Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.06.10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California June 10, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the June 10, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Chair Sargent to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 7, Item 4 (1616 Easton Drive) the name of the applicant is misspelled. It should be “Raduenz.”  Page 12, Item 6 (2315 Easton Drive) Commissioner Davis’s name is erroneously shown in boldface type.  Page 15, Item 7 (2600 Summit Drive), first bullet, should read “…steps down could not be rotated towards easement.”  Page 15, Item 7 (2600 Summit Drive), last bullet, omit the word “that” so the statement reads “Not familiar with any law about protecting privacy.”  Page 15, Item 7 (2600 Summit Drive), should be corrected to indicate that the item was continued, not approved.  Page 17, Item 8 (3088 Alcazar Drive), should indicate that the changes are to things that made the original design better and mitigated the issues. The changes have revised things that had made the design better.  Page 18, Item 8 (3088 Alcazar Drive), should be corrected to indicate that the item was continued, not approved.  Page 21, Item 11 (1301 Drake Avenue), Commission comments second bullet should read 24’-3” not 20’.  Page 21, Item 11 (1301 Drake Avenue), should not indicate “appeal procedures were advised” since the item is not appealable.  Page 22, Item 12 (82 Loma Vista Drive), Commission comments 8th bullet, should indicate the question could the landing get smaller so that the patio could become a larger gathering space.  Page 22, Item 12 (82 Loma Vista Drive), Commission comments 10th bullet should indicate garage doors in shaker style with glazed portion.  Page 22, Item 12 (82 Loma Vista Drive), Commission comments last bullet, should indicate parapet is meeting the eave in the back.  Page 23, Item 12 (82 Loma Vista Drive), should not indicate “appeal procedures were advised” since the item is not appealable. Motion passed 7-0-0-0. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 2 Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would abstain from discussion of the minutes for the May 28, 2013 meeting since he was not in attendance at that meeting. Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the May 28, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 2, Item 1 (1301 Drake Avenue), should indicate that the last name of Hector is “Estipona.”  Page 11, Item 6 (1551 Los Montes Drive), Commission comments 3rd bullet should indicate 50s architecture, not 60s. Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones abstaining). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Gardiner informed the Planning Commission that the applicants for Item 6 (2600 Summit Drive) have requested that the item be continued to the next meeting on June 24, 2013 so that they could reply and revise the deck design in respect to the Commission’s comments. A copy of a letter from the applicant requesting the continuance was provided to Commissioners. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. 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. 1a. 1551 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING FOR AN INTERIOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DAREN IGUCHI, JOHN LUM ARCHITECTURE INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CRAIG HOU, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 1b. 1435 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TW O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KIERAN J. WOODS TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Terrones 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 Davis. Chair Sargent called for a CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 3 voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 1310 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CROCKETT LANE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 10, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent noted ex parte communication with the applicant. No others indicated ex parte communications. All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant:  Made several changes to the project.  Front porch reduced floor area by eliminating cantilever of the upstairs bedroom and master bedroom.  Added stone at the fireplace at rear.  Change garage door to wood.  Resolve issue with next door neighbor – will replace all the fence get rid of the concrete block wall. Commission comments:  Like the changes, glad the porch was enlarged.  Changing the garage door to wood is an improvement.  Would it be possible to eliminate the middle column in the front porch? It would open the porch up even more. (Chu: Not sure. Could look into it. It might make the door look off center. When we changed the size of the porch I had staff lay out tables and chairs, and they fit.)  On rear elevation to the left of the doors, what is the stone? It wraps to the left elevation also. (Chu: It is the two-way fireplaces. It is not called out but on the left elevation there is a fireplace with the stone.) That’s the only place it shows up? (Chu: Yes. It’s in the rear, not visible.)  This applicant has agreed to replace the CMU wall that is on the neighboring property? (Chu: Correct.) That’s great – it would be very difficult for us to compel this applicant to work on that adjoining property, so that’s a nice bit of cooperation.  11’-0 ½” setback to neighbor? (Chu: That’s to the second story. The first floor is about 7 feet.) Because of the wide lot, there is the 10 foot driveway on one side, and 11 feet to the second floor on the other side, that helps mitigate some of the concerns of the neighbor. (Chu: And if you include their setbacks the distance is more than 30 feet.)  On the right elevation, what is the material on the shoulders on the chimney? (Chu: Cast stone. It will be called out.)  Changes to the porch and the wood garage door are great. Public comments:  None CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 4 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The public hearing was opened for additional questions. Commission comments:  What if the bottom of the chimney were clad with that stone too, so there was some vocabulary about the stone in the house? Or if it was the siding instead of the stone? (Chu: We had shingle siding in the last one, and one of the Commissioners asked about changing it to stone.)  Suggestion to put stone on the fireplace was because it looked like the chimney was just getting blended into the siding.  Not disagreeing with change of the material, just wondering if it should be done with the siding from above instead. Or if doing stone add it to the bottom of the other chimney on the driveway so both chimneys would be built of the same material. Right now it is introducing another material that comes out of nowhere – it would be nice to repeat it somewhere. It seems like the bottom of the chimney could be a place to put it. (Chu: Once the color is put on the chimney it will not even be noticeable, it will blend in with the siding so it will not stand out. Also there is landscaping where the fireplace is located.)  Point is understandable, but since they are so far separated it is not as critical. It will not be possible to see both at the same time.  If you did that it would be an anomaly – there would just be that flue that was stucco, and it would be the only place where there was stucco. The way it is now at least the whole thing is stucco. Would never see both fireplaces together – if just looking at one and there were the two materials, it might look a bit more patchworky.  Will defer to the architect’s judgment. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  The problem with putting the stone on the main chimney is that you end up with just that small bit of stone at the bottom, then a large stucco part at the taller part of the chimney. That stone detail at the bottom is very rarely done right. It’s a difficult detail, and it often looks fake.  It’s a code issue too. Commissioner Gaul 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 May 30, 2013, sheets A.1 through A.7, G.1, L.1, L.2 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 March 27, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s May 2 and April 10, 2013 memos, the City Engineer’s April 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 1, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's May 2, 2013 memo shall be met; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 5 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the 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 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 6 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 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m. 3. 2000 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AMJAD HANIF, PROPERTY OW NER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 20, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Hector Estipona represented the applicant.  Revised roofline, now a combination of gable end versus the hip roof as originally submitted.  Previously taken out the wood batten siding on the gable, put it back. Decided to match everything on the four sides on the gable ends.  Put a new window on the MacDonald side (shown on Page A-6).  Added a trellis feature on the yard side to break the second floor from the first floor (shown on Page A-5). Amjad Hanif, Burlingame, was also at the podium as the property owner. Commission comments:  Is there a reason why there are still a number of hip roof elements mixed with the gables? Seems odd how they are mixed and matched. Is there a reason why they are not all gables? (Estipona: Looking at the roofline, all four sides have gable ends.)  The trellis helps.  Was the batten and board requested? I know we asked for more detail but was not sure if we meant to literally put it back. (Gaul: Yes. The existing house has the board and batten at the gable ends. It is the only architectural detail on the outside of the house. Part of the problem even with the existing house is that the stucco and siding are painted the same color. W ould encourage a different color on the board and batten to set it off. It does not need to be contrasting like black and white, but if use earthtones and bring that element in it will accentuate it and help the house. It is much improved over last time.)  The MacDonald Way side is still a little plain. Understand it is not an area that was going to be changed. However Bedroom #2 could support another window on the corner which would help that elevation.  Is there a datum line being used for the edge of the board and batten? It seems a bit random, as well as where it terminates relative to the roof. Realizing some of the eave lines are different or asymmetrical, but it does not look like there is a vocabulary that is consistently applied. Maybe it would help to have a thicker band between the two to separate them? CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 7  There should be some kind of water table or sill there, though on the existing house there is not. If there is a water table or some kind of termination member it adds a little more detail. The more detail you can give it the better off it will be. Would encourage doing that, even if it is just on the second floor (the new addition) and the first floor left as it is now.  The issue for the board and batten is the line you pick for where it falls. If you look at the front/south elevation (Sheet A-4) if you have it starting too low it looks like it is plastered just on the front, whereas if you tuck that starting line right at the plate height you don’t then want to see it wrapping around to the side elevations. If it is at the plate height it is OK to have it just on the gable end, you do not expect to see it wrap around. Where it’s shown on the first floor it drops below the plate height and looks funny. (Estipona: The first floor is based on the existing conditions.) Leave where it is existing, but on the second story addition pick a point and be consistent with it.  New wood garage door to match, from the drawings it does not look like they are matching. Is it just the color that will be matched? (Hanif: Will be matching the color of the existing entry door.) Would be nice to match the style and rail. A panelized door would be more consistent. (Hanif: We can look into that). Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following AMENDED conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 30, 2013, sheets A-1 through A-6, with the provision that that there be consistency in establishing the baseline for the board and batten gable siding; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 9 and April 12, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's April 22, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 15, 2013 memo, the Park Supervisor’s April 16, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator’s April 18, 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 8 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, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. 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 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion:  They should pick a consistent point for the board and batten gable siding.  If they pick a consistent point we do not need to see it again. It does not need to be an FYI. The designer gets our point.  There were good arguments for the variance – the somewhat odd nature of the lot, that it is not very deep. It would be difficult to push the garage back, and the garage is already 23 feet deep as opposed to the normal 20-foot depth.  The point that it was a corner lot and had more street parking added to the mitigating circumstances for the variance. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. Chair Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 4 (1430 Drake Avenue) as he is the property owner. He left the City Council Chambers and Vice Chair Davis took over as Chair. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 9 4. 1430 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING STORAGE ROOM IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO A RECREATIONAL ROOM AND HOME OFFICE (RICH AND JENNY SARGENT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 10, 2013, with attachments. Hurin noted that two letters from adjacent neighbors in support of the application were provided after preparation of the staff report in support of the project. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner Yie noted that she had talked to the applicant and visited the property. She also saw Commissioner Terrones at the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he visited the site prior to and was pointed to the area of the application but did not discuss the merits with the applicant. All other Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commission questions:  Would they be allowed to include a toilet? (Hurin: They would need to request a Conditional Use Permit to add a toilet, bath or shower. The sink is allowed by right.)  Are there limitations on the square footage, which is why the applicant did not include a toilet? (Hurin: No, this is what the applicant applied for.) Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Jenny Sargent represented the applicant:  Wanted to make existing room in the current house for visiting family members, so wanted to move the home office/recreation room to the back of the garage. There is an existing room there now but it requires finishing.  Was not planning to put in a bathroom. Just wanted to have a sink for making coffee.  Did not want to make it bigger than proposed – did not want to reduce the size of the garage. Wanted to maintain the storage area for storage of bikes. Wanted to keep office small and continue to use the other room for storage.  Back yard is very private so does not think enlarging window is going to affect anyone. Even though it is close to the property line in the back, the back yard is elevated so people walking by in the alley would not be able to see over the fence. Nobody would see that there is a window there. Commission comments:  Would encourage to put a door where the window is, and eliminate the need to go through the storage room to get to the office.  Right now it is a workshop – when it says “home office” this would be normal office-type activities to support the business. So conceivably we’re comparing a workshop that could have power tools, to passive office activities in terms of impacts to neighbors. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 10 Commission comments:  There does not appear to be any neighborhood impact. The easement is low, the lot is elevated. It is far enough removed from anyone else. It’s a good use of the space too. Commissioner Yie 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 and date stamped May 28, 2013, sheets 1 through 8; 2. that the accessory structure shall only include a garage, storage room and recreation room/home office, as shown on the plan date stamped May 28, 2013, and shall not be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; 3. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 29 and May 13, 2013 memos, the City Engineer’s May 23, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal’s May 13, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator's May 14, 2013 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 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; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  If he decides to take the suggestion to replace the window door, that could come back as an FYI. (Hurin: It would not necessarily require him to come back since it is not necessarily a use issue.)  The placement of the window is already within 10 feet. (Hurin: Even if the door has glazing it is still covered under the Conditional Use Permit.) Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m. Chair Sargent returned to the dais. Chair Sargent stated that in the lobby he spoke to a neighbor of 2600 Summit Avenue (Item 6) and wanted to know if the neighbor could speak on the item even though the item has been continued. City Attorney Kane indicated that they will have an opportunity to speak when the item is reviewed at the next meeting, but that it is at the discretion of the Chair whether to allow comments in advance. Chair Sargent indicated that public comment would be allowed when the item comes up on the agenda. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 11 5. 1821 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FENG XUE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 13, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated June 10, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, Burlingame, represented the applicant.  Went back to original trellis that was approved, will install as approved.  Glass window above the entrance is flush with the plane of the front entrance, will take it out and recess it back further so it will create a shadow line.  Would like to retain the planter. There are now four different materials on the planter: stone and three different types of marble. Have agreed to eliminate all of the marble; stone will be applied as shown. There will be a stone cap with the same material as the face of the planter.  Going back to the original width of the columns that were approved. Will remove the black marble, continue the stone up as in the original design with a little cap. Where the column hits the face of the porch will have trim like in the original design.  Would like to keep the front door if they could. With the heavier columns and the door being set back, the door will be in shade most of the time as it is covered and east-facing. The size of the door will be minimized because of the shadow effect. Commission comments:  Having trouble with the window elevations, between what was approved versus what has been built. (Meyer: Original trim detail was wood trim, had a more flat profile than the trim that they actually used. It is the stucco over foam now. Wants to keep the house as consistent as possible, seems odd to take the trim off and replace just on the front elevation. W ith the other changes we’ve made it’s gone a long way to where it is now, close to the original approval. Would be nicer to keep all the trim around the windows the same.)  Is the intention to keep the planters so they can grow something on the trellis? (Meyer: No, there is not an intention to grow anything on the trellis. The planters that are there are the proposed planters – expects that there will be low bushes in the planters on either side of the garage, and in the other planters there will be a series of bushes.)  Are the house numbers placed high because of the bushes? (Meyer: In the original location where the numbers were proposed, even if there were bushes they would not block the numbers. Never got an answer why the house number ended up over the garage.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 12 Commission comments:  It is an improvement from where it was before.  Not wild about the change in the trim, doesn’t like the stucco over foam trim detail, but making it consistent is compelling.  Fine with the planters – they add something to it.  They were asked to focus on the front elevation, and have gone back to the majority of what was approved.  The request to keep the planters is not an issue. Plants may add scale to make the columns seem less tall.  We asked them to work on the front elevation which they did, but it is unfortunate and discouraging. We worked this plan over a lot when it first came through because it needed a lot of work, and then to have it come back with so many discrepancies from the approved design. Willing to move forward with it but not sure what to do in the future to be sure they stick to the design.  At the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee level we have talked about applicants and contractors at the time of pulling their permit having them sign a letter that points out to them the need to adhere to what was originally approved. It further brings it to their attention.  The conditions are in the plans. Ignorance is not an excuse.  In this case the homeowner got penalized. If it was truly the contractor, the contractor should also get a fine.  When a contractor gets a set of plans, they are supposed to build it as shown on the plans. A set of drawings and a contract are a binding agreement between a contractor and a homeowner and they need to be adhered to just like any other contract between two parties.  The contractor is a representative of the owner, so the owner needs to take responsibility for the contractor. There is plenty of legal redress they can take with the contractor. Ultimately it is the owner’s responsibility to make sure the plans are adhered to.  By telling the applicant to just focus on the front elevation, we accepted a compromise situation right from the beginning. Commissioner Terrones 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 May 30, 2013, sheets A.1 through A.7, G.1, L.1, L.2 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 March 27, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s May 2 and April 10, 2013 memos, the City Engineer’s April 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 1, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's May 2, 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 13 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the 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 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 Chair Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 14 Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:04 p.m. 6. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND A NEW DECK AREA OFF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN GUMAS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 13, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.) This item was continued to June 24, 2013 at the applicant’s request. City Attorney Kane advised that to accommodate the request for public comment, the Commission should go through the regular steps of noting ex parte contacts since the last meeting, open the public hearing, and accept the input from the member of the public who has come to speak and anyone else who is waiting to do so. After the input there can be a motion to continue the item to a date certain. The staff report does not need to be presented since the Commission will not be considering it. Chair Sargent indicated that he had ex parte communication with a neighbor. Commissioner Terrones indicated he spoke with a neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court; they pointed to the area on their property that they believe would be affected by the application. They did not discuss the merits of the project but he viewed from their property. Commissioner DeMartini indicated he spoke with the neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court. Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated he spoke with the neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he spoke with the neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court and encouraged her to work with the property owner to establish the property line. There is some discrepancy to who is trimming the tree and whose tree it is (related to view blockage). He also talked to the tapers on the subject property. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Anne Mahnken, 2614 Summit Drive, spoke on this item:  View goes out the back of the house and over the neighbors’ property next door at 2606 Summit, and the 2600 Summit property.  Can’t see the story poles since they are below the level of the trees. Was hoping the trees could be trimmed down so she could get the view of the airport again, like she used to have. They’ve been trimmed before, but it has been a couple of years since they were last trimmed.  Believes the trees are on 2600 Summit property, but it is hard to tell.  Concerned that if the deck goes out too far, it will block the view again once the trees are trimmed back.  The deck may be over on the side where she can’t see it, but can’t tell right now.  Thinks the big tree blocking the view is the big tree on the plan, at the corner of the house. Commission questions and comments:  Your concern is if they trim the trees, you will see the deck? (Nankin: Yes, and the deck would then block the view.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 15  We can’t compel them to trim the trees, but it is something they could talk about between property owners directly. Staff can provide the contact information for the project architect. (Hurin provided)  (Hurin: Applicant has been instructed to show floor of the deck as well as the top of the railing with the story poles. They are working on revising the location and configuration of the deck, so the story poles will be adjusted to reflect the new design.)  Would it be possible for them to also indicate a 6-foot tall person too? (Hurin: We’ve never before requested that as part of story poles.) Chair Sargent moved to continue the application to the next Planning Commission meeting on June 24, 2013. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1207 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAÇADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KAREN HESS, KATE SPADE, APPLICANT; TPG ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; RONALD KARP, PROPERTY OWNER STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 10, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Karen Hess represented the applicant.  Brought photos from a store that was just completed at Santa Monica Place, for reference. It opened about three weeks ago.  Also photos of an interior mall store that was recently completed. Commission questions and comments:  Storage areas in the back, will those not be a part of the project? (Hess: We are not taking that space, it is not part of our leasable area. We will be putting a demising wall in.)  Describe the brass cabinet? (Hess: It is a brass panel. Our logo and signage are routed out of that panel and backed up with a piece of plexiglass and then it’s lit from the interior. It is a light cabinet but people would only see the brass panel.)  Concerned about the scale of the storefront. Sephora is great, it’s bright, but it’s tall. Similarly, the Pottery Barn/Banana Republic stores across the street the storefronts are tall, the scale is massive. As you work your way up from this store, at the jewelers and Mingalaba the awnings are down at a nice scale, but here the storefront is pushed really tall. Understandable to want to have presence and light, but in the rendering it looks like the doors are going to be between 9 and 10 feet tall. How tall will they be? (Hess: 12 feet to the underside of the awning. Typically we’d want a minimum of 30 inches for signage, so doors would be about 10½ feet.)  The doors to the office (next door to the right) and the jewelers have nice scale, with the transoms above. Then there are awnings as you work your way up the street.  Could bring the awning lower and have windows up high to let light into the deep recesses of the store – a typical storefront design. Or possibly introduce a secondary awning at an 8-foot height and still have the glass doors – it could be a relatively thin horizontal band. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 16  It feels massive. We have made that mistake and let that happen on other storefronts, and we need to stop making that mistake. We need to look at this relative to the other storefronts in the neighborhood.  Likes idea of bringing the awning down. The awning line of the jeweler and Mingalaba are consistent – this would bring it down to a more pedestrian level.  Understand the need to have the brand and presence. Not looking for a canvas-type awning, it could be sleek and contemporary and modern. If the awning was down at the proper scale it would really help with the storefront feel along that street. (Hess: The door to the office next door is a very small door. Would not want to hold it to that height).  Just looking for a bit of better scale. Could still have nice 8-foot doors. Does not need to be down at 6’-8”, does not even need to be down at 7 feet. Just looking for better scale to represent the building, right now it looks like a tall rectangle into the space and looks stark. Ron Karp, Burlingame, represented the property owner:  Door of office building next door will be modified to match Kate Spade. It is consistent with the store across the street, which is rectangular and glass as well.  W ith all the work being done with the streetscape, trying to bring in some higher quality and better retailers to Burlingame Avenue. This is the first major corporate tenant we’ve had on Burlingame Avenue since Banana Republic.  Not yet sure what will be in the back area. Might be storage for the present jeweler or something else, but this is not what is being addressed tonight.  Requests to preserve the right to keep the food service use for the property (per the Ordinance) to possibly use for the back area and/or the jeweler. Precedent from retaining restaurant use from La Pinata (now Sephora) to later allow Cherimoya on Lorton Avenue.  One possibility is the back area may continue to be a specialty restaurant configured with the current jewelry store. Not planned yet, just a possibility.  Building Official comment #8 needs to be clarified that is only applies to the subject tenant space, not the entire building. (Hurin: Will clarify. It is only meant for the subject tenant space.) Commission questions and comments:  Wants to make sure the area in the back would not be a storage space that could be rented out separately. A sandwich outlet in the back could be interesting. As we develop the downtown would like to see some businesses on the back sides of those buildings. (Karp: There are people who are interested in using the space for that, will come back for that at a later date. Will not be for rent as a contractor’s workshop to store things.) (Hurin: Could be storage as an expansion of another adjacent business, but would not be allowed to be a separate stand-alone storage use.)  No problem with grandeur, or juxtaposition of the contemporary storefront with the rest of the building. Just thinks there are ways to get a better scale and still get all of the grandeur and details being talked about. Could be achieved with a little bit of revisiting.  Understands wanting to match scale of other storefronts, but example of Plant restaurant replaced awnings of adjacent businesses to match. If came back with proposal to replace consistent canopies on the whole building that were higher, would not have a problem with that. Thinks 10 feet is fine if it is consistent across the building. (Karp: Intends to have adjacent office door match the Kate Spade design. Planning to see what is approved for Kate Spade, then will make the office door consistent. Jeweler will be changed to once the streetscape is completed, to be consistent with Kate Spade as the landmark tenant. The jeweler will not be replacing the door but will be replacing awnings.) (Hurin: Changes will come back as a Minor Design Review or Commercial Design Review. Would encourage showing all changes in one application.)  (Karp: Could make approval of Kate Spade conditioned that door of 1209 (office door) be at the same height and that the awning be at the same height, and that the awning of the jewelry store be CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 17 at the same elevation.)(Hurin: Those tenant spaces are not part of this application, unless they come back and include that in the application.)  Doesn’t think the door and canopy scale needs to be brought down just because the adjacent spaces are lower.  Point is not the adjacent spaces, it is the scale of the street as a whole and human scale. In the design guidelines for the downtown human scale is the emphasis. Not awnings twelve feet up in the air, it’s awnings down at a human scale.  Functionally would not want awnings of Mingalaba and the jewelry store up high because there is a functional purpose for the awnings. If it’s raining people can stand under the awnings for some protection – if they are up high it does not accomplish anything. Would not want to raise everything up to the Kate Spade level.  There are ways to add secondary awnings or secondary pieces that add human scale and still get the grandeur. It’s the human scale of the whole downtown. Public comments:  None. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing for additional Commission questions of the applicant:  Is there variety between stores, or is there a signature look in every store? (Hess: The Santa Monica store had a bulkhead that was part of the space and the materials were applied to it. On the other example the opening of the store is much wider but the height is similar. Our preferred design is to have the sign right over the doors. The other example shown is in Huntington, NY on Long Island and is more similar to what is being proposed here.) There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  Not sure if canopy needs to come down. Thinking of Union Square and other more urban places, it’s exciting. It’s not just a mall storefront, it feels more like a city.  Part of commercial design review is making sure it ties into neighboring buildings.  Anthropologie is a good example: is tall but has elements to give it a human scale. When it was reviewed the Commission looked at the issue of the scale. They introduced a secondary line at about 8 feet. Still had a tall storefront but the doors were at a more human scale.  Not looking for cookie-cutter 8-foot awnings, but based on the design guidelines are asking for elements that are more at a human scale. On a storefront like this with a simple palate of items, it is a bit more difficult to get that scale. Maybe an introduction of another element, just an introduction of something to give a bit more scale but still get the grandeur and contemporary feel that they are going for. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 10, 2013 18 Discussion of motion:  Bringing it back for Regular Action will allow Commissioners to go out and look at this again. Can look at the scale not just of the adjacent buildings, but the whole block. Review with the downtown design guidelines, which look at the downtown as a whole rather than individual pieces. Chair Sargent 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 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:46 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 3, 2013.  None. - FYI: 1459 Oak Grove Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved residential condominium project.  Accepted. - FYI: - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary