Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.11.13041MIN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES ILMIKLI Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the November 13, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Sargent, Yie and Davis Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Gaul moved, seconded by Commissioner A uran to approve the minutes of the October 22, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 3, first bullet at the top of the page; replace "be" with "been" Motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioners Cauchi and Davis 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 1. 2301 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FORACONDITIONAL USE PERMITTO CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE FROM STORAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (TIM RADUENZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PHILOMENA TERRY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 22, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT) Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated November 13, 2012. Questions of staff: None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 Commission comments: ■ Clarified that all of the background discussion in the staff report is just that; the Commission is not acting upon the past circumstances. (Meeker — that is correct.) ■ Is the difference between an accessory structure and a second unit the presence of kitchen? (Meeker — correct; if there were a kitchen installed in the space, it would then be a dwelling unit. Absent a kitchen, accessory living space is allowed.) ■ Clarified that accessory living space may be used by people living or working on the premises; it cannot be rented out.) ■ Asked if a second floor can be used as accessory living space? (Meeker/Strohmeier — accessory living space may be considered; however, a full dwelling unit cannot be considered under these circumstances.) ■ Clarified that the existing living space was constructed legally, previously. (Meeker — correct; are requesting modifications to the prior approval. ■ Are there findings that must be adopted? (Meeker — yes; will be provided in staff report when the item is presented for action.) ■ What is the difference between storage and living space? (Meeker— storage space would not be typically finished in a manner that permits habitation.) ■ Is there a limit to the number of bathrooms? (Meeker — no.) ■ How does the declining height envelope relate to this proposal? (Meeker — it doesn't in this instance; all prior approvals addressed height issues.) ■ Noted that the staff report did not include an aerial photograph of the area. ■ Asked for information regarding adjacent property setbacks from common property lines. ■ Asked how the prohibition on rental of the space would be enforced? (Meeker — through deed restriction.) ■ How is a kitchen defined? (Meeker/Strohmeier — stovetop, sink, refrigerator and other appliances that would normally be found in a kitchen; provision of a stove is the primary distinction; an under - counter refrigerator and microwave does not define a kitchen and may be allowed within an accessory living space.) This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 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. Chair Gaul asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Yie asked that Agenda Item 2a (1417 Vancouver Avenue) be removed from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from voting on Consent Calendar Item 2c (1419 Carlos Avenue) as he owns property within 500 feet of the property. 2b. 1225 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SUZANNE AND CHUCK LYMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 2c. 1419 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KIERAN J. WOODS TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi 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 Auran. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 for Item 2b (1225 Bernal Avenue - Commissioner Terrones absent) and 5-0-1-1 for Item 2c (1419 Carlos Avenue - Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2a (1417 Vancouver Avenue) as he is the project applicant and designer. He left the City Council Chambers. 2a. 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND A NEW SECOND STORY DECK ABOVE THE GARAGE (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARTINA SERSCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Auran opened the public hearing. No one was present on behalf of the applicant. Commission comments: Likes the changes made by the designer. Encouraged the designer to consider centering the French doors to the gable end; suggested that if this change is made it return as an FYI item. Public comments: None. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 5, 2012, sheets 2, 4, 5 & 6, and date stamped September 25, 2012, sheets cover, 1, 3, CG1 & CG2; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 2. that in the event that the project designer/applicant centers the French doors on the front elevation with the gable, this change shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI; 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 26, 2012 and July 31, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2012 memo, the Parks Supervisor's August 13, 2012 memo, Fire Marshal's July 30, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's July 30, 2012 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Vice -Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais. 3. 1552 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; D & W DEVELOPER LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 13, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ None. Vice -Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ The lot has room for a front porch; providing such a porch would have created more of a Prairie - style appearance. (Robertson — the client couldn't be convinced due to potential impacts upon Feng Shui.) ■ Likes that the height was brought down to reduce the scale of the house. ■ Was supportive of moving the entry on the right side; it would change the flavor of the house creating room for a wrap -around porch. Wouldn't compromise the functionality. Would make the home fit better on the lot. ■ On the south elevation; the two vertical two-story elements are too prominent; is there any way to break them up? ■ Is there a means of simplifying the south elevation as well. ■ Could bring the stone up higher on the column. (Robertson — the design is pretty effective; the vertical element is not too tall; doesn't think he can improve upon it.) ■ Is there a reason this approach wasn't used on the front? To have the roof element discontinuous appears unusual. (Robertson — likes the entry; is pretty effective; makes a grand statement.) 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 ■ Likes the offset entry. ■ Perhaps consider centering the upper windows over the front door. (Robertson —the house is never viewed head-on.) ■ Doesn't speak to the creek as well as it could, but reads well at the street. ■ There is a lot of hardscape; consider lessening. ■ Confirmed that the gate is electric. ■ Asked if the designer would consider making the bay window in the kitchen a square bay rather than a 45-degree bay. (Robertson — client is adamant about the design of the window.) ■ Would like to see the kitchen and the family room flipped to have the family room address the creek. (Robertson — client prefers the floor plan.) ■ Likes the changes at the front to make it more of a gathering place. ■ Ok with the rest of the design — is a handsome home. ■ Commented that elimination window grids could improve views to the creek. (Robertson — client prefers the grids.) ■ Overall, a lot of nice changes have been made. 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: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 5, 2011, sheets T1, CA Al through A4, L-1, L-2 and GPC; 2. that the second floor plate shall be reduced to 8-feet in height, and the rear balcony shall be built with a maximum depth of no greater than 2-feet, the design of which shall include corbels or brackets under that element; 3. 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; 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 26, 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; W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 8. 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; 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 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 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: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. 4. 401 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MARCI PALATELLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J DEAL ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Valerie Zahn; San Mateo; represented the applicant: Provided more detailed plans for the business. Commission comments: ■ Is still unclear what the actual businesses are. (Zahn — is an import-export business; all customers are overseas; only seven (7) employees; only alcohol and liquor; also a new tequila business venture. Has been operating in Burlingame for 25-years. Products are stored at off -site location. A lot of paperwork. Have three storage buildings with paperwork that will be brought to the site.) ■ Will there be meetings at the site? (Zahn — perhaps a distributor will visit once or twice a month.) ■ What are the workstations and offices intended for? (Valerie — Aren't sure how large the business will get. Many of the workstations are actually "project stations".) ■ No product stored on site? (Zahn — Correct.) ■ Believes that project changes are good — softening the top makes it look less top-heavy. Adding the canopy has added a vertical element. ■ There is an opportunity to provide interesting lighting. ■ Likes the changes made to the front entry. (Zahn — noted that the applicant was appreciative of the changes requested; it looks much better.) ■ What will be the canopy material and color? (Zahn — Will be some sort of bronze, but hasn't been selected yet. Strohmeier - indicated in the response from the project designer.) ■ The design makes the building look more finished. ■ Is there going to be any signage on the building? (Zahn — not that she is aware of.) M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 Likes the canopy, really pulls the design together. Public comments: Joanne Quad(?), Burlingame; spoke: ■ Concerned about parking on Bellevue Avenue; how many vehicles will be at the property? ■ Will there be lights at the parking lot that will affect the neighboring units? (Commissioner— noted that lighting is shown only on the first floor.) ■ Noted that when the business is closed, everyone else parks there — will the owner close off the parking lot at night to prevent others from parking there? (Commissioner— clarified that the parking at night is impactful.) ■ Noted that Comcast would have the cleaners at the property between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m.; this activity disturbed the neighbors. ■ When will construction start? ■ Are there time limits on construction? (Commissioner— described hours of construction activities.) Additional comments from applicant: Are planning to place a gate in the parking lot. Is in their best interest not to disturb the neighbors' peace and quiet; is a family -owned business. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 2, 2012, sheets A-1.0 through A-6.2; any changes to the exterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2. that the parking lot shall be secured during non -business hours to prevent parking of vehicles not related to the business upon the property; 3. that there shall be no use of the parking lot by ancillary personnel (e.g. cleaning crews, etc.) between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. daily; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 11, 2012, September 14, 2012 and July 26, 2012 memos, the Park Supervisor's July 26, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's August 8, 2012 and September 17, 2012 memos, the Fire Marshal's July 30, 2012 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator's July 26, 2012 memo shall be met; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 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 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 the project shall complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participation in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 4 (2308 Hillside Drive) as he owns property within 500-feet of the project site. He left the City Council Chambers. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 2308 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (HIROSHI SENGOKU, MAKITA DESIGN INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; HARUMITSU AND MICHIKO INOUYE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Hiroshi Sengoku, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Design misses the mark with the original architecture of the house. Feels the architecture looks less Mediterranean and more Mayan. The design should blend a bit betterwith the existing design of the house; more of a boxy appearance; the shed room and composition shingles don't blend with the existing house. (Sengoku — the back of the house is also boxy. The clients want to have sloped ceilings in the second floor bedrooms.) ■ Could still have a sloped ceiling; noted that the eave and header heights almost match at the rear and come close to the door at the rear of the house. ■ The proposed roof material doesn't match anything; need to do something that relates to the existing roof material. Why not use the clay tile in the rear. ■ Looks like there are two different houses on the property; there is no integration of the massing. Want to see a design that looks like it was built that way from the beginning, rather than one that looks like an obvious addition. ■ The existing stairs on the back are much more gracious and wider than what is proposed, which look too tight. ■ The coping detail on the existing front is not in keeping with the style of the house; will anything be done to tie this element in? (Sengoku — are not changing the front of the house.) ■ Integrate the roof, the massing and materials of the addition with the existing structure. ■ Could improve integration by bringing the addition a bit forward. ■ Have the opportunity to improve upon the design of the existing home and the addition to better define the design. ■ Could the middle bedroom be sacrificed to make room for a stairway at that location? This could add more massing to the addition? (Sengoku — the original house has an addition at the rear; that is why the addition is placed at the rear.) ■ The rear of the addition appears top-heavy. ■ Referenced property in the 1100 block of Cabrillo Avenue and how an addition to a similarly designed home was done successfully. ■ No cohesiveness, articulation or anything else that the Commission is accustomed to seeing in an addition of this type. ■ The design may need to go back to the drawing board and start over. ■ Could need input from a design reviewer — this could help shorten the process. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 Public comments: 1► 01M There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to refer the application to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to refer the application to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Subcommittee Assignments: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Subcommittee: Commissioner Cauchi with Commissioner Gaul as alternate Historic Preservation Subcommittee: Commissioners Yie, Terrones and Sargent Commercial and Mixed-Use/Sustainability Subcommittee: Commissioners Cauchi, Gaul and Davis Residential/Sustainability Subcommittee: Commissioners Sargent, Terrones and Auran XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of November 5, 2012: Adopted an ordinance lifting the quota on full -service food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zoning district. Will become effective on December 5, 2012. FYI: 2600 Summit Drive — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. FYI: 704 Concord Way — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 13, 2012 FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — October, 2012: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 13