Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - 2012.02.27 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 27, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the February 27, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioners Auran and Cauchi indicated that though they were not in attendance at the February 13, 2012 meeting, they had listened to the recording and reviewed the minutes. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he had listened to the recording, but had not reviewed the minutes and would; therefore, abstain from voting on the approval of the minutes. Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 3, Consent Calendar, second paragraph; change “not” to “note”.  Page 8, Item 6 (516 Burlingame Avenue), Commissioner Comments, fifth bullet, note that the brackets on the rear elevation “come down too low”.  Page 12; note that the minutes were submitted by “Michael Gaul, Vice-Chair”, as Secretary Auran was not present at the meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 2 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. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he listened to the recording of the discussion of both items. 1a. 712 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (NORMAN FLINDERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; HYLAND DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 1b. 516 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND KARL WILEY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Auran 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 Cauchi. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:04 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Chair Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (2509 Easton Drive) since she has a business relationship with the applicant. She left the City Council Chambers. 2. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 13, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) Reference staff report dated February 27, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 3  Feels that the areas that were of major concern in the original design have been addressed.  The substantive changes that have been made at the rear have helped to make the building look less like an apartment building – the massing has been broken up.  Have provided an exit to grade from the bonus room and stairs to the rear yard area.  On rear elevation, the hipped roof element doesn’t appear on the side elevation – there appears to be a drafting error. (Stotler – this is an error.)  Believes that the major concerns on the rear elevation have been addressed – is dramatically improved.  Feels the project is approvable.  Understands that the site is difficult – understands the predicament. It is now approvable as revised.  Feels there is justification for the special permit request for declining height envelope because due to the steep downward slope of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope is significantly below the grade at the front of the site. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 31, 2012, sheets T1, C.0, A1 through A5, L-1, L-2 and GPC; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove any protected-sized trees; 4. 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); 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor’s September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 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 for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 4 shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 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 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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 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. 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; 16. 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; 17. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 5 18. 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 Cauchi. Discussion of motion:  The success of the project will be in the details - be certain to follow-through with the details.  Thanked the architect for the collaborative effort. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Yie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. Chair Yie returned to the dais. 3. 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM AND LINA REETH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WALDEMAR STACHNIUK, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 27, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Boulevard and Tim Reeth, 725 Crossway Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Had similar concerns regarding the declining height envelope request; made more difficult by the design of the prior addition; but must deal with the design of that addition.  Because of the angle of the street, the west elevation is more visible.  On the west elevation; in the area where there are windows into the closet and the second-floor bathroom – the area could be gabled to break up the long, continuous line of the elevation; but this could add more mass to the area.  Have made some effort to break up the mass on the west side.  While we could insist that the new mass be addressed, it could also make the addition look less compatible with the existing structure – for this reason, can accept the declining height envelope request.  Disagrees; doesn’t feel that the design of the original structure should drive the design of the addition. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 6  Can accept the request for a special permit for the declining height envelope.  Doesn’t feel that the design of the prior addition should drive the design of this addition.  The bedrooms are quite large; there are ways to reduce the mass - there should be a way to alter the mass; perhaps with a cantilever over the driveway and still be within the declining height envelope.  All of the bedrooms are upstairs and there is a study downstairs, plus another room that is not identified - there is a lot of space that could be developed internally in a manner that could avoid the request for a deviation from the declining height envelope. There are solutions that could be used to eliminate the need for the special permit. (Stachniuk/Reeth – desire to have all of the bedrooms upstairs so that the entire family is upstairs. Made changes to the lower floor to move all of the bedrooms upstairs. The room off of the kitchen was originally a family room, is currently used as a sunroom. Had to redefine the ground floor space to eliminate a bedroom so that additional parking is not required.)  The upstairs bedrooms could possibly be reduced in order to avoid the need for a special permit for declining height envelope. The bedroom on the driveway side of the home could be reduced in size, breaking up the mass. The addition could be cantilevered over the driveway to reduce mass on the west elevation. (Reeth – the home is wider on the side where it doesn’t encroach into the declining height envelope. Is concerned about cutting in on the west side would result in narrow bedrooms.)  If the area near the children’s bathroom were narrowed, that would allow the rooms to be cantilevered over the deck below while preserving the square footage of the bedrooms. (Stachniuk – are attempting to remain consistent with the existing design; compliance with the declining height envelope would deviate from the existing home design – is consistent with the front elevation.)  Have not typically accepted a two-story flat-walled design for a home – knows the design is consistent with the existing residence, but doesn’t think that the request is supportable. Doesn’t comply with the design guidelines. There is not enough of a reason for granting the special permit. Public comments: John Root, 728 Crossway Road; spoke:  Supports the request for a special permit and urges approval of the requests.  A number of the neighbors have submitted letters of support of the design.  The proximity of the neighborhood to the Downtown area makes the area very desirable – permitting this addition will allow the family to remain in the area and partake of the benefits of being close to downtown. Granting the requests will enhance the neighborhood. Additional Commission comments:  Asked for clarity regarding the projections. (Stachniuk – clarified; will be a three-inch stucco build- out with a one-inch stucco recess. A trellis is provided below that is consistent with the front elevation.)  Asked for a description of the landscaping along the west side of the home. (Stachniuk/Reeth – may be a Japanese Maple; the tree blocks the side of the house when it has leaves. Have had conversations with the neighbors – they have been involved every step of the way. Didn’t want to build something that did not have neighbor support.)  It is good that the neighbors support the project.  The minor change suggested in the early discussion regarding the addition could reduce the size of the deviation from the declining height envelope, and may cause the project to be supportable. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 7  The initial addition was built prior to the declining height envelope provisions. The proposed addition is designed to be conforming to the original design. Cantilevering the addition over the rear would not be attractive.  Feels that the findings in support of the special permit can be met - the design is consistent with the existing structure.  Is concerned that the sides and the rear of the structure are simply sheer two-story walls – there is a simple solution.  Does see how there is consistency with the design; though thought there would be more significant changes to the design. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments:  The design is not perfect but it looks like something that was always there – the materials and design are consistent.  Have done a good job with the design, applicant is respectful of the neighborhood; is approvable.  The design is consistent with the design guidelines and with the neighborhood standard, but could use a bit more articulation. Commissioner Vistica 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 February 15, 2012, sheets 1 though 8 and Topographic Map; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 13, 2012 and November 17, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's December 9, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s January 17, 2012 and November 28, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's November 21, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 21, 2011 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 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 8 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to 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 Cauchi. Discussion of motion:  Feels that there could be more work done on the articulation.  Any articulation that is suggested is simply on paper currently; though there may be some economic impact in the construction – the slight changes could make the project supportable.  Can’t recall ever approving a project without articulation of the side elevations. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 3-3-1-0 (Commissioners Yie, Gaul and Terrones dissenting, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Additional Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 9  Discussed options for alternative actions. (Meeker – could deny with or without prejudice, continue with direction to the applicant, or refer to a design reviewer.)  Continuing the project keeps the project at the Planning Commission level – doesn’t provide the applicant the opportunity to appeal.  Feels the design work is incomplete – there could have been more work to break up the rear wall as well. Commissioner Cauchi moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  Would like to have more discussion regarding specific direction to the applicant.  There is an opportunity to provide bay windows or other features such as balconies to provide more articulation to break up the two-story walls; could use cantilevers along the left and rear elevations.  The front elevation provides guidance to the type of design features that could be incorporated to reduce the massing on the side.  There will likely be a lot of work required on the first floor to support the second story.  Primary concern is with respect to the west elevation. The articulation provided is not enough to break up the mass.  Straight walls have been allowed along driveways, but because those elevations are adjacent to a driveway.  Need to address west elevation, this is a broad, flat wall; one and three-inch articulation is not enough.  The bedrooms are quite large; there is the opportunity to provide better articulation by not stacking everything. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4. 1101 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR BAY WINDOW ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PAUL HING MAK, APPLICANT; J DEAL ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER; AND SYLVIA SOW-WAI MAK, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 27, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Sylvia Mak, 1101 Vancouver Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 10  Noted that the Building Division will have a tough time navigating the permitting process given the amount of work that has been completed without permits.  Is supportive of the requests in an effort to rectify a long-standing problem project. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  The variance request is supportable; it is a small corner lot.  The proposed windows will be an improvement.  The house already exceeded the FAR without the modifications. 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 January 31, 2012, sheets A-1 through A-4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. 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; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 20, 2012 and December 16, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's December 19, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s December 14, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 15, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 15, 2011 memo shall be met; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Front Setback Variance and Lot Coverage Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. 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; 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 the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 11 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 9 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERSTON, MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LESLIE MCKNEW TR AND CARY M. PLATKIN TR, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 27, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Likes the design – the porch detailing helps with the façade.  Likes the design of the rear elevation; is an improvement over the original design.  Only concern is the forced-air unit and water heater in the garage with rooms above it – encouraged splitting the system to reduce venting requirements and eliminate the potential for a large stack; could possibly be vented through the side wall.  Glad that making efforts to improve the front appearance.  Appreciates the efforts to improve the front.  Normally require story poles in the hillside area, but may not be needed in this instance unless a neighbor raises a concern. (Meeker – it is the Commission’s decision whether or not to require story poles.)  The brick along the garage looks dated, but also removing the brick planter and other brick features – these are nice details; are they deteriorated? (Robertson – the brick and planters are deteriorated and have created leak issues and the property owners dislike brick. Will be installing landscaping in these areas.)  Consider providing the raised planters again – would help to articulate the mass along that side of the structure.  Doesn’t feel that there are likely any view issues. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 12  Has a stone veneer been considered on the front as a replacement for the brick? (Robertson – the owner has requested stucco – the project is at the maximum budget. Feels that the plantings that are proposed will likely cover all of the stucco.)  On the new west elevation – noted an existing brick planter; is it to remain? (Robertson – yes, it will remain.)  What is being done with the open area between the bottom of the stair rail and the stair tread on the exterior stairs - does it need to be enclosed? Isn’t this a safety item? (Robertson – doesn’t need to be enclosed; will remain open. The lower rail will comply with safety requirements. Commissioner – technically should comply with the safety requirements, but the Building Division rarely requires the area to be addressed.) Public comments: Edna Steel, 18 El Quanito Way; spoke:  Concerned that the water is contained upon their property, and not impacting her site. Concerned that the larger roof will further impact drainage. Make certain that water is contained upon the subject property. (Commissioner – there is a proposed condition that would require the water to be sent to the City’s storm drainage system.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  No need for story poles.  Encouraged the applicant to be certain to consult with neighbors to ensure that no concerns arise later regarding view impacts. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  The brick base is an important element of the design – make an effort to address this item. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:18 p.m. 6. 1508 & 1510 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1: APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONEMTNAL - APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE- EMERGENCE OF TWO PARCELS PREVIOUSLY MERGED BY A USE. a. 1508 CYPRESS AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. b. 1510 CYPRESS AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (CYPRESS AVENUE INVESTMENTS, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JAMES CHU, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 13 Reference staff report dated February 27, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Craig Suhl, 1508 Cypress Avenue and James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant.  The historic analysis has determined that the existing structures are not significant.  The projects comply with all requirements, with the exception of the request for a variance for the wing wall - the wing wall is an arched gate within the side property line.  Neighbors are happy that something is to be done with the property.  Driveways are placed next to the neighbors’ homes to provide separation.  One home is design to replicate the existing Spanish-style home on the property.  The second home is of the Craftsman design to fit in with the neighborhood character. Commission comments:  Didn’t see an exceptional circumstance to warrant a variance requested for 1508, but is intrigued by the design – eliminating the feature would detract from the architectural style which historically would have included the arched design feature. Likes the idea of finding a means of allowing the deviation to ensure the consistency with the architectural style. Wants to support the variance.  Will there still be a fence behind the arch feature? (Suhl – would use the arch and door in place of a gate, with a normal wood fence behind the arch that would follow the property line.)  Will wooden sills be installed on the windows of 1508? (Suhl – yes.)  Downspouts, gutters and leader-heads to be painted on 1508? (Suhl – yes.)  On 1508 there is a lot of stucco; the design will depend upon the details and installation of the divided-lite windows as shown.  With respect to the muntin pattern on the right elevation of 1508, appears that muntins are missing on the door.  On the arched windows on the right elevation of 1508 – repeat the horizontal and vertical muntin pattern that is present elsewhere on the house.  Complemented the design of 1508 - likes the clay vents and wrought-iron features, as well as the thickened stucco that enhances the recessed windows. The detailing is well done.  The design for 1510 is also well done – appreciates the front porch and the double-entry.  The stone work and the change of the siding in the gable area are well done.  Will copper be used on the chimney at 1510? (Suhl – yes.)  With respect to 1508 – the variance justification is questionable. Not certain what hardship exists or the impacted property right.  The design of 1508 embraces an historic architectural style that is consistent with the neighborhood character. Eliminating the archway feature would be inconsistent with the architectural flavor of the home and the neighborhood.  With respect to 1510, consider a gable on the garage rather than a hipped roof – would also provide more storage area.  Be sensitive to the placement of mechanical equipment.  Will the chimney be shingled on 1510? (Suhl/Chu – yes.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 14  On 1510, be certain that the corbels below the gable on the second story are of a scale that they “show up” in the final design.  On 1510, the first reaction to the front façade is that the entry design is confusing due to the presence of two sets of doors – which is the true entry? Believes that this concern will be mitigated by the design and placement of the walkway leading to the entry. (Chu – the walkway and landscaping will lead to the entry door.)  Is there copper anywhere other than on the shed roof on 1510? (Chu – no.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion:  Provide clarity regarding the justification for the variance request. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  Reminded the Commissioners of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on Saturday, March 3, 2012 from 9 a.m. to noon. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 21, 2012:  None. FYI: 307 Channing Road – review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 8:39 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 27, 2012 15 Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary