Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.08.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES December 8, 2008 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the December 8, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones (arrived at 7:24 p.m.), Vistica and Yie Absent: None. Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker and Senior Planner, Ruben Hurin. III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom to approve the minutes of the November 24, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted. Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Terrones and Brownrigg 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 1. 1305 -1331 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR —APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP (WILLY OSTERTAG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BRIAN BUCHER, AIA, NCARB. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated December 8, 2008. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the address for the site should include 1331 Rollins Road. ■ Would like to see the parking requirement met; can be done by identifying parking stalls within the building; would eliminate the parking variance. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 ■ Clarified that a parking space was lost due to the provision of the disabled -accessible parking space. ■ Asked for signage to encourage vehicles to back into the parking spaces to prevent them from backing directly onto the street along North Carolan Avenue; asked if vehicles are able to turn around on the site at this location (Hurin — not enough space for maneuvering; this is the current situation). ■ Good project; building was built to code. ■ The condominium conversion will provide incubator space for small businesses. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2a. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2009 — STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS 2b. 709 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE (TERRY MARTIN, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND BRAD KLAAS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2c. 1718 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, REAR AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN SCHMID, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JOHN SCHMID AND SUZANNE MALIK, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN 2d. 508 PENINSULA, ZONED R-3 —APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 3-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (LOT 1, BLOCK 31, LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION) (GARY MEEK, APPLICANT; 508 PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND TRUE NORTH SURVEYING. INC.. SURVEYOR) STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG 2e. 1309 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (CARRIE BOESCH, W.M. SPRINGS CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND LAWRENCE AND SUSAN RAFFO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1457 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROSA AND CHEH LEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND NGHI THANH LE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 8, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Cheh Lee, 1457 Drake Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Please limit the number of drawings per page on plans to no more than two. ■ Clarified that under floor area is not counted as FAR. ■ Noted that because the proposed project is 1 SF below the maximum allowed FAR, minor additions to the project during construction could exceed the maximum FAR for the property. ■ The designer has vastly improved the project. Public comments: ■ Daniel Chen, 1453 Drake Avenue; expressed concern regarding the height of the building at the rear and its impact upon his home. The current design will wall off some of his windows on the second floor and a portion of his porch on the rear of his residence. Asked if story poles could be required. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Noted that the applicant has removed a window on the side elevation to address neighbor's concern regarding privacy; but based upon the neighbor's comments, privacy was apparently not the entire issue. ■ The project complies with the declining height envelope requirement, which ensures that the second floor steps back from the first floor, in an effort to reduce impacts upon neighboring properties. ■ It appears that the applicant has complied with design changes that were requested by the Commission previously. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 17, 2008, sheets AO through A5, sheet 1-1.1 and Topographic Survey Map; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 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 July 18, 2008, September 3, 2008 and September 9, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's July 21, 2008 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2008 memo shall be met; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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 10. 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; 11. 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 Department; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: The concern expressed by the neighbor is not that extreme and is representative of the typical development that occurs in the City, the design is appropriate for the property. Commissioner Terrones indicated he would abstain from the vote since he was not present for the public hearing portion of the discussion. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones abstained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. 4. 1860 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED ECN — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT GENERAL OFFICE SPACE TO MEDICAL OFFICE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (MARCO CHAVEZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KRJ DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 8, 2008, with attachments Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: . Community Development Director Seven (7) conditions were suggested ■ Asked for the total number of parking spaces in the CalTrain parking lot. ■ Asked how the off -site parking be considered as part of the Variance (Meeker— the off -site parking is offered as mitigation of the Parking Variance, it can be considered part of the request. The Commission could choose to approve the Variance without the mitigation). ■ Asked what will happen if CalTrain chooses not to extend the parking agreement with the applicant at some point in the future (Meeker — the request would need to be re -visited). ■ Requested clarification of the number of parking spaces that are the subject of the Parking Variance (Meeker — 24 spaces). Marco Chavez, 1860 El Camino Real; represented the applicant. ■ The parking appears to be adequate for the proposed use. ■ Will probably take 6-9 months to go through CalTrain approval process; long-term leasing will require the CalTrain governing board's approval. ■ There are in excess of 100 parking spaces on the CalTrain property. ■ Have always had a high demand for medical office use; not likely to be 100% medical; quite likely to be 50-60% occupancy by medical uses. Additional Commission comments: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 ■ The Commission previously encouraged employees to park in the CalTrain lot; how could this be implemented (Chavez — have told the owners of the businesses to park in the lot). ■ Having the need to have someone monitor the parking usage of the on -site lot to ensure that employees park in the CalTrain lot is somewhat bothersome; would like to see something crafted to ensure that the spaces are used as desired. ■ How can some bicycle parking be provided on the lot or in the building (Chavez — can install a bicycle rack within the basement; tough to get people to use them, though). Make the spaces visible and desirable. ■ Asked if the applicant had looked at the vision for north Burlingame (Chavez — is familiar with the vision). Long-term vision is to eliminate the frontage road and to move buildings closer to El Camino Real (Chavez — doesn't think the larger buildings will come down anytime soon since they are substantial structures). ■ Asked if parking is allocated to specific uses (Chavez — only two spaces in lot are allocated to specific uses). ■ Asked about the meaning of "long-term" with respect to the lease of the CalTrain parking spaces (Chavez — wanted 10-15 years, with renewal options available at roughly 5-years). ■ Asked if the applicant has looked into building another parking deck on the property (Chavez — hasn't looked at it; it is out of his league to know if re -development of the property is desirable. There are easements present on the property that must be respected). Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; thinks that the applicant should be able to expand the medical office use in the building. There are a lot of doctors and medical services not related to the hospital that need office space. With respect to the CalTrain property; the commitment to approve a lease if City approval is granted is pretty solid. What will rental agreement for spaces look like with CalTrain; usually, the spaces are not specifically set aside for specific users; CalTrain may charge for use of the spaces. Probably won't need the parking lot property when high-speed rail is implemented. The area was built with inadequate parking many years ago; doesn't seem too presumptuous to assume that the parking at CalTrain will remain available. Encouraged indoor bicycle parking. Would like to see the medical occupancy increase. Further Commission comments: Requested clarification regarding the expectation for medical occupancy of the building (Chavez — probably 50-60%); but are requesting 100% occupancy; could be wiser to reduce the maximum medical occupancy to minimize the Parking Variance (Chavez — open to suggestions). There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. More Commission comments: ■ Concerned about using parking spaces for non -transit oriented uses; wants the City to be certain that CalTrain does not grant long-term leases on the property. ■ The applicant can solve the parking problem by building additional parking on the property. ■ Concerned about allowing intensification of the use of the site. ■ Ridership has increased on CalTrain; there will be more people needing to use the spaces in the future. Counting on more than 50 spaces reserved for the use is questionable. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 ■ Wants the building to be viable; concerned and confused as to what is being approved; would like a bit more work done to re -craft the Variance request based upon more accurate information regarding the amount of additional medical office uses that will likely be placed in the building. ■ Would like a designated employee parking area provided; should be located away from the entrance of the building to free up parking for customers. ■ In addition to providing bicycle parking; look at other amenities for bicyclists (showers, lockers, other amenities to encourage use). ■ Expressed concern that the Commission is "making a mountain out of a mole hill"; the parking for the site is already at 50% of what is required by the code; the change in the required number of spaces is not that significant. • In this economy; giving a property owner flexibility to occupy the building is a good thing to do. ■ There can be more put into the application to make it better; the amount of the Variance is a concern; maybe provide some more hard parking numbers about the existing condition. ■ Would like to see current parking occupancy counts for this building. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant to address the concerns raised by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Could consider further adjustments to the amount of medical office use in the future (Meeker — noted that this would not be possible due to the change in the zoning of the property that currently precludes such uses; the current application was submitted in advance of that change). ■ Provide more information regarding the Cal Train parking spaces. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to continue the request with direction to the applicant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (Commissioner A uran dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1325 CABRILLO AVENUE, 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 (TONY LEUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 8, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Beautiful design, but concerned about the encroachment into the declining height envelope. • Not convinced that the design will fit into the neighborhood. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 Public comments: Brian and Erin Bailard, 1329 Cabrillo Avenue; Frank Lowe, 1333 Cabrillo Avenue; Mary Ann Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke: Their (Bailard's) bedroom window is 8-feet from a sheer wall that is 31-feet high due to the change in elevation between the properties. There should be something done to allow more light and provide design character. Want to make sure that none of the windows match up on the adjacent homes. Concern regarding drainage during the construction period; they (Bailards) own the downhill property. Current sump pump dumps water onto the sidewalk, not completely to the street; creates a slippery condition on the sidewalk. The fence between the properties is falling down; during construction if damaged, restore it to its original condition. The building doesn't fit with the character of the neighborhood; the design is a box. The front is too plain. Concerned with privacy. Sides are too large and flat. The home is being built for speculation; needs to be something different from what is reflected with the current design. Glad the neighbors have spoken. The applicant will not be living in the residence. This house is not someone's dream house; this is a spec house. The rest of the neighborhood is requesting architectural consistency. Additional applicant comments: James Chu: Is trying to be sensitive to the neighborhood. Will perhaps come back with a different style. It is inappropriate to apply a different standard for a spec builder. Will look at the drainage issue carefully and survey the neighbor's windows to avoid facing each other. Will comply with Public Works' requirements by having water drain to street. The fence will be replaced. The tree that should be removed is actually the neighbors' they must obtain a permit for its removal. Will not build the house during the rainy season. Additional Commission comments: ■ Surprised by roof slope and potential impact upon the tree in the front. • Could change the design to blend more with the neighborhood. ■ The declining height envelope exception is only requested because of the design. ■ Work with the neighbors to improve the design. ■ Work with the adjacent neighbor regarding the tree. ■ The proposed design may require substantial tree trimming; should consider a craftsman design with a low pitched roof. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Applicant has expressed a willingness to revamp the architectural style based upon neighbor concerns. Bring the matter back for design study once a revised design is developed. If stairway remains on the right, consider an obscure or clerestory window to maintain privacy. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to bring back as a Design Review Study Item once the design has been revised. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Would be helpful to see a streetscape of the subject house and houses on either side. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place bring the item back as a Design Review Study Item when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 6. 1517 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND GERARD AND ORLA GALLAGHER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated December 8, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Has met with neighbor to right; he has particular issues with the structure in the rear. Commission comments: ■ Asked if the two adjacent properties are owned by the same owner (Robertson — originally sold as a combined site, but exist as two lots). ■ Clarified that the pool is part of the application (Robertson — yes). ■ Suggested installing a passive heating system for the pool. ■ Assumes that the design is a stamped concrete driveway; encouraged a pervious driveway. ■ Asked if shower in bathroom near pool is necessary since there is an outdoor shower (Robertson — not necessary). ■ Bedroom 3, the occupant would need to travel quite some distance to a bathroom, consider a Jack - and -Jill bathroom (Robertson — the current design is what the applicant desires). ■ The island in the kitchen seems too small to accommodate a family. Public comments: Sean Pitonak, 1521 Howard Avenue: Concerned about the impact of the design upon his rear yard. Noted that two Special Permits being requested. Concern about the overall ridge height of the garage; the scale of the garages needs to be the same. The location of the garage as an accessory structure is a concern; will see the garage from his pool area. The solar panels will impact his view. The size of the pool equipment enclosure area is too large; could be made much smaller. Concern regarding the setback for the garage from his property line; proximity, construction and maintenance are concerns. The height of the structure will be an impact. The accessory building shouldn't become an accessory unit; need to be certain this doesn't occur. There are trees that will be removed along the rear fence; want to be certain that something will replace these plant materials. The end of the proposed home extends beyond his home; this is a concern due to the impact upon his yard and access to light. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 Additional applicant comments: Mark Robertson; provided revised plans based upon neighbor comments. Will do everything in his power to address the issues raised. Will be meeting with owner to review the revised design for the project. The property owner doesn't want the garage inset into the yard. Additional Commission comments: ■ Clarified location of neighbor's fence. ■ Consider changing the shingle style on the house (Robertson — the owner likes the shingle style; will ensure that the design is quite different from adjacent houses). ■ Asked about species of the street trees; a bit concerned that the only real landscaping buffer is the proposed Japanese Maple; will there be enough mass in the landscaping; review before the item returns. Request staff to verify species of existing street tree(s); if not large scale trees, then an addition large scale tree should be planted in the front yard. ■ Can the Commission comment on the solar panels (Meeker — precluded by State law from regulating the solar panels). ■ Make the stone veneer a bit more prevalent on the front fagade. Additional public comments: Elaine ?, 1516 Howard Avenue: Expressed concern about air and noise pollution impacts during construction. Minimize the time of construction and address dust control. 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: None Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:01 p.m. 7. 1609 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GUGHUZ CHEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOE HALL, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated December 8, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Michael Tsao, 2463 Montry Court; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Clarified that there will be a Variance required for lot coverage; the project will still exceed the maximum lot coverage following project construction. ■ Asked for clarification of hardship for the setback Variance; affects the playroom and the bedroom; these areas could be adjusted to eliminate the Variance. ■ The second floor addition looks like it is not integrated with the lower floor; looks tacked on and boxy; would like to have a conversation with the designer. ■ Instead of concrete surfaces, provide pavers that will allow water absorption in the driveway and patio areas. ■ Strongly encourage wood windows. ■ Questioned the appropriateness of continuing the discussion absent the applicant or designer (Meeker — suggested continuing the item until such time that the applicant and/or designer are present to represent the application). Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion continue the item with direction to have the project designer present when the item is rescheduled as a Design Review Study item. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. 8. 2104 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FORA NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RINALDI WIBOWO, APPLICANT; RINALDI WIBOWO AND YVONNE LIAO, PROPERTY OWNERS AND DESIGNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 8, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Rinaldi Wibowo and Yvonne Liao, 2104 Hillside Drive; represented the applicant. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 Commission comments: ■ Are steps into the front of the house and out of rear of house needed (Liao — provides for a crawl space under the first floor). ■ Questioned the 2" x 12" wood beams on the second floor along the left elevation (Liao — proposed wood beams are under second floor cantilever). ■ Regarding the front balcony; feels like it needs some glazing (door or window). ■ All of the bedrooms are small. ■ Could take the style a bit further; referenced 2312 Hillside Drive; could provide twisted columns; the house looks really heavy; open the railing a bit more or eliminate railing at front porch. ■ On side elevations, assume that there will be gutters to soften the appearance of the fascias and take the design closer to the Mediterranean style. ■ Change 2" x 12" wood beams under second floor cantilever to 6" x 12". ■ Provide wood corbels under bay windows. ■ The height is accentuated by the heaviness of the design. ■ Railings and balconies seem to all be different; would be nice to see a common theme. ■ Embellish the building with more details that will tie the design together. ■ Install collector boxes at downspouts. ■ If only 4 bedrooms were built, only one garage space would be required and would leave more yard space. ■ Could also look at simple wood columns (6" x 6" posts); match balcony designs. ■ Massing works. ■ Would like to see a streetscape showing the houses to the left and right in context with the project. ■ The landing window on stairwell is larger than it needs to be; try to do something more delicate, perhaps an arched window. ■ Concerned about lack of detail on plans regarding trims; please provide on revised plans. ■ Front door looks like a modern door stuck on a Mediterranean house, door needs to be consistent with style of house. ■ Most of the windows do not contain girds, should add grids. ■ Install decorative attic vents common to this style, such as round tiles. ■ Consider adding beams to corbels so that they appear to be supporting something. ■ Railing design should be more authentic and true to Mediterranean style. ■ Left side of fagade is too heavily articulated when compared to the right. ■ Good start; but concerned with left (driveway) side elevation; can be a massive appearing wall; work with articulation. ■ There is a lot of stucco proposed, need to somehow break it up more. ■ Details on windows and trim can be celebrated a bit more. ■ The side elevations lack details. ■ Front elevation; the bay window is not worked out well, particularly where the second floor balcony meets it. ■ On ground floor, difference of porch wall and main front room wall needs to be studied further; should either be at the same plane or offset more. ■ The garage will be very visible; the scale of the door needs to be revisited and treated differently; perhaps install 2 doors. ■ There is a lot of hardscape on the property; consider design changes that can reduce the garage requirement and increase landscape areas. Public comments: 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 Geraldine Realyvasquez, 1411 Vancouver Avenue: Expressed concern about the height of the structure and the impact upon the privacy of her rear -yard (Auran — noted that due to the upward slope of the lot, the house is approximately 23' at the rear). Requested reassurance that the landscaping will be a good barrier to protect her privacy (Auran — noted that pittosporum will grow rapidly to over 20 feet at the rear of the property and will cover the rear property quickly in a span of one year to ensure privacy). The balcony will look into her bathroom window (Terrones — noted that house is nearly 45-feet from rear property line and that the balcony on the rear is fairly small and will not have a lot of activity). 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 Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: ■ The project is a good candidate for a designer reviewer, a referral could be beneficial. Chair Cauchi 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 failed on a voice vote 2-5 (Commissioners Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie dissenting). Commissioner Auran made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (Commissioner Cauchi dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:48 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ Community Development Director Meeker wished all Commission members a happy holiday season. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of December 1, 2008: ■ 1452 Drake Avenue was appealed by Council Member Jerry Deal; the appeal hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2008. ■ 260 El Camino Real was appealed by the applicant and is scheduled for an appeal hearing on January 5, 2009. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 8, 2008 FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — November 2008: Accepted. FYI: 1800 Trousdale Drive — changes to a previously approved Design Review and Condominium Permit project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 14