Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.10.11CITY �oepAr I. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, October 11, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California Chair Yie called the October 11, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Vistica (arrived at 7:16 p.m.) and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Gaul moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 5; indicated that the third bullet under "Commission comments" should actually be placed under "Additional Commission comments". Page 12; seventh bullet from top of page; revise second sentence to read: "(Chen — to put it elsewhere on the property means taking up more vehicle space.)". Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). 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 of Item 1 (1360 Vancouver Avenue), since he resides within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Lindstrom indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion since he is the applicant. Given that a quorum of Commissioners was not present for the discussion (Commissioner Vistica had not yet arrived and Commissioner Terrones was absent); discussion of the matter was withheld until Commissioner Vistica's anticipated arrival. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 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 Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 1344 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TODD MASTER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Terrones and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 2628 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW 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 October 11, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Asked for clarification that the lower level does not qualify as a basement? (Strohmeier — there are no basement exceptions from square footage applied to the amended project.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, 307 South B Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Change doesn't impact the neighbors. Referenced a change to a railing on page A7. (Schoichet — with this change, the staircase became a bit steeper, so the rail was changed to a handrail rather than a guard rail.) Complimented the architect on the design. Public comments: No one spoke. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 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 September 16, 2011, sheets A0.1 through sheets A0.1 through A8; date stamped; date stamped February 16, 2011, Landscape Plan and Existing Building Elevations; 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 September 20, 2011, October 5, 2010 and September 27, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's September 19, 2011 and October 21, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's September 19, 2011 memo, October 19, 2010 letter and September 30, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's September 20, 2011 and October 12, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 19, 2011 and September 27, 2010 memos 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, 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 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 the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Terrones and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. 4. 1420 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DON AND KATHY STEUL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 11, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Questions of staff: ■ None. Don Steul, 1420 Cortez Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Feels the nine -foot high ceiling improves the design. Public comments: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 ■ 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 September 21, 2011, sheet A.2 and proposed building elevations; date stamped September 7, 2011, sheet A.1, proposed main floor plan and proposed upper floor plan; and date stamped March 2, 2011, sheets A.3 and L.1, existing building elevations, detail drawings and 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 basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 3, 2011, January 14, 2011 and December 2, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's January 4, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 6, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's February 3, 2011, January 18, 2011 and December 8, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 2, 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 or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that 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 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 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 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; 13. 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; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Has a problem with the declining height envelope portion of the request — didn't think it was a good idea to approve the request initially, the revised design results in a change that is contrary to the purpose of the declining height envelope. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Gaul dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS (moved from earlier on the agenda) Commissioner Auran indicated that he would need to recuse himself from the discussion of Item 1 (1360 Vancouver Avenue), since he resides within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Lindstrom indicated M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 that he would recuse himself from the discussion since he is the applicant. They both left the City Council Chambers. 1360 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; JEFF LINDSTROM, APPLICANT; JOHN GHERINI AND ANNA BRADY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated October 11, 2011. Questions of staff: Clarified that the item was before the commission due to the floor area and parking variances. Commission comments: Feels the application is pretty much acceptable, except for the parking — the number of required parking spaces should be provided even if slightly below the dimensional standards. Doesn't have a problem with the existing garage. May wish to think about a solar array on the flat roof. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. Commissioners Auran and Lindstrom returned to the dais. At the request of the applicant, the public hearing regarding Item 5 (332 Dwight Road) was moved until later on the agenda to permit his project designer to arrive at the meeting. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 2744 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (TRELLIS) AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SSA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN L. AND SUSAN Z. SAVVA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 11, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Megan Blencome, 303 Potrero Street, Santa Cruz; represented the applicant. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 Commission comments: The proposed project doesn't affect any of the neighbors. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent 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 Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m. 7. 2508 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LONESTAR HOLDINGS LLC. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 11, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Asked if the area affected by the declining height envelope is the master bath? (Stotler— yes, were attempting to respect the declining height envelope as much as possible.) ■ Has a problem with granting exceptions to the declining height envelope for new homes on standard lots. No compelling argument for approving the declining height envelope request. ■ Disappointed in the loss of the front porch — encourage large front porches since the neighborhood is a very walking -oriented area. ■ Feels the design is too similar to the proposed project across the street. (Stotler— specifically tried to design two different styles — pointed out the changes. Feels that there is a distinctive design for CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 each project. With respect to the declining height envelope — by following the regulation in all instances, the projects on the same lot configuration start to appear similar. With respect to the porch, attempted to respect the average setback and removed the porch.) ■ Noted the deck above the entry with no access — is this intentional? (Stotler — yes, was meant as an architectural detail.) ■ Why aren't the architectural details carried through on all sides of the project. (Stotler— could arch some of the windows — will be using wood frame windows. Noted that some applicants prefer gridless windows on the rear to preserve clear views.) ■ The front is handsome, but the design character doesn't carry through. ■ Could revise the master bathroom to eliminate the declining height envelope. ■ Why not provide a door to the balcony? (Stotler— if a door is provided would want it to be centered at the front of the house — there are limitations imposed by the shape and geometry of the interior.) ■ Noted that there is room to work with the design to comply with the declining height envelope requirement. ■ The entry is not inviting — could use more design work. (Stotler — feels that the design is compatible with the neighborhood.) ■ Doesn't have a problem with the declining height envelope portion of the request — agrees with the argument that the exception results in design variation. ■ Asked for clarification regarding the permeability of the pavers on the driveway. ■ On the front elevation, second -story windows — what is the material? (Stotler — is the sash of the French doors.) ■ Identify trim around all windows on the house. Prefer wood sills. (Stotler —are providing pre -cast concrete window sills. Referenced maintenance issues with wood sills.) ■ Wants to see this home as a different design from the home across the street. Similar materials are provided. ■ Need to provide divided lights, wood trim. (Stotler — the windows are recessed to provide a shadow-box effect.) ■ Not certain the architectural style is consistent with the neighborhood — the materials selected are not used frequently in the neighborhood. Wood details are typically provided in the neighborhood. (Stotler — noted that the details in the plans are found in the neighborhood. The majority of his clients do not want to use wood products for maintenance reasons.) ■ Feels that the design is a bit too fancy for the neighborhood. (Stotler — the style is present in the area.) ■ Consider providing a more expansive porch and incorporate other suggestions from the Commission — rethink the design on this project to make it different from the project across the street. (Stotler— is the direction to move away from the stucco exterior? If so, will move away from the French -style.) Doesn't want the impression that the two homes are built at the same time. ■ Alarming that there is a balcony provided with no access. (Stotler— could end up being only a roof over the front porch, and not a deck.) ■ The design guidelines encourage wood finishes; the roof materials are the same — too much similarity. Encouraged a design that emulates the homes of the 20s and 30s. (Stotler — feels that the materials proposed will stand the test of time.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:06 p.m. 8. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 11, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the cover sheet indicates that all windows are to be aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lights — but inside the plan set this detail disappears. ■ Noted that the corbels are provided at the front, but disappear as you move to the side and rear of the home. The architectural details are not carried through from front to rear. ■ Doesn't have a problem with the pre -cast stone sills as long as details are provided around the windows. Ensure that the sills do not overpower the windows themselves. (Stotler— has recessed the windows by two inches throughout, rather than provide trim — believes the recess is a more classic look.) ■ Feels the rear of the house looks tall per the plans. (Stotler — the building is stepped back.) • With respect to the balcony; are looking for a design that encourages the use of the front area of the home. The balcony on the second -floor is not necessarily a substitute for providing design elements on the ground that encourage use of the area in front of the home. The balcony may not be necessary. (Stotler — is attempting to pick-up as much glass area as possible to the interior of the space — the upper balconies provide this opportunity.) ■ Clarified that the lot was split by a prior action involving the adjacent lot to the right. ■ Is a difficult lot to develop — a difficult lot does not always warrant a simple solution. Feels that too much of the house is at the street. Feels that no one will use the rear of the property given the scale of the house. The driveway can go downhill to the garage. Doesn't feel that the house fits the lot. The heart of the lot is further back on the property — a different design solution would be appropriate. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 ■ Concerned about the arborist's report supporting removal of so many trees. Requested clarification regarding the Coast Live Oak listed as being removed from the median strip. The lot is heavily wooded; it appears like it is being clear-cut. (Stotler— placing the garage further back on the lot will make it less desirable for the occupants. The majority of the trees that are being removed are in disrepair. Wishes that more width was available to allow a different driveway configuration. Are actually getting pretty close to grade at the lower level of the lot. Noted that the entry door and living room are at about five -feet below the street.) ■ Are also maxing out the FAR; the home doesn't need to be that large. (Stotler — described the difficulties encountered with dropping the structure while keeping the interior floor plan workable.) ■ Difficult to develop the property without removing some of the trees. ■ Could an elevator or a funicular be provided to improve access given the topography of the lot? (Stotler — an elevator could be something to consider, but they are costly — there would also be limited access to the garage.) ■ Suggested limiting the front elevation to a single -story and take advantage of the topography of the lot by building more of the structure further back on the lot. Public comments: Robin Hendry, 2505 Easton Drive; Tiffany Liu, 2517 Easton Drive; and Laura Bryant, 580 Edgewood Road, San Mateo; spoke: ■ Concerned about the removal of all of the trees. ■ Would like to see story poles to show the configuration of the home. ■ Would also like the trees to be tagged to show what is to be removed. ■ Concerned about the impacts upon privacy of her property. ■ Purchased their home because of the privacy of the lot. ■ Concerned about the potential loss of the trees — doesn't understand why the trees must be removed. ■ Sees nothing from her windows but the trees on this property. (Commissioner— the property owner has a right to build a house.) Perhaps install more replacement trees should be provided to protect neighbors' privacy. ■ Is it possible to require story poles for both of the homes across from one another? Additional applicant comments (Dimitrios Sogas, owner of 2509 Easton Drive): ■ This lot just had a garage on it previously. ■ The one tree to be removed is unhealthy others removed are in the center of the lot where the home is to be placed. ■ Have worked with the window placement in an effort to preserve privacy of adjacent properties. Also want to maintain privacy on the property. ■ On the upper level, are maintaining an 18-foot setback from the home on the left. ■ Windows are in the stairwell and in the bathroom — can be obscured if needed. ■ Have tried to site the house in the best manner possible. ■ Likes the code feature that allows the garage to be detached and placed further back on the lot. Can certainly design the garage to minimize its street impact. ■ Feels it would be unfortunate to hide the structure below the grade — encouraged the Commission to consider allowing the home to be brought further forward towards the front of the lot. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ Doesn't feel that enough direction was provided to the applicant — though have given some direction regarding the architectural style. ■ It is up to the applicant to bring back a design that is approvable. ■ Must consider the design of this project with the project across the street. ■ Could be appropriate for a design reviewer to be involved to interpret the Commission's direction and provide the best opportunity to move forward ■ Clarified a consistent style around the entire home; improve the pedestrian experience; create a design that doesn't feel pretentious. ■ Why doesn't the design take better advantage of the topography of the lot? Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:54 p.m. Vill. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS (moved from earlier on the agenda) 5. 332 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (EXERCISE ROOM) (INDERJIT CHADHA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 11, 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. Aleksey Zakharov, 332 Dwight Road and Indy Chadha, 140 Cottonwood Lane, Blackhawk; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Noted an inconsistency in the balustrade notes on the front porch — what is being provided? (Zakharov/Chadha — will be a wood balustrade; the change was made during the discussions with the design reviewer.) ■ Why don't the eaves project past the wall on the rear elevation? ■ Concerned about the shape and material used for the gable vents. Perhaps use a rectangular shape or follow the pitch of the roof, or use what was used before. ■ Noted that the existing HVAC unit will vent near a bedroom window — encouraged changing to a high -efficiency furnace that can vent out the side of the house. (Zakharov — were wanting to provide a second unit for the second -story.) ■ Encouraged placing the water heater in the garage, rather than on the exterior. ■ Questioned the configuration of the dormer at the front. Is it false? 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 ■ There is not much articulation provided on the center portion of the second -story on the front elevation. (Chadha — there is a 2 x 6 wall to break the elevation.) Could greater articulation be provided? ■ Is it advisable to place the window in the closet? Perhaps find a means of placing the laundry in that area. (Zakharov — wanted to have some natural light in the closet for lighting and ventilation.) ■ Asked if all windows are being replaced? Are grids being provided? (Zakharov — the existing windows are only a year old; are placing new windows in the upper floor. The current windows do not have grids — preferred to retain for consistency.) ■ Noted inconsistencies in the drawings for the rear? Need a nice large landing to step onto to transition into the yard. (Chadha/Zakharov — could provide a larger deck.) ■ Concern regarding the rear elevation — with the exception of the bump out for the master bathroom, it is basically flat. Feels like there should be more articulation. (Zakharov — what could be done to improve this area?) Perhaps provide a bay window or other feature to improve the area. Chadha — would add to the FAR and could create a problem.) Perhaps rearrange the interior space to provide opportunities for more articulation on the exterior. ■ Are the windows in the closets going to be attached to the top plate — there are no headers? May not work. ■ Why can't the window for the exercise room be moved to be ten -feet from the property line and eliminate the conditional use permit request? ■ Why can't the window be of the same material provided on the home? (Zakharov — are intending to reuse an existing window.) ■ Why doesn't the design of the accessory structure mimic the design of the house? (Zakharov—the material is "Hardy Plank" — felt that using stucco would make the building look very boxy and concrete like.) ■ Do the roof pitch and other features match the house? (Zakharov — yes.) ■ Where did the idea for the front dormer come from? Seems out of place. (Chadha — noted that the consultant encouraged breaking up the roof in some manner.) Consider bringing a portion of this area forward. (Zakharov — if an area is brought forward, it would require significant reconstruction of the roof.) ■ The front roof area doesn't feel resolved — there is an opportunity to bring nice light into the rooms — can use more work. ■ Applicant — is "Fibrex" window material acceptable? There are different detailing options available. Commission — could be acceptable. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant, as outlined in the Commission's discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011 Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:28 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of October 3, 2011: None. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 14