Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.24.11 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, January 24, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Yie called the January 24, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Terrones, Vistica, Yie, Lindstrom and Gaul Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 9; delete fifth bullet under "Commission comments" as it is a duplicate of the seventh bullet. Page 9, "Additional Commission comments",- revised bullet to read: "Likes the project, would have appreciated smaller one -bedroom units for purposes of providing greater affordability." Page 13, "Discussion of motion", revise second bullet to read: "The fact that existing trees are being preserved by designing the parking, as presented, is further support for the parking variance. " Motion passed 7-0-0-0 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 review. 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. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 1 (8 Vista Lane) since he resides less than 500-feet from the property; he left the City Council Chambers. 1. 8 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DENHAM LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; EDI ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 24, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, 851 Burlway; represented the applicant. Commission comments: On the right -side elevation; clarified that the rolled, barrel -tile detail will be provided for the roof rake detail. (Mortazavi — confirmed that this would be the case.) Doesn't find anything troublesome about the design, but feels that the design doesn't take the best advantage of the site; doesn't celebrate the characteristics of the site, particularly the view that will exist within the house. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Noted that no neighbors were present to object to the project; the owners of the uphill property are not present and apparently are not objecting to the project; believes their views are over the top of the house. Commissioner Terrones 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 8, 2010, sheets A-01 through A-05, A-07 through A-09, L1.0 and L2.0 and date stamped January 13, 2011, sheet A-06, including the corbel detail and roof ridge detail; 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 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 25 and October 18, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 20, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 18, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's December 21, November 30 and October 25, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 18, 2010 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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the 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; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ Was originally opposed to the lot split, but feels the design blends in well with the neighborhood, can support the project. ■ Thanked the applicant for adding the window on the side; adds a nice feature. ■ Have done a good job designing a project for the lot as currently configured. ■ The story poles demonstrate that there are no significant impacts upon the neighbors. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais. 2. 1333 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KAINDL PARTNERS, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 24, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Cynthia Wukotich, 1421 Oak Grove Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Still not understanding the roof plan. Looking at the right -side elevation, the two upper -floor gables appear to come down to a common plate height at 8' 1" above the second floor, with a small window between the gables. (Wukotich —the gutter may drop down lower than shown; didn't make E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 the change on the elevation.) The window may not fit if the gutter is lower. (Wukotich — may be a slightly smaller window.) Doesn't think that the gutters will meet the valley in the roof. ■ Likes the way that the house is massed and how the house meets the ground line. ■ Have demonstrated the justification for the special permit. ■ May need to see the roof plan come back to the Commission, or have the elevations corrected to be consistent with one another. Which needs to be revised? (Wukotich — may be some change where the two gables come down; wasn't able to prepare a three-dimensional drawing. The design intent is shown on the plans. Are wishing to proceed with construction drawings.) ■ If the exteriors need to change, not certain what will be approved. ■ Feels that the materials are not called out clearly; the current submittal is improved, but still requires a bit more information, for example, the dimensions of the dividers in the simulated true divided-lite windows; what is the size of the belly band; the columns on the front porch, etc. Need to know the size of the materials being used on the plan. ■ Not looking for construction level of detail, but need complete details about the materials and the size of materials being used. ■ Trim is shown around the windows, but the material is not called out; would like to see the trim details provided. ■ With respect to breaking up the paving surface; why is there no need for a barrier "since the lot slopes up"? (Wukotich — the builder indicated that this level of detail will not be provided at this time; will be left to the person who buys the home.) Was indicated previously that something needed to be done to discourage parking in this area; want to see details on how this area will be broken up. ■ This type of issue has been raised with a number of other projects; to simply ignore it is not within the Commission's purview since it has been raised on other projects. ■ The roof looks very boxy (on the left side); is there anything that can be done to soften that feature? (Wukotich — ideally would be best to lower the left hand side, but that would change quite a few elements of the design.) ■ The second floor stacks to the left and cantilevers; looks top heavy and like it is falling over to the left. The left hand elevation with the gable places too much height on that side. (Wukotich — could bring up the height of the front gable, or could lower everything a bit.) ■ What is driving the design to push the second story to the left? (Wukotich — the plate height and the way the walls are configured.) ■ Need more information about the corbels and knee braces. ■ Bring the left side fagade back inside the plate to match the right-hand side; would make it look uniform. ■ It is the applicant's responsibility to come back with solutions that resolve the issues raised by the Commission. ■ Need a roof plan that is consistent with the exterior elevations, then the Commission can be assured that what is shown is what will be built. Public comments: Alison Greenspan, 1337 Desoto Avenue; spoke: ■ Lives to the right side of the proposed home. ■ Agreed with Commission's comments regarding the plans; on the left side elevation, the roof ridge appears to be inconsistent from side to side; which dimension is it. Prefers the lower ridge height. ■ The design is likely heavy on the left side since the builder attempted to shift the mass to minimize impacts upon her property. ■ Would like the whole house to be a little lower. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The property is upsloping from front to rear; because of the manner in which the City measures height; there is justification for the special permit, though it is unclear what the roof design is. The design looks top heavy because the builder attempted to push the second floor design away from the property to the right. With respect to the rear parking area; increase some of the lawn area to decrease the area that could be used for parking; this must be addressed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application to a future date to permit the applicant the opportunity to address concerns raised by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0 The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:44 p.m. 3. 226 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR AS -BUILT CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (JOHN SABA, APPLICANT; BULL'S EYE CADD, DESIGNER; ELAINE MEYERHOFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 24, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. John Saba, 226 Lorton Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. Public comments: Chris Zwingle, 774 Walnut Avenue; Eric Mendell, 214 Lorton Avenue; Elaine Graber, 4088 Fremont Avenue (representing the property owner of 226 Lorton Avenue); Steve Sarver, 270 Lorton Avenue; and Ron Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue; spoke: Excited about the potential of having the produce market open on Lorton Avenue. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 ■ Finds the appearance of the store appealing and consistent with the rest of the surrounding businesses; looks forward to seeing it approved. ■ The business has uplifted the appearance of the street; looks forward to it being approved. ■ Read a letter prepared by the property owner. ■ Is pleased with the tenant. ■ Circumstances have delayed the opening of the business, but they are now ready to open. ■ Looks to the Commission to support the project. ■ The tenant has done a remarkable job repairing a building that has been a blight to Lorton Avenue. ■ Would like to see a process created to allow minor changes to the exterior of a commercial building to be approved more quickly. ■ Supports the work that has been done at Burlingame Produce. Additional Commission comments: ■ Asked how shopping carts will be handled on the site? (Saba - ten mini -carts will be accommodated near the iron gate.) ■ Is interior construction complete? (Saba — health department inspection is occurring this week.) ■ Would have been nice to have had the opportunity to open up the front of the business to provide for produce display. Willing to have it come back as an FYI. (Saba — would have gone through the design review process for the changes as well as the window opening, but had a major structural failure that needed to be addressed.) ■ Were the design changes necessitated by structural problems with the building? (Saba — takes full responsibility for the stucco treatment; however, the wood awning that existed conflicted with ADA requirements and had to be removed.) ■ Will there be displays in front? (Saba — has considered this and may pursue.) ■ Nice looking project; looking forward for the business to open. ■ Admonished the applicant for proceeding with the changes without Commission approval. 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 January 7, 2011, sheets A-0 through A-2 and pictures sheet; 2. that a design change to provide windows that open to the sidewalk along the Lorton Avenue frontage to permit produce display may be presented to the Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of building permits for the changes; 3. 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; 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 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 8. 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: There was a confluence of events that lead to this situation; fortunately, the applicant has done a good job with the design, though the approval is being sought after the fact. Not necessarily setting a precedent that someone can move forward seeking approval after the fact; agrees with staffs approach to bring the item forward as an action item. Vice -Chair Yie 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 8:04 p.m. 4. 270 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FACADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (STEVE SARVER, SAN FRANCISCO SOUP COMPANY, APPLICANT; VALERIO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; TRITERRA REALTY GROUP, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 24, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Steve Sarver, 451 Sixth Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 ■ Asked if awning colors are being changed; the renderings appear to show two different colors? (Sarver— no, the awnings are to be yellow, not olive green.) ■ Happy with the change to the planter. ■ Looks like the planter walls have already been poured; would have encouraged using a bit of lamp- black to add some color. Somewhat of a raw look that doesn't completely harmonize with the brick. (Sarver — only recently sand -blasted the concrete, it is a bit darker than the recently poured concrete, but will pick up color as it ages. Feels the concrete has a more authentic look.) ■ The formwork could have been done a bit differently since it is to be exposed concrete; the edges should be softened (chamfered) to make it look more like a finished planter and to reduce the potential for the corners to chip off over time. ■ The interior of the planter will need to be waterproofed to ensure that it doesn't effloresce. (Sarver — is going to be waterproofed.) ■ Could consider staining the concrete to soften the appearance. (Sarver — consistency cannot be guaranteed with the stain, so are not wishing to do so.) ■ Disappointed that the tile finish has been removed; doesn't like the bare cement; the tile finish is more common in the Downtown area. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. 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 January 11, 2011, sheets 01 A, 01 B, 05, 05B, 09A and 09B; date stamped July 28, 2010, Project Data Sheet, sheets 02 through 5A and August 17, 2010, sheets 01 and 05 through 09; 2. that the edges of the planter shall be chamfered; 3. that a new automatically irrigated street tree with a City approved grate shall be installed, pending room around underground utilities and basements; the new tree shall be 24-inch box size of a species to be determined by the Parks Supervisor; 4. 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; 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 2, July 23 and July 27, 2010 memos, the Parks Supervisor's July 9 and July 22, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's July 13, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's July 1, 2010 memos shall be met; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 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 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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, 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 Department; and 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ Is next to another restaurant that has a more contemporary finish. ■ The concrete matches the brick well. ■ Are doing a high -quality job. ■ Would like to see that the edges of the planter are softened (chamfered). Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1-0-0 (Commissioner Auran dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:17p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 5. 704 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK PANOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NATALIE HYLAND, BLUE COAST DESIGNS, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 24, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Questions of staff: None. Natalie Hyland, 585 Quarry Road; San Carlos and Jack Panos, 615 West Santa Inez Drive, Hillsborough; represented the applicant. The applicant is building a house for his daughter. The covered porch area was carefully designed to ensure that it is somewhat broken up. No one will ever see the front of the house head-on since it is on a flag lot. Commission comments: ■ Who owns the shared driveway? (Panos — he does.) ■ What will be the driveway finish? (Hyland — the existing asphalt driveway will remain as the shared portion of the driveway; but will become new pavers as it turns into the subject site.) ■ Noted that the parking space shown on the landscape plan is not desirable; perhaps extend the "meadow". (Hyland — the parking space will be removed; didn't have a chance to have the space removed from the landscape plan.) ■ Could transom windows be added to the rear, right side at the two-story back section? (Hyland — will consider.) ■ In the bathroom for bedroom two, the window encroaches into the vanity area. (Hyland — will reduce the size of the vanity to preserve the window symmetry.) ■ Have done a great job on the design; unfortunate that not too many people will see the front of the house. ■ The design of the rear elevation is lacking; perhaps columns flanking the doorway, something to dress it up. ■ Unfortunate that the entire driveway cannot be refinished. ■ Massing is handled nicely. ■ Perhaps wrap the front porch around the side of the house a bit more to make it more visible as one enters the property on the driveway. Could perhaps move the powder room to allow the porch to wrap around and be a feature that is accessible from the family room. (Hyland — didn't do this since it would encroach into the driveway too much; but the Commissioner's suggestion is to rearrange the floor plan somewhat to accommodate the change.) ■ The porch could actually be used as the mudroom. ■ The two-story bay looks a bit too much like a tower; is there some way to incorporate a detail to break it up? ■ Will the siding be mitered or capped? (Hyland — hoping for it to be mitered.) ■ The driveway must remain 12' clear per the Fire Marshal's comments. ■ Will the sewer and stormwater need to be pumped? If so, show it on the site plan to ensure no impact on neighboring properties. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 ■ Would rather see a tapered column that is more appropriate to the style of the house. ■ Would prefer a mudroom with a roof covering. ■ The design and siting calls for a corner entry. ■ Could add a trellis or other detail over the rear doorway to enhance the design. (Hyland — can perhaps provide some detail over the French doors.) ■ Create a soft, negative piece at the corner of the house as it is approached from the driveway.) Public comments: John Anderson, 702 Newhall Road; spoke: ■ The proposed house will be very visible from his property. ■ The original sewer line ran through his property. ■ If there is a pump leading to the street; the water may flow onto his front lawn. ■ Provided photos demonstrating shading and view changes that will occur if the home is built; he will be looking at a wall from his home. ■ If the lot were not a flag lot, the applicant would not be able to build as large and bulky a house as proposed. ■ Should have a set of story poles to allow one to assist in determining the massing. Additional applicant comments: No special exceptions have been requested because of the flag lot configuration; all standards have been complied with. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Perhaps provide enhanced landscaping (Spruce and Laurels) to enhance privacy for the neighbor. ■ Likes the design of the house. ■ Have met the requirements for setbacks; the lot exists legally. Story poles are typically only required if there are view issues relative to the hillside; this property is in the flats. ■ The view from the neighbor will be the best elevation of the house. ■ Landscaping can work both ways; the applicant can plant, so can the neighbor. ■ On almost every dimension, the design doesn't reach the maximum; have done a thoughtful job in creating the design. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction 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 8:40 p.m. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 6. 307 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE STOREFRONT OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES (INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITIES FOR CHILDREN) INCIDENTAL TO A RETAIL USE (WENDY EGER AND VERONICA MONTES, APPLICANTS; DWIGHT ASHDOWN, ASHDOWN ARCHITECTURE, INC.. ARCHITECT: RUTH MODISETTE TR. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 24, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. How is a determination of "incidental use" arrived at? (Meeker — explained that an incidental use would typically occupy less than 50-percent of the floor area.) Dwight Ashdown, 1681 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Color descriptions are used on the plans; are there actual samples? (Ashdown — passed around color samples.) ■ Window treatments should be done in a manner that is complementary to the adjacent structure to the north, or use an international -style strip window that is similar what is currently in place. The current design does neither. (Ashdown — have attempted to provide modulation to the style. Are attempting to divide the fagade, particularly when the awnings are installed.) ■ Why is the eyebrow piece proposed? (Ashdown — entirely to provide modulation and engagement to the sky; elimination of the straight line across the top and add more interest to the top of the building.) ■ Will the front door be a Dutch door? (Ashdown — yes.) ■ Likes the application; wanted to encourage the use previously. ■ Sees where the applicant is going with the desire to add modulation to the design; however, there is a middle ground; consider going to a "playful" window with muntins in it that pays deference to the building to the north; would also play off of the ground floor design a bit more. ■ Doesn't like the design approach to the upper level; perhaps look at providing transoms or some type of decorative molding; the awnings may not need to be as tall. (Ashdown — the shadows generated by the awnings and eyebrows add interest, but are not shown on the building.) ■ What will the fagade color be? (Ashdown — light grey.) ■ Disappointed with the design; it whitewashes the original design of the building; the design references the modern design era. The large window is critical to the design of the building. ■ The vertical element on the north side is a prominent element of the design; the door at this location will not be a primary entry, could possibly preserve this element. ■ Lighting the glass block that is present on the south side of the fagade could add interest. ■ This is one of the last remaining modern buildings; would like to preserve the architectural character of the original design. ■ The alley way on the south side is full of equipment, if it is an emergency exit will need to ensure that the area is clear of obstructions. Public comments: None. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Most of the concern is with the second floor design. Signage will likely be in the band between the floors. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction 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 9:05 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming annual Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Saturday, March 5, 2011 from 9 a.m. to noon in the Lane Room of the main Burlingame Public Library. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 18, 2011: The City Council's Commission attendance policy was revised to allow reappointment of Commissioners that exceed the maximum absences due to extraordinary circumstances; on a related matter, Stanley Vistica was reappointed to the Planning Commission. FYI: 1008 Balboa Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review Project Staff was directed to schedule the matter for a public hearing. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 24, 2011 Jeff Lindstrom, Secretary 15