Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06.28.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, June 28, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the June 28, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones, and Yie (arrived at 7:01 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and Civil Engineer, Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 2, Item 1(Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan); last bullet under "Commission Comments add "in consideration of the fact that the entitlement process will be simpler for developers" Motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Yie abstained, Commissioner Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR None. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items. 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. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1435 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND KIERAN WOODS. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 28, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Noted receipt of a letter from Mike Reitsma and Pam Buckley, residents of the adjacent property at 1431 Benito Avenue. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. Public comments: Mike Reitsma, 1431 Benito Avenue; Tim Henn, 1445 Benito Avenue; spoke: ■ Feels that the home is an imposing structure on a small lot; impacts the adjacent properties. ■ The design is pushed to the left; directly impacting the adjacent property at 1431 Benito Avenue. ■ Asked architect to work with the owner of 1431 Benito Avenue to reduce impacts upon that property; the architect has not altered the footprint of the structure as requested. Asked the Planning Commission to impose modifications as requested by the neighbor. ■ Ensure that the fence follows the existing grade of the neighboring driveway at 1445 Benito Avenue; want to be certain that this is addressed during construction. ■ Understands comments of neighbor at 1431 Benito Avenue, but feels that the greater impact is upon the property at 1445 Benito Avenue. Additional applicant comments: The second level of the proposed structure is in line with the main level of the house to the left; tried to adjust the design as much as possible, but didn't wish to impact the integrity of the house. Making the change requested by the owner of 1431 Benito Avenue would have impacted the entry. Additional Commission comments: Why was the driveway placed to the right? (McCarthy — would have been required to construct retaining walls of five to six feet in height to accommodate the garage.) Was an attached garage considered? (McCarthy — would have been challenging due to the grade of the property.) Seems that the neighbor to the left only wishes the living room area to be reduced in width. (McCarthy — would have impacted the useable width of the living room and impacted access to the upper floor and the entry to the structure. Not a lot of area where dimensions can be altered. Upper floor master bedroom has been stepped back further than originally designed; but has done 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 the best that can be done. The second level is where the impacts upon the neighbor actually occur.) How will the fence along the neighbor to the rights driveway be handled? (McCarthy — have no problem adjusting the fence to preserve the neighbor's driveway; hoping to have both driveways flow together.) There is a nine -foot plate height on the first floor and eight -foot plate height on the second floor; what is the overall height of the structure from adjacent grade? (McCarthy — under 30-feet; 27-feet, 6-inches.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Exploring different architectural solutions for the roof -style (e.g. lower roof pitch, flat roof with up - slope) could have addressed the design issues. ■ The applicant has jumped through a number of hoops working with the neighbors; the neighbor to the left has asked the Commission to address his final concerns. ■ There has been some discussion with respect to views; but the City does not have view preservation policies in the flatland areas. ■ The applicant has met the setback requirements, plus a bit more. ■ Are asking for special consideration relative to height; is appropriate given the narrow dimension of the lot and the slope of the site; have proposed excavating a large portion of the property to accommodate the construction; special circumstances exist to support the request for a Special Permit. ■ The applicant has done a good job and the project is approvable. Commissioner Cauchi 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 May 24, 2010, sheets 1 through 7 and L1.0; 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 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 June 22, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 29, 2009 memo, the City Engineer's July 1, 2009 memo, the Parks Supervisor's April 15, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 23, 2009 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 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 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, 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 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; 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: None. E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 Chair Terrones called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 2. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND JANICE GUMAS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 28, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Noted letters received from John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive, and Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung, 2606 Summit Drive indicating that a compromise has been reached regarding the project design. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue represented the applicant: Have redesigned the project to the satisfaction of the neighbors at 2606 Summit Drive. Commission comments: ■ Have done a wonderful job on the redesign of the structure; will be a nice looking structure. ■ Requested clarification of the window style. (Geurse — will be aluminum -clad exterior, wood interior.) ■ Glad that the neighbors have come to a resolution regarding the trees. ■ The view issue was the primary concern of the Planning Commission; modifications to the design have substantially reduced any view impacts. Public comments: Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung, 2606 Summit Drive; John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive; spoke: Agree that the view blockage has been minimized. Have also received permission from the property owner to trim trees in order to preserve views to the Bay. Happy with the Commission's desire to have problems resolved between the neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Glad an agreement has been reached between the neighbors, but doesn't like to see the project held hostage to achieve a desired end. Commissioner Cauchi 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 June 18, 2010, sheets T.0 through A.9 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 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 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 April 23, 2010 and February 5, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 1, 2010 and December 15, 2008 memos, the Parks Supervisor's April 30, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 26, 2010 and November 24, 2008 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 26, 2010 and November 21, 2008 memos 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 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 11. 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; 12. 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 M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 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: Regardless of what the neighbors eventually agreed to; the project is now approvable whether or not the neighbors approved of it. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 3. 1715 SEBASTIAN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHANG JIE LU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BILLY JUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 28, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Chang Jie (Jason) Lu, 4700 Warm Springs Boulevard, Fremont; represented the applicant: Commission comments: ■ Confused on the proposed right elevation; a concrete tile roof is shown on the addition; what is the roofing material going to be? The roof is not in good shape, should likely replace entire roof. (Lu — are attempting to match the existing roofing material. Proposed to replace roof with concrete tile.) ■ On left elevation; the roof over the bay window has been changed from the prior plan; how does it resolve? Like the prior design of the roof over this element. ■ Looks like the applicant attempted to improve the window design by adding vinyl trim, but this does not work. Instead of adding more vinyl trim elements, consider adding shutters. ■ Looks like anywhere from 35-40% of the windows are being changed; perhaps consider replacing all windows. (Lu — the existing vinyl windows were an upgrade done by the prior owner; that is why it is not proposed to change them all now.) ■ Could have added more than necessary; the additional vinyl trim around the windows is not needed. Added cost that doesn't help the design. ■ With respect to the story -poles; have looked from the neighboring properties to determine impacts. Public comments: Morris Hershman, 1725 Sebastian Drive and Walter Bankovitch, 2950 Atwater Drive; spoke: Welcome the improvements to the property. Appreciates what the Commission tries to achieve in terms of design integrity. The roof should not look patched; integrity of the material should be maintained. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 ■ Two windows on the second floor of the proposed addition that face the property to the west should have translucent glass installed to protect privacy. ■ Also wish to have landscaping provided; the house will be much larger. Landscaping along the fence line should include materials of a height that can minimize the mass of the structure. ■ Concerned that there be no adverse impacts upon drainage in the area. ■ If all of the neighbors' concerns are addressed, will be a welcome improvement. ■ Purchased home at 2950 Atwater Drive was purchased as a view lot; doesn't appear that the additions will impact view. ■ There are two large Pine trees on the property that are in poor condition; consider a condition requiring cleaning of the hillside and removal of the Pine trees. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Have the opportunity to impose a requirement that the homeowner consult with the City Arborist regarding replacement of the Pine trees with healthier specimens. Meeker — suggested that the entire landscape plan, including enhancements to landscaping adjacent to the neighbor and the matter of replacement of the Pine trees be included as a condition of approval; require consultation with the City Arborist regarding appropriate materials to achieve goals. Need to resolve inconsistency in roofing materials. Commissioner Auran 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 June 4, 2010, sheets A-0 through A-7 and Landscape Plan; 2. that the applicant shall work with the City Arborist to revise the landscape plan to include plant materials along the right side of the property that will protect the privacy of the neighbor and reduce the apparent mass of the structure, as well as to identify trees that may be used as replacements for the Pine trees on the hillside; the final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval as an FYI item; 3. that the bay window shall be revised to be of a design as shown on the original project plans dated April 29, 2010, this revision shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval as an FYI; 4. that the additional vinyl window trim shown on the project plans dated June 4, 2010 shall be deleted, this revision shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval as an FYI; 5. that the proposed roofing material shall be definitively identified, and all roofing on the structure shall be of the same material; revisions to the plan regarding the roofing material shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval as an FYI; 6. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 7. 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; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 4, 2010 and April 8, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's February 15, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's February 10, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 8, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 3, 2010 memo shall be met; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. 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 15. 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; 16. 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 17. 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. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:04 p.m. Chair Terrones noted a standard condition of approval always requires maintenance of the property during construction activities. Chair Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 4 (1352 Vancouver Avenue), since his firm is involved in the project design; he left the Council Chambers. Commissioner Auran indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 4 (1352 Vancouver Avenue), since he resides within 500-feet of the property, he left the Council Chambers. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1352 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (STEPHEN GARDNER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RICARDO TERRONES/CARLOS ROJAS, DREILING TERRONES ARCHITECTURE, INC., ARCHITECTS) (68 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (continued from June 14, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting) Reference staff report dated June 28, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Carlos Rojas, 1103 Juanita Avenue; represented the applicant: Commission comments: ■ Have been successful in maintaining the integrity of the residence. ■ Adds to the appearance of the house; more interesting. ■ Noted existing front window is actually a simulated true divided lite window, not vinyl. ■ Shed dormers are easy to construct; add to the design. 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. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 Discussion of motion: None. Acting Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Terrones and Auran recused, Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:11 p.m. Chair Terrones and Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. 5. 2215 HILLSIDE 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 (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TONY LEUNG. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 28, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43d Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant: Commission comments: ■ Could an element be incorporated above the front door (perhaps a gable) to better delineate the front entry? (Chu — there will be a stone path provided directly to the front door; but doesn't believe that it is truly an issue.) ■ Could the front porch be enclosed to make it a bit more inviting? ■ Viewed the front elevation as having a veranda; if it felt a bit more like a veranda and was not so enclosed by the columns, may help the design. Could perhaps include a low "seat" wall along the perimeter that better defines the area. ■ Perhaps look at the column design; make a bit thinner. ■ Would rather have the children share a bathroom and have a laundry room instead. ■ With respect to the Special Permit request; it ought to be fairly easy to review left side elevation and make design alterations that eliminate the Special Permit request. Could actually add some nice variation to that elevation. ■ Likes placing the driveway to the other side; but be aware of solar panels on the neighbor's roof; try to keep within the declining height envelope. ■ Likes the design; appreciates the front porch. Want to ensure that a useable front porch is provided. ■ How will the house be differentiated from the house next door? (Chu — will be done through architectural style, landscaping and color scheme.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones 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 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 6. 303-305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND LORENZ AND LOUISA KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 28, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Dale Meyer, 100 El Camino Real; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Nice design; will the new roof match the roof to the north in terms of slope? (Meyer — will be close in slope, but a bit higher in elevation.) ■ What will happen if two tenants moved into the space in the future? (Meyer — have designed the store -front to permit this to occur; but most likely will continued to be rented as a single tenant space.) ■ Would have preferred to see a different style rather than being similar in nature to the tenant space to the north. (Meyer— the building on the right has more thickness in the framing around the glass and massing of windows; these elements are different with the proposed project. There will be enough difference in height and color schemes to ensure that the two buildings look distinct. The tile elements relate somewhat to the train depot across the street; are picking up elements from surrounding buildings.) ■ Doesn't feel that there is a developed architectural style; if picking up the theme of the train depot, carry that theme through. Perhaps consider wood windows. ■ Could accept a tile roof if that style of architecture were carried through in the overall design to ensure a unified style. ■ Could treat the delivery door differently and make it look like a different space and better differentiate the tenant spaces. ■ May wish to turn the corner on the roof element to ensure that it doesn't look like a movie -set type of element as driving down California Drive. ■ Would like to see the classic style bolstered. ■ The entry element is somewhat lost; provide a stronger entry that can help to de-emphasize the delivery door. ■ Provide a better human scale along the street front. ■ Create a better building identity that stands out from adjacent structures. ■ Perhaps consider awnings. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 ■ Consider a tile base rather than a granite base. Public comments: None. Additional applicant comments: ■ With respect to desire for awnings; were waiting until a tenant is selected before proposing an awning element; was also a reason for leaving the upper portion of the fagade plain. Future tenant will be some kind of food service. 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 Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: IJl.7T Chair Terrones 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 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:42 p. M. 7. 1354 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (JOHN HENRY, PLEGER HENRY ARCHITECTURE LLC, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ANDP&K PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 28, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Steve McLeod, 655 Katella Avenue, Cypress; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Likes the design. ■ Require a hose bib on the front elevation. ■ Appreciates the uniform architectural style that is proposed with the project design. ■ Is the applicant confident that the recessed entry provides enough coverage for patrons? (McLeod — yes.) ■ Noted that the Commission encourages visibility into the stores. Craft a condition to reflect this desire. (McLeod — windows will be wide open.) 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 Public comments: Norman Goldau, 1201 Howard Avenue; spoke: Pleased to bring this tenant into the City; will bring a lot of vitality to the Avenue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Requested clarification that the photographic representation on the material board accurately shows the brick material to be used on the fagade. (McLeod — yes, this is an accurate representation.) Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones 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 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:51 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 June 21, 2010: Adopted the Zoning Ordinance amendment allowing up to five (5) additional full -service, limited - service and bar food sales uses within Sub -Area A of the Downtown Burlingame Commercial District. The amendment will become effective on July 21, 2010. FYI: 1121 Drake Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. Miscellaneous: Chair Terrones asked Commissioners to inform staff if they will be absent from upcoming meetings during the summer months. Chair Terrones and Commissioner Lindstrom noted that they will absent from the July 12, 2010 meeting. Commission Cauchi will be absent from the July 26, 2010 meeting. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 28, 2010 Commissioner Lindstrom will be absent from the August 9, 2010 meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 15