the entry, then have brick up to the window height and horizontal siding above that on the rest of the façade.) Would be nice to have the brick, it is a nice touch and adds to the design. (Hurin: Would encourage the applicant to show intensions on the plans when they come back for action, rather than come back again with an FYI.)  Charming house. Having the siding extend across the front could help to tie in the garage addition with the rest of the house.  Diagonal bracing on the garage door brings a lot of attention to itself since it does not have anything to do with the rest of the house. Could be better to not draw so much attention to the garage. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission questions/discussion:  Does the garage need to be 20 feet deep? (Hurin: Yes, minimum interior depth is 20 feet.)  Would like to see what they do with the front façade and garage door. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion:  Could go either way with the brick – either extending the brick, or extending the wood siding. Will leave it to the applicant for what they want to achieve. Chair Bandrapalli 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 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:22 p.m. 12. 1529 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVEN CROOKS AND HELEN MIRANDA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 29 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  What is limitation on basements in terms of ceiling heights? (Hurin: In floor area, any space greater than 6’-6” would be included in FAR. However there is also an exemption for a certain amount of basement area in FAR. If it meets the threshold of being a habitable basement, could have a higher ceiling height but would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. Randy Grange represented the applicant:  Submitted a letter from neighbor wanting a different tree where a Japanese maple is shown. Owner is agreeable to the change.  Has tried to keep the massing from the street down low.  Greater than minimum setbacks on the side, so there is a lot of air space around the house.  The eaves are 30 inches so count towards lot coverage. While it looks like lot coverage has been maximized, 279 square feet of coverage is from the eaves. Commission comments:  Coast live oak will take over the far back corner when it grows. May need to look at something else. (Grange: Tree E – neighbor wants something taller instead of the Japanese maple. Will talk to the landscape designer.)  Metal roof is unusual for the neighborhood. Is the choice an issue of durability, or the look, or to allow solar in the future? (Grange: A lot of those. Great for attaching solar. Is a nice clean look – nicer than asphalt shingle. Reflects heat away, 99% recycled content.) It is a 40-year solution, versus 30- or 35-year composition shingle.  Likes design – likes the side entry. A different approach for the typical 6,000 square foot lot.  Considered having doors on the Dining Room to add more to the front? (Grange: Has considered doors and a terrace, but owner does not think they would use it.)  Entry does not have much presence. (Grange: If the entry was in the center, the Library would be moved over and the house would be wider.)  The Library presents a blank façade to the street and looks boxy – needs some more work.  The roof over the entry does not extend out to give a sense of entry or allow it to be visible from the street – at least from straight-on or from the right. Needs some work – does not need to be moved to the front, but needs to be more clear that it is the entry.  Metal roof does not seem appropriate given there are not many in the neighborhood. Would not want to see a lot of metal roofs appearing in this neighborhood.  Glass stair tower is odd for the house.  It is contemporary but softened so it fits into the Easton Addition more than a strictly modern design.  What is flat roof material? (Grange: A sheet membrane.)  What materials will the windows be? (Grange: Aluminum-clad wood windows.) Should be noted on the plans.  Needs to make findings for compatibility with the neighborhood. How would this design be compatible with the neighborhood? (Grange: Owner would like to do something very contemporary. Here has focused on the massing of the house. It is an Easton Addition CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 30 massing, but made more contemporary with material choices such as the smooth stucco. Believes massing means more than everything else; if it was a boxy modern house it would stand out, but this will work because of the massing.)  Massing fits Easton Addition.  Metal roof seems to go well with the design of the house, and goes better with the design than a composition shingle, but does not fit with the neighborhood. This will be “the one with the metal roof.”  Landscaping is a bit stark. Should look at the ground cover to make sure it does not require too much water for the oak tree.  Olive tree in front seems close to the corner of the house – olive trees are wide, so should consider pushing it away from the house.  Massing works well; the roof forms and the size and shape of the house fit the neighborhood. Flat roofs can be controversial – question has been whether there are contemporary looks that still have a traditional roof form. This achieves that – is atypical but still fits into the neighborhood.  Special permit for basement ceiling height is more a function of having the basement be usable and livable.  Metal roofing is worth considering for sustainability and durability – depends on coloring. White would be glaring and attract a lot of attention it does not deserve.  Concern with water level in basements in the Easton Addition, and the need to pump lots of water. (Grange: Having soils report done now. City requires pumping of water out to street, including roof water. Could raise drain level so the pump only comes on when the water level is filling up. Wants to avoid having to pump all the time.)  Pleased to see the trees within the footprint of the structure are not being removed. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  Understands the need to address sustainability and durability issues, but not sure if the metal roof is the right choice. Not convinced it fits in this neighborhood, given the density and feel of the neighborhood.  Perhaps a slate roof would work better? It would have a clean look and be durable, and is a natural material. Would not stand out.  Would be concerned if there ended up being 20 metal roofs in the Easton Addition.  If this is approved, probably won’t have 20 houses but might have 5 or 10.  If durability is the criteria, would we allow vinyl windows?  The house has a somewhat Mediterranean character, but would not look good with a red tile roof.  Modern interpretation of a traditional design.  Would be helpful to have a sample of the roof – color and size.  Metal could mean cheap, durable, could suggest industrial or commercial. It is contextual.  Have there been others metal roofs installed? (Hurin: 74 Loma Vista was approved but has not been built yet. Roof material is not tracked in a data base. The Council Chambers rotunda has a metal roof. Could visit an example and see how it might age.)  The metal roof could be nice in itself, but question is whether it make senses on this particular street. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 31 Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete, with direction to provide roof sample and consider alternatives. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli 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 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:52 p.m. 13. 1011 MORRELL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BILL EGAN, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JAMES CORMACK PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum reported that he had met with owner to left. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  What are the setback requirements for a two-car garage? (Hurin: 35 feet for one double-wide door, 25 feet for two single-wide doors, or a staggered 20- and 25-foot setback if there are two staggered doors. The intent is to diminish the impact of a two-car garage at the front of the house.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. Bill Egan and James Cormack represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Tree being removed in front? (Egan: Nothing being removed.)  Garage door looks like a two-car door and is big in plane. Could it be broken up with windows and/or add a trellis?  Will shutters in the front on the right side be retained? (Egan: No.) With no shutters windows on the right seem undersized for the width of the span.  Back looks very flat. Would like to see more relief – light and shadow, breaking of the massing.  Rear shed roof with posts does not seem substantial. (Egan: It’s a shade roof for the deck, but hitting up against the maximum FAR so had to reduce the mass of the roof.)  The house looks plain and simple, but there are lots of plain and simple houses in the neighborhood. Would not want to be overly adorned in this neighborhood or it would feel out of place. There is a similar house on Linden at the corner, but it is helped by having a smaller garage door and having a more defined entry.  Entry way could be more clearly expressed. Could benefit from having the entry steps turned towards the street rather than just the garage and driveway. Would give some clarity to the house. As shown draws attention to the garage. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 32  Will the laundry be in the garage? (Egan: No, it will be on the second floor.) Windows in the garage door would break up the big expanse and could let in some light.  Should show the design of garage door – it’s just blank as shown.  A lot of the houses have the double-hung/divided lite windows, including the existing house. Having these would help the house fit in better with the neighborhood.  West elevation looks like a layer cake, windows are repetitive and the side is flat. Looks overly plain.  On the east elevation, is there just one window on the second floor? Plan shows three windows. (Egan: There are more windows shown on the plan than the elevation.)  House does not need to be adorned, but there is an issue of scale. Garage needs some detail; the existing door has panels. On the two-story piece on the right side of the front there is not a hierarchy from one floor to the next, the windows are the same on both floors. Same with the west elevation. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  Project would benefit from a design review consultant to help address the issues raised by the Commission  Although changes suggested are not major, review would be expedited with the consultant involved. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to refer the item to a design review consultant, with direction to consider the front façade, the garage door, the entry, the hierarchy of windows between first and second floors, window details such as divided lites, and breaking up the rear and west elevations. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gum. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to refer the item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:12 p.m. 14. 1240 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO STORY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK BUCCIARELLI, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; LONESTAR HOLDINGS LLC PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted he had met with neighbor down the street. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 33 Mark Bucciarelli represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions:  Will the trees on the left side be removed? There are five 8- to 10-inch diameter trees. They make a nice screen. (Bucciarelli: According to the Landscape Plan they will be removed.)  Is it brick around the front door? (Bucciarelli: Stone.)  Is agave a suitable plant to have at the front entry? It can grow to be a large and formidable plant.  What is the ground cover in the front?  The tree identified as Western redbud is labeled with the scientific name for the Eastern redbud.  Will the windows have divided lites? (Bucciarelli: Could do that. This project is modeled after 712 Bayswater as a reference.)  The layout of the second story creates two hallways, which takes up square footage.  Design could use some more work – the corner windows on the edge of the second story look odd – a center window would look better.  The stone next to the front door feels heavy.  Don’t understand the low stone walls near the entry. (Bucciarelli: Originally had pylons with a trellis but it counted against the FAR, so took the trellis out and left the pylons.) Without the trellis they do not have a function.  The back has a Juliette balcony – will there be a trellis too? (Bucciarelli: There was a trellis but had to be removed because of FAR.)(Hurin: A trellis or covered porch can get an exemption of up to 100 square feet off either the front or back, but it is counted towards lot coverage. Only has 14 feet before maxing out lot coverage. If a trellis is 24 inches or less it does not count towards lot coverage or FAR as long as there are no posts.)  Looks like a building in the Outback in Australia. Seems odd for the neighborhood. Looks like cabin-like, a layer cake.  Building is static – centered and symmetrical.  Front elevation seems to want something centered on the second floor. There is a demising wall, but it seems there needs to be something in the center.  Pillars would be expected to be at the front of the yard, but they are further back. If they were out at the sidewalk defining the front edge of the yard they would have some purpose.  There is something comforting in the massing of the house, but some of the details and the way it is finished need to be addressed.  Rear elevation has the balcony and something happening in the gable; the asymmetry on the lower level helps breaks the up monotony and it being static.  Mass needs better scale and more details to help break up the front and side elevations. The sides feel like an elongation.  (Bucciarelli: Material change from top to bottom?) Could help – the shingles in the gable help to break down the mass.  Could break down the continuous eve line that goes all the way around the second floor.  Second floor would look better if it was lowered to 8 feet, to bring down the tall barn-like look.  Balcony on the back might look better if it was wider. Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 34 Commission comments:  Would benefit from suggestions from a design review consultant.  There is symmetry and asymmetry. Where it is successful is where there is tension between them.  Not sure about changing materials from one level to the other – could exacerbate the sense of the layer cake.  Proportions on 712 Bayswater are very different. The upper floor is much broader and closer in width to the lower floor, and there is a more pronounced front porch. Also context is different.  Facades would benefit from attention to windows so they are not so plain. Sills, maybe divided lites. They look like aluminum storefront windows as they’re shown, but that does not work with the clapboard.  Front door needs work – window is the same size as the door, and stone does not work well.  Pylons are not in the right place.  Interest in a central window over the entryway to reinforce the symmetry at the top while allowing asymmetry to be maintained at the bottom.  Address the “extrusion” effect of the massing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to refer the item to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to refer the item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:38 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT FYI: 1521 Cabrillo Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. FYI: 1709 Ray Drive - review of clarifications to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. FYI: 1378 De Soto Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Continued. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 27, 2014 35 FYI: 1818 Trousdale Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Pulled for public hearing. Interest in discussing the change in windows. In the approval had specific agreement on the type of the window, but it has been designed downward. Also there are some claims on the durability of solid vinyl windows needing substantiation. FYI: 1640 McDonald Way – review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Will Loftis, Secretary