Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011. 09.12C CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURL.INGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, September 12, 2011 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the September 12, 2011, 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 and Senior Planner Ruben Hurin III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 5, top of page, bullet under "Discussion of Motion",, add "in order to encourage development" to the end of the sentence. Page 10, second to last bullet under "Commission Comments'; add "not' after "does". Motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Vistica 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 Commissioner Auran indicated that he would need to recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 1 (2004 Easton Drive), since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 1. 2004 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES (PAUL NELSON, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 12, 2011. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 ■ What type of recreational use will the building be used for and whom will it be used by? ■ Would the applicant be willing to forgo the shower; concerned about the building becoming a dwelling unit? ■ Have there been any complaints from adjoining properties regarding the existing accessory structure? ■ This property doesn't appear to qualify under the proposed second -unit ordinance because of lot size. ■ When was the bathroom added to the existing building? ■ How long has the current property owner owned the property? ■ Why does the roof structure need to be 12:12 pitch; couldn't it be a lower pitch to diminish the impact of the structure? ■ Wants more information regarding the materials to be used; how does it relate to the existing single family dwelling? ■ Does the proposed accessory structure count as a bedroom; will additional parking be required? ■ Clarify type of fireplace proposed. Is a wood -burning fireplace allowed in an accessory structure? This item was set for the Regular Action 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 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. 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. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 819 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MICHAEL RABB ITT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 12, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Thinks it would be better to pull the garage slightly off of the property line so that the eave could be finished in the same manner as the other side; would also provide a greater opportunity for 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 maintenance along that area. (Robertson — the lot tapers back to 45-feet in width at the rear; could be a problem for the property owner. Would need to pull the garage over three feet to clear the two - foot requirement from the property line for the eave.) ■ Could turn the area adjacent to the garage over to the neighbor for maintenance purposes. There needs to be some special conditions regarding placement of the debris box given that parking on the street is very limited. The trucks and debris boxes should be taken off the street during construction because the concern is that Walnut Avenue is an especially narrow street. ■ Given the depth of the lot, the garage may not be used. ■ What were the changes to the landscape plan? (Robertson — the changes were removal of the lawn at the front, reduction in the rear lawn, and increase in the size of the rear patio.) ■ Are the rear pavers permeable? (Robertson — only the driveway is permeable paving. Hurin — the City's Arborist reviewed the landscape plan and found it compliant with the water conservation ordinance.) Public comments: Alma Martinez, 815 Walnut Avenue; spoke: Supported placing the debris box on the driveway, as well as suggestions to restrict parking of construction vehicles on the street. The property has laid fallow for awhile — the prior proposal included a basement. Is a basement still proposed? (Commissioner — the basement has been removed.) Also expressed concern about construction work on the weekends. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Encouraged placement of the construction vehicles on the property during the construction process, not just debris boxes. There will be significant impacts upon the street during construction. ■ Discussed that it could be problematic to require vehicles to be parked on the property during construction; though vehicles will likely unload materials and be parked elsewhere. The applicant is likely willing to work with the contractor to alleviate the concern. ■ Felt that given the setback from the property line, there is adequate space to place the vehicles on the property. ■ An encroachment permit is required for a debris box on the street; but vehicles do not need a special permit to park on the public street. Enforcement could be problematic. Could encourage the general contractor to park his vehicles on the site. ■ Suggested requiring a couple of additional parking spaces on the site during the construction process. ■ Encouraged the neighbors, contractor and others to work cooperatively to minimize parking impacts in the neighborhood during construction. 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 August 22, 2011, sheets 1 through 6, 1-1.0 and 12.0; 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 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 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 June 28, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's July 5, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 28, 2011 memo, the City Arborist's June 28 and August 24, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 27, 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 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; E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 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: 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 7:32 p.m. 3. 1629 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUB -STANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (BRIAN PRICE, DESIGNER; DAN PRICE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (Item continued from Au_gust 22, 2011 Plannin_g Commission Meetin_g) Reference staff report dated September 12, 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. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Brian Price, 925 Church Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ The revisions look good. ■ Unfortunate that the porch couldn't be revised. ■ Noted that the neighbors have expressed support for the project. ■ Appreciates the gable -end detail. What is the size of the barge rafter? Will all of the roof structure remain on the first floor? Noted that the detail is very typical of the design of a ranch house — the rest of the details need to match the details on the existing structure. (Price — this would be acceptable.) 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones 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 August 31, 2011, sheet A401; and date stamped August 4, 2011, sheets A-0.01 through A-4.00 and sheet A-4.02; 2. that fascia and overhang details on the addition shall match the details on the existing house; 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 June 15, 2011 and May 11, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's May 26, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 16, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's June 15, 2011 and May 16, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 11, 2011 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 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; 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 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; M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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 applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 14. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. 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 7:38 p.m. 4. 1821 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHANG JIE AND JASON LU, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; AND FENG XUE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (project previously denied without preiudice on July 11, 2011) Reference staff report dated September 12, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 100 El Camino Real; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Is there any treatment on the skylights to prevent them from being a bright spot on the roof? (Meyer — will have built-in blinds.) ■ Is the stone veneer real or fabricated stone? (Meyer — the intention is to use a real stone veneer.) ■ The stone will work well with the texture of the concrete roof. ■ Likes the fact that the roof pitch has been reduced; though it looks like there is more space above the garage than before. (Meyer — noted that the grade was not accurately represented on the original plans. Attempted to off -set this change by lowering the pitch of the roof to reduce the mass of the roof and to provide a lower look from the street.) ■ Seems like that the proportions on the front elevation do not work. ■ The window on the front entry appears to be a bit too commanding. (Meyer — the window is set back from the face of the house.) ■ Feels like the roof is a bit too small for the front elevation. ■ On the side elevation, the stone doesn't appear to work as well as on the front elevation. ■ Check the minimum pitch required for the concrete roof tile to ensure that the proposed roof pitch is actually feasible. ■ What type of paving will be used on the driveway? Provide note. (Meyer — interlocking pavers.) ■ What is the purpose of the paved area next to the driveway? Beginning to look like too much parking in the front. (Meyer — additional visitor parking.) ■ The design is much improved. ■ At the front entry, it could help to bring a horizontal member across the front entry (e.g. a lintel) to bridge the two pillars. ■ Reducing the roof pitch was very helpful in retaining the Ranch house appearance. ■ Could eliminate the bathroom pop -out and extend the wainscot around the entire house, or not provide the wainscot on the pop -out. ■ Reminded the applicant that whatever details are approved by the Commission must be included in the actual construction. ■ Concerned about the window trim - there is a two-inch window sill shown and no muntins with minimal trim — typically, there would be another trim piece below the sill; the existing house has a much more significant trim detail around the windows. Details are missing on the garage door and other aspects of the design. ■ Perhaps include a traditional stucco -mold trim around the windows that will cast a subtle shadow - line. ■ The arbor and trellis look a bit gratuitous — need something a bit stronger in this area. ■ Could all of the windows be made a bit taller above the garage to reduce the scale of this area? Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 Additional Commission comments: Noted that there may be a drawing error on the front elevation versus the side elevation — the front windows may not be accurately represented. Suggested a continuance with changes to be made as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant to make revisions as noted in the discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 5. 2628 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ELLIS SCHOICHET, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; WAYNE AND JULISSA WESTERMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 12, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, 307 South B Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Asked if additional changes will be made? (Schoichet — believes that the property owner has found during the construction process that additional plan improvements can be made.) In the future, would like to see a plan showing the progression of the design from original design to the latest changes. Likes the design even better now. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 August 26, 2011, sheets A0.2, A3, A5, A7 and A8; and date stamped February 16, 2011, E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 sheets A0, A0.1, Al, A2, A4 and A6; and date stamped October 28, 2010, Boundary and Topographic Survey; 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 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 October 5, 2010 and September 27, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 21, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 19, 2010 letter and September 30, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 12, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 27, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Front Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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, 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 or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 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 Vistica. 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 8:13 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1515 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACK RESTRICTIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT, FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GERRY GALLAGHER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 12, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff: Would the lot coverage and FAR be altered by having an attached garage? (Hurin —would need to reduce their FAR by 400 square feet.) Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Had a prior agreement with a neighbor (Sean Pitonak) to not design a Craftsman -style home with shingle siding for this property. Commission comments: Was an attached garage ever considered? a greater FAR for the home.) Asked if the "meeting hall" shown on the removed.) (Robertson — a detached garage is proposed to provide plan had been removed? (Robertson — has been 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 ■ Agrees with saving the Oak tree within the rear yard. ■ Believes there is an argument in support of the Special Permit, given the depth of the lot. ■ The design has missed the mark in terms of being Prairie -style. The pilasters do not look appropriate. ■ The design needs to be truly of the style intended. ■ The mass of the house can be made to work with improved detailing. ■ Likes the fact that the design is not Craftsman -style. ■ Likes the massing and articulation, but the details are missing. ■ Feels that the design looks tall. ■ Thinks that the front door is a bit lost in the front elevation. ■ Encouraged to consider going "full-blown" Prairie -style with a flat roof. ■ Consider pulling the garage off of the side property line to provide a complete eave on that side. ■ Consider making the front elevation appear to be a bit more horizontal. ■ Feels the front tower element is too prominent for the elevation and that the window is placed too high. ■ The design is lending to more of a Prairie -style. The elements emphasized on the exterior are currently vertically oriented — consider a design that has a more horizontal character. ■ Could consider providing a flat roof. ■ On the garage consider reducing the height of the stone to allow for a sill on the window. ■ Perhaps provide a heavy wood belly -band to delineate the two spaces. ■ Could provide an exterior door to the mechanical area that can add interest to that elevation. ■ Likes the window trim on the design. ■ Is there anything that can be done to break up the east elevation near the stairwell? ■ The garage has a lot of potential, but the garage door is lacking stylistically - put more effort into the design in this area. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:33 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 12, 2011 Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of September 6, 2011: Noted that the City Council introduced ordinances that will implement the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to implement the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and the Housing Element. Indicated that the provision allowing for up to 1,000 square foot financial institutions in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District was eliminated from the proposed amendments. A public hearing on the amendments is scheduled for September 19, 2011 — if adopted on that evening, the amendments will become effective 30-days later. FYI: 704 Concord Way — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 13