Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2747 Burlingview Drive - Staff Report��� BURLINGAME DATE TO: FROM CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Erika Lewit, Senior Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: February 9, 2015 SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2747 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for an attached garage and for basement ceiling height for a new, single-story dwelling at 2747 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 2014 (see attached April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued on August 1, 2014. The project was presented to the Planning Commission for FYI changes on August 25, 2014. The Commission requested further review of the changes and the project was brought forward as a Design Review Amendment at the September 8, 2014 hearing. The proposed changes were approved (see attached September 8, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The applicant is requesting a second FYI for the following changes to the approved plans: • A change in the material and style of the front door; • A change in the transom frame height of the window above the balcony at the left side of the residence; the windows are visible from the Front (North) and left side (East) elevations; • A change in the window size of the three windows visible on the left side (East) elevation; and • A change in the transom frame height and the header angle of the transom windows at the rear (South) elevation. Please refer to the proposed building proposed changes. applicanYs letter of explanation and plans showing originally approved and elevations, date stamped February 2, 2015, for complete details of the Other than the changes detailed in 1he applicanYs letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Community Development Department Memorandum February 9, 2015 Page 2 Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by applicant, date stamped February 2, 2015 Originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped February 2, 2015 September 8, 2014, Planning Commission Regular Action Calendar Minutes August 25, 2014, Planning Commission Agenda (FYI item) April 28, 2014, Planning Commission Regular Action Calendar Minutes .� • � JIC!�I(ly ,t'iU(lbS � � _ _� _� _ IiiC:. ,+,�_. ..,.!��re , , �� ..,!ruciu�e ! Env ronments 02 February 2015 Burlingame Planning Commission and Staff 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 2747 Burlingview Drive Residence, FYI #2 Dear Planning Commission and Staff: We are submitting the enclosed FYI for the project at 2747 Burlingview Dr., for some minor changes to some windows, and a change to the front door. None of the windows are being eliminated. None of the windows are being relocated. None of the window muntins or mullions are being eliminated. The details for the changes are as follows • North Elevation (Front) 1. The front door is being changed from a glazed door to a solid core wood door. PURPOSE: the owners are concerned about security and privacy when addressing visitors at the door. 2. At the balcony deck, the transom frame between the lower windows and doors and the upper windows, is being raised from 7' to 8'. PURPOSE: The owners would like to better take advantage of the views to the north and east. East Elevation (Left Side) 1. At the balcony deck, the transom frame between the lower windows and doors and the upper windows, is being raised from 7' to 8'. PURPOSE: The owners would like to better take advantage of the views to the north and east. 2. The (3) Family Room windows are being changed from 30" square, to 30"x24" PURPOSE: This is for architectural reasons (particularly at the interior where this is a media wall) where we would like the sill of these windows to align with the adjacent 8' tall head of the windows and doors. The head of the windows is already as high as it can be, with the related header and roof framing above. Therefore the windows need to be shorter. South Elevation (Rear) 1. At the Family Room patio doors, the transom frame between the lower windows and doors and the upper windows, is being raised from 7' to 8'. PURPOSE: Since the other windows and doors to the north and east are being raised to 8', these doors need to be raised to 8'. This will better take advantage to views to the rear yard. Also, the transom awning will now better align with the adjacent roof over the Office and Master Bedroom to the left. 2. In addition, the head of the transom windows is changed from flat, to sloped. PURPOSE: at the interior this is particularly critical, because the head of these windows will be very close to the sloped ceiling. If the transom windows had a flat top frame, and the ceiling is sloped just a few inches above, this will look very strange. This is not as visible from the exterior because the overhang soffit framing is only 7" deep versus the roof framing at the interior which is 14" deep — at the exterior the overhang soffit is further above the head of the windows, than the ceiling at the interior. Also, with the windows and doors below raised to 8', the flat-top transom windows would only be approximately 12" tall, which is the max at the lower (left) end. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, V Wayne Lin Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. ,' ,,,d ii.� : a� � •� �-_.� :� , . �_; .�, . .. .. ,, ;; , : Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final-revised September 8, 2014 pulled from this agenda to allow additional staff September 22, 2014 agenda. � 7. CONSENT CALEN were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS will be scheduled on the a. 2747 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 — Application for Design Review Amendment for a previously approved single-story house (Richard Terrones, architect and applicant; Burlingview LLC, property owner) (31 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 2747 Burlinqview Dr - 09.08.14 staff rpt pdf Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent noted he had spoken to the applicant to ask for examples of the proposed artificial turf Jacob Furlong represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: > Is the turf permeable? (Furlong - Yes, it drains faster than natural turf.) > How does it drain? (Furlong - Level the ground, compact soil, level of base rock to catch water, enters the storm system.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Commission discussion: > Had issues with the previous sample's crumb rubber base. It would not be a good infill material for homes because of its smell. > Turf is one of the more authentic samp/es seen. > Likes the wood siding at the rear. > Changes to the windows and siding are immaterial. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the findings and conditions in the staff report (the Commission's action is appealable). The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: 6- Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum Recused: 1 - Terrones b. 2829 Rivera Drive, zoned R-1 — Application for Hillside Area Construction rrrfit for a new attached trellis and patio cover along the right side of ouse (Terry and Doneen Roberts, applicants and property owners; J Associates, designer) ( 53 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 2829 Rivera Dr - 09.08.14 - rpt.pdf All Commissio had visited the property. Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones and Yie rep they had visited the property and been given a tour by the property owner. Commissioner Q rtini also reported that he had exchanged phone calls with the owner of 2818 Tiburon Way and City of Burlingame Page 2 Piinted on 9/24/2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, August 25, 2014 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. C� APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 11, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting APPROVALOFAGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agend suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda "request to speak" card located on the fab/e by the door and hand i name, address or other identifying information is optional. Spea r the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anti pat 6 F STUDY ITEMS - There are no Study Items for review. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Membe of the public wishing to do so ring this public comment meeti law) prohibits the Planning . peakers are asked to fill out a o staff, although the provision of a s are limited to three minutes each; ed speakers. Items on the consent calendar are considered be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is req sted by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commi ion votes on the motion to adopt. a. 308 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - pplication for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling rry Deal, JD Associates, designer and applicant; Pascal Parrot and Lusine Yeghiazaryan, property o ers) (xx noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 8. a. REGULAR ACTION ITE 113 Crescent Avenu zoned R-1 — Application for Special Permits for construction of a new basement within an existing si le family dwelling (Flury Bryant Design Group, applicant and designer; Thomas and Tammy Kiely, pro rty owners) (xx noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 1510 La Mes Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Variance for building height and Hillside Area Const ction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Audrey Tse, Insite Design, signer and applicant; Isako Hoshino and Matthew Machlis, property owners) (xx noticed) Staff Conta . Ruben Hurin c. 1 0 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Special Permit for Declining eight Envelope for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling and a new, detached garage (Geoff Gibson, architect and applicant; Amita Jain and Niteen Patkar, property owners) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. City of Burlingame P/anning Commission Agenda August 25, 2014 d. 1545 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 — Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Constr 'on Permit, and Special Permit for a new single family dwelling and attached garage (George Novi ', applicant and designer; Chris Sadlak and Mee Kwong, property owners) (xx noticed) St ontact: Erika Lewit (Application continued from the August 11, 2014 Planning Commission ting) e. 10 Kenmar Way, zoned R-1 — Application for Hillside Area Constr on Permit to replace an existing deck, build a new balcony, and extend a patio (Sarah Small, archi and applicant, Rachael and Geoff Clarke, property owners) (xx noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 — lication for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two- story single family dwelling with attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye, applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, itect;) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 10. COMMISSIONER' 11. DIRECTOR�PORTS a. Co�fiiission Communications City Council regular meeting — August 18, 2014 c. FYI: 2747 Burlingview Drive — review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. d. FYI: 1240 Capuchino Avenue — review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. e. FYI: 1301 Drake Avenue — review of proposed change to a previously approved Design Review Project. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on August 25, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on September 4, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. AG ENDA.08/25/14/posted08l21l14 Page 2 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 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 Divisior} before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; / 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the h� t 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 not compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that th project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the Commissioner Sargent moved to adopt th ega The motion was seconded by Com issioner Yie. to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Declarafion. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Sargent c ed for a voice vote on the motion to adopf the Negative Declaration. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Ap al procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. �sioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussions rding Agenda Items 6(2747 Burlingview Drive) and 7(4 La Mesa Court) due to a business relationship a quasi-business relafionship, respectively. He left fhe City Council Chambers. 6. 2747 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY HOUSE (RICHARD TERRONES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; BURLINGVIEW LLC PROPERTY OWNER) (34 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT� ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie noted that she had a conversation with the son of the uphill neighbor. Commissioners Sargent and DeMartini met with the neighbors at 2753 Burlingview Drive. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ►G7T� Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 Jacob Furlong represented the applicant. Commission comments: Did the applicant take the opportunity to visit the uphill neighbor, particularly the lower level bedroom? (Furlong — recognizes that there are some impacts from that area. Have kept the home to one story and have lowered the roofline while still maintaining the design.) Have any sight-line studies been reviewed? Is it known where there would be no view impacts? (Furlong — doesn't have an exact number regarding how much lower the roofline would need to be.) Believes the lowered roofline looks more subtle. Public comments: Beth Napier, 2753 Burlingview Drive: ■ Noted that their view is gone from the master bedroom window. ■ Asked for the roof to be sloped from the other direction, would preserve more light. ■ Provide photos that show the impact upon the view from the master bedroom. ■ Have discussed the impacts upon the tree. The applicant should be responsible for removal if it is damaged and needs to be removed. The developer needs to take financial responsibility for any damages from the tree. ■ Are selling their home. Will close on May 27, 2014. Requested that the Commission defer action until the new owner is involved. ■ Feels that the rear extension of the home is not needed. Make it a four bedroom home. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Is the applicant amenable to the conditions expressed by the neighbor? (Furlong — doubts it.) ■ Likes the changes that have been made. The changes help to preserve the neighbor's upper floor view. ■ Believes that the issue of the view from the bedroom needs to be addressed. Not certain that the code permits such a significant impact to the bedroom. Perhaps the overhang could be reduced. ■ Asked for clarification regarding the degree of view impacts that may be allowed in the hillside area. (Meeker — indicated that view impacts must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Distant views, particularly of the Bay, are to be preserved from living spaces. The code does not imply that there can be no impacts upon views.) ■ Tends to look at views from common areas, not so much from bedrooms. ■ The applicant has done quite a bit to address the view issues. ■ Doesn't feel that the view from the bedroom would be preserved by reducing the eaves. Thinks it would require a significant redesign. Public hearing was reopened to permit questions of the applicant. Further Commission comments: Have studies of different alternatives been explored? (Furlong — have conducted some studies. The client wanted a"butterfly roof' house.) 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes April 28, 2094 Has a measurement been made to determine how much of a change would be required to preserve the bedroom view? (Furlong — don't have a survey of the height of the bedroom on the lower level. May be able to reduce the overhangs somewhat.) Would have appreciated the applicant having explored how much of a design revision would be necessary and whether that would ruin the design of the home. Would be good to have the analysis made of what would be needed to further reduce view impacts. Public hearing closed. More Commission comments: ■ Wonders what the new buyers have seen. ■ Would like to see further analysis of the view impact and what would be needed to preserve the lower level bedroom view. ■ Feels like the applicant has conducted considerable analysis into view impacts. ■ The design is below the maximums allowed for the lot. ■ In most respects, the view is good or improved. ■ May be just deferring without any potential for significant changes that preserve the view. • Feels the study should be done, but need to be prepared to make a decision at that point. ■ Should the Commission place as much emphasis upon views from non-common areas versus common areas? ■ Doesn't feel it is appropriate that each room should be treated equally. ■ Don't usually get held up on views from a bedroom area. ■ The bedroom is on a lower level that is below grade. ■ The garage fits in with the neighborhood and the home design. ■ The transom windows are not a primary viewing area. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with fhe following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 7, 2014, sheets A0.0, A2.2, A3.1, A4.1 a, A4.1 b, A4.2a, A4.2b, L1.1, L1.2 and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map and date stamped March 20, 2014, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.3 and A5.1through A6, L-1 and L-2; 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 staffl; 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 Building Division's January 28, 2014 and February 6, 2014, and November 19, 2013 memos, the Parks Division's November 25, 2013, and March 26, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division's December4, 2013 memo, the Fire Division's December 10, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Division's November 25, 2013 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; 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 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or 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, and the Arborist Report date stamped March 21, 2014; 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; 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, 2013 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 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Apri128, 2014 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-2-0-1(Commissioners DeMartini and Bandrapalli dissenting, Commissioner Terrones recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:24 p.m. Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 7(4 La Mesa Court) for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers. 7. 4 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE- HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + O APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRISTOPHER AWOYINKA AND SUZANNE MCGOVERN, PROP RTY OWNERS 35 NOTICED STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he had a brief email exchange with the residents of 6 La Mesa Court. Commissioner Yie noted that she m ith the neighbors on both sides of the project site. Commissioner DeMartini stated that he met h the applicant and architect, as well as with the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court. Reference staff r ort dated April 24, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed crit � and staff comments. Thirty- eight (38) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Is staff comfortable with the findings of the light What level of detail is provided in the light an�j �lysis? (Hurin — yes.) ? (Hurin — the applicant will respond.) Acting Chair Bandrapalli opened the public he�g. Tim Raduenz represented the applica ■ The visual simulation was mpleted with Photo Shop; it was not a scientific analysis. ■ Some of the trees wer emoved from the simulation. ■ Summarized the ch ges to the project. ■ Attempted to pr rve views from 2 La Mesa Court. ■ Tried to addr s all concerns expressed by the neighbors. ■ The mas � g for the home is currently similar to the home at 6 La Mesa Court. Commissio�'comments: Likes the redesign. Likes the materials. Is the glare perceived as an issue? (Raduenz — could place a film or bronze the glass. But doesn't believe it will be an issue.) 14 ��� BURLINGAME DATE � FROM CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM August 25, 2014 Planning Commission Erika Lewit, Senior Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: August 25, 2014 SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2747 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for an attached garage and for basement ceiling height for a new, single-story dwelling at 2747 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 2014 (see attached April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued on August 1, 2014. The applicant is requesting approval of an FYI for the following changes to the approved plans: • Eliminate the pool in the rear yard and install synthetic turf; • Alter windows at the right (west) elevation and rear (south) elevation; and • Shift proposed horizontal wood siding at the right (west) elevation and add horizontal wood siding at the rear (south elevation) Please refer to the applicanYs letter of explanation, date stamped August 11, 2014, for a complete description of the proposed changes. The designer submitted elevations, date stamped design review project. plans showing the originally approved and proposed building August 11, 2014, to show the changes to the previously approved Other than the changes detailed in the applicant's letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by applicant, date stamped August 11, 2014 April 28, 2013, Planning Commission Regular Action Calendar Minutes February 24, 2014, Planning Commission Design Review Study Minutes