Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.06.24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California June 24, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the June 24, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner DeMartini Staff Present: Planning Manager, Kevin Gardiner; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Davis moved, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli to approve the minutes of the June 10, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:  Page 15, Item 6 – indicate the item is not appealable. Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner DeMartini absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2208 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SIDE SETBACK FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NOT SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW) (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND ROBIN WATSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented a summary of the staff report, dated June 24, 2013. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commission comments:  The existing and proposed setbacks on the left side are not clear, need to be clarified.  Would like to hear from applicant for options they might have seen for not asking for the lot coverage variance. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 2  It would be helpful to know if they had the support of the neighbors, particularly the neighbor on the left side. If they could get a letter or some form of acknowledgement that they support the project it would be helpful.  On the site plan it looks like they are asking for a 4’-1½” side setback where only a 4’-0” setback is required. (Gardiner: This appears to be an inconsistency or dimensional mistake on the most recent set of plans. The architect has been asked to correct the dimensions on the next set of plans).  The declining height diagonal – it would be helpful to see that section. It looks like the first floor is in the setback, but then it also looks like there might be a peak that is also in the setback because of the declining height envelope at the property line.  Thinks there is support for variance, but ask applicant to address the issue of lot size. It is a 4,900 square foot lot, and the application is still 268 square feet below the maximum FAR. By logic they could propose building more that they’re not asking to build. The lot size is an exceptional circumstance, but does not appear to be referenced in the application. It’s an important issue that should be addressed in the variance application.  In other applications the Commission has seen, the small lot size is given as justification for more floor area. This application is not asking for that (it is asking for less than maximum amount of floor area), but the lot size is an issue in terms of lot coverage.  Also the fact that they have referenced the existing massing. They are tucking the addition under an existing steeply-pitched roof, which is a somewhat exceptional circumstance. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 2. 1205 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KRISTIN BERGMAN, BERGMAN DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID SANDERSON AND KATHRYN FISHER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated June 24, 2013. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commission comments:  The staff report says that the number of bedrooms will increase from 3 to 4, but then the applicant references going from 2 to 3. (Strohmeier: It might be a typo.)  Even if it’s going from 2 to 3, it still requires a variance because of the substandard parking.  Would like to see more explanation of what is going on in basement in terms of the existing storage area and the ceiling heights.  Concern with being asked for a variance for FAR, assuming it is because all of basement is being included. Concern is that permit would be given for this application and then a future owner would build it out without permits. We’d end up with a smaller lot with a lot more floor area. (Strohmeier: The entire lower level area already counts towards FAR, except for the crawl space. They did receive an exception for a lower level utility area, but the rest of the area is counted in the overall FAR calculation because it doesn’t meet our definition of a basement.)  One of the mitigating circumstances stated in the variance application is that the lower level area is not usable. Would like to know why it is not usable, other than that it is in the basement.  There was not a diorama of the streetscape in the packet. (Strohmeier: This is not a Design Review application, so it was not requested. We could ask for one if desired).  Would be nice to upgrade the garage door as part of the application. What is there does not seem as nice as the rest of the house. (Strohmeier: We will forward that information to the applicant. That is a CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 3 request that would typically be made as part of a Design Review application, but this is not a Design Review application).  Have not seen an application like this in a while, now seeing two in a row. This is contrary to the prior application in that this applicant is asking for more floor area. Don’t see justification for variance because it is a small lot because the FAR for lots is tied to the lot size. But do see justification for the variance because the massing is already there. It’s already existing and already affecting the neighborhood in the way it would with the application, other than the dormers being added. Dormers are exempt from design review. If applicant does not modify application, wants to state for the record that can’t accept lot size as justification for the variance because FARs are tied to lot size whatever they are, but do see justification that the massing already exists. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:21 p.m. VII. ACTIO N 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. 3. 826 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (SCOTT C. KUEHNE, SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATHAN HILT, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commissioner Terrones was not at the Design Review meeting but listened to the recording of the meeting. 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 Yie. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner DeMartini absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 82 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DAVID HECHT, TANNERHECHT ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; NORA AND BILL HICKEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 24, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commission questions of staff:  None CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 4 Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. David Hecht represented the applicant:  Most important change was front entry porch. Took away glass canopy, added a pergola/trellis which is all wood, with some translucent panels on top for weather protection. Also allows light to come into the living areas, which is what the client has been trying to do as part of the project.  Looked at some of the window placements and adjusted per the Commission comments.  Provided a small sketch in the back to show how the addition will meet the existing roof. Commission questions/comments:  Front elevation says existing front door, but in the second drawing they look different. On the existing elevation the right-most garage door, compared to the proposed elevation looks like swing- out garage doors. (Hecht: Top one should have been changed to reflect the door shown on the proposed elevation. The doors are not being changed, they will be the swinging doors.)  Acrylic panel on front porch, from experience would suggest that would be better off with laminated clear glass or tinted glass. The acrylic will start to come apart and look bad after a few years. Not opposed to having the glass there, but would encourage glass rather than acrylic. It will perform better.  The approach is squaring things off, modernizing it a bit, taking the ranch look off. The dormer gives it a ranch look. Although work was not planned on that part, would suggest squaring off the dormer to create more design cohesion.  That’s why glass canopy did not work before. The dormer makes it look more traditional. It sets up a geometry that the glass did not work with.  The glass canopy from before could work if the dormer was squared off. The glass canopy and metal modernized it, but the dormer did not match. It was a mix of styles.  Is the front door a single-lite French door? (Hecht: Yes.) Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  Is it too late to change the dormer?  What if they bring the dormer back as an FYI?  Trellis feels a little heavy.  Trellis still works. It gives a bit of a covered space on the porch besides just the front entry. Somebody could set a chair out there and still be under cover. Adds a feature that is woody and can harmonize with the siding.  Could leave changes to the canopy to the discretion of the applicant.  Asking to change an existing condition. The dormer exists now. Chair Sargent reopened the public hearing.  Wanted thoughts from the applicant. Taking it to a more modern design. What are thoughts with the dormer – is it beyond the scope? (Hecht: It is workable. Needs to work with the proposed lightwell in back. We can make those mesh together.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 5  Looking at the roof plan with the lightwell, there is the flattened-out part for the skylight and the lightwell, so there is a vertical element. Could tie the front dormer in and be really dramatic.  If the dormer is changed, would the owners want to go back with original porch design? (Hecht: Would need to confer with the owners. Could probably go either way.)  If the dormer is fixed there would be more cohesion around the house, all the way around.  There is a dormer in the back but it’s not as evident. (Hecht: They are identical). Don’t want to make this a bigger project than it needs to be, but it would be a good way to tie the design together in the back. It’s not a deal-breaker since it can’t be seen from the front; it would be up to applicant.  Back dormer stands out on the back elevation too. OK with it, but it stands out. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.  OK with bringing it back as an FYI. They have made a lot of changes to address the concerns. We’ve given them enough here that they could come back and call a public hearing if needed. Will give them a chance to move forward.  Would the approval have the condition to square off the dormer?  If it’s brought back on consent would be able to discuss if pulled.  Depends on how quickly they want to move forward on their building permit plans. By bringing it back as an FYI it allows them to move forward and submit for a general approval for their building permit. They would still need to get the FYI approved, but it would be in parallel. In bringing it back as a consent item it could potentially delay them for submitting for building permits. They can begin on the building permit plans knowing that only issue is the dormers.  As they prepare their building permit set they could submit the FYI on the dormers.  They may want to come back on the consent calendar, as it would be publicly noticed. They would not run the risk of submitting the FYI, but the Commission does not like the FYI and then it has to be agendized, which would potentially push them out even further. Might be better to bring it back on consent. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  Emphasize with the motion that the only thing we are looking at is the front elevation with the dormers and the front elevation for what they want to do.  It is up to them if they want to address the issues with the rear dormer. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner DeMartini absent). This item concluded at 7:38 p.m. 5. 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 JUNE 10, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) All Commissioners had visited the subject property, and specifically: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 6  Chair Sargent noted that he had visited 3 Belvedere Court. The neighbor showed story poles for the deck but they did not have any substantive discussion.  Commissioner Terrones visited 2614 Summit Drive. The owner showed him the areas off her rear deck in regards to the view but that was the only discussion. He also visited 3 Belvedere Court but did not visit with the owner.  Commissioner Yie visited 3 Belvedere Court. Spoke with the owner, she showed the view of the deck  Commissioner Davis visited 3 Belvedere Court, saw the dog and the story poles.  Commissioner Bandrapalli visited 3 Belvedere Court. Associate Planner Strohmeier noted a received after item that was submitted earlier in the day by the project representative that shows a photograph looking down from the proposed deck location to the neighbors at 3 Belvedere Court. There are trees superimposed on the second photo, representing the trees that are on the revised plans that shows two new 24” box trees between the deck and the neighboring property at 3 Belvedere Court. Reference staff report dated June 24, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Ms. Strohmeier noted a typo in the staff report with the reference of 484 square feet for the lot coverage; this figure was from the previous proposal. The previous proposal had 484 square feet of deck that exceeded 30 inches above adjacent grade. The revised proposal has 406.1 square feet of deck that exceeds 30 inches above adjacent grade. Commission questions:  If they wanted to build up to dashed line that shows less than 30 inches, would they need to be here? (Strohmeier: If less than 30 inches, does not require a permit. For anything that exceeds 30 inches above adjacent grade it counts towards setbacks and lot coverage, and requires a building permit.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. David Cauchi and Jesse Geurse represented the applicant:  The story poles now indicate the rail height as well as the floor height. Gives a good depiction of what of what the neighbors would see.  Downhill neighbor brought up concerns. Most important was privacy issue with regard to the deck looking down into their backyard. In response, the revised plans has rotated the pop-out. The pop- out seemed to be the main issue, that could allow someone to see into the back yard. The pop-out has been moved approximately 5’-4” further away from the property line and reduced it approximately 3 feet as well to accommodate the privacy issue and get it a bit further away.  Willing to plant 24” box trees. The photo simulation may not be the exact representation of the trees, but the view would be blocked and the privacy would be enhanced significantly with the placement of the trees in addition to the deck being reduced in size and the pop-out moved back.  From the other neighbor’s potential view blockage from 2614 Summit, spoke to the owners of that property. The property owner is not sure what trees she is seeing from home. She would not be able to see deck unless some trees are trimmed back. The concern is with having new trees being planted and not wanting those new trees to block any views. However the new trees that would be planted would be lower than the deck. Since she can’t see the deck, she would not be able to see the new trees because they would be planted below the deck. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 7  The Gumases would want to have the trees planted on their property to preserve their view as best they can, so they would make sure the trees were trimmed and maintained in such a way that the privacy would be kept for their neighbor as well as providing the view they are after.  Have addressed and accommodated the Planning Commission’s concerns, and have tried to accommodate the concerns of the neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court regarding privacy. Knows that privacy is not guaranteed, but has made that accommodation to be sensitive to the neighbor. Commission comments and questions:  On Sheet A-9 previously the circular bulb-out was at a lower level. Now moved over, is it now all at the lower level? Before there was a person that was a bit higher in the drawing. The new one looks like the whole thing is lower, there is not a higher section. (Geurse: On Sheet SP-2 the lower portion is the round portion of the deck. The rest of the deck is at pool deck level. We’ve taken the ark, reduced and pulled it back and rotated the round portion.)  By rotating it to left looks like it is increasing the sight line towards 3 Belvedere Court backyard. Where it was originally it is more obscured. (Geurse: The idea was to get that part away further from the property. Visibility and privacy are not always guaranteed, so the trees are a way to get privacy.) (Cauchi: Trying to get as far away from the property as we can by moving it back. If we’ve moved it in such a way that there is more of a view impact we could put it back where it was but also put the trees in. One way or the other, we would still want to put two or three trees in so we maintain a screen and the privacy is accommodated.) (Geurse: With regards to any sight lines from the pool deck to the neighbor, the 30” line on the drawing shows where existing guard rail is. Even if built there, there will still be a privacy issue. It can’t be avoided, except for the trees.)  At the last meeting we encouraged rotating or pulling away from the property lines so it was not as looming over the downhill neighbor. Still think it is better to pull away from the property line as much as possible. Trees are a potentially good solution, can see what a thicket of good trees is doing now in terms of barriers between neighbors. Would want to encourage a close examination of the geometry of where trees are placed. On the site plan it looks like trees are shown spaced about 12 feet off of the property line, which puts the trees fairly far uphill. Once they get 15 or 18 feet tall they could start to block the Gumas’s view and they would want to trim them back. Work with the geometry for the critical placement of the trees if that is the solution. If placed further down they could grow up a bit taller and provide a screen but not block the view for the Gumases.  It is an improved design, but would encourage to have as many trees as possible.  Anytime someone is out on the deck at a table, because the trees are not going to come up past the railing it would still be able to see or hear people over the trees. (Cauchi: If the trees are downhill, the neighbor below would not be able to see over the trees.)  Looking at the site section (Sheet A-8), if drawing a horizontal line from the deck to the property line, that would be the height that the trees would get cut. The height of the trees would be the same as the height of the rail. (Cauchi: Our understanding was wanting to not have a view down into the backyard. Also the neighbor’s view up to the deck is substantially mitigated as well. With the tree screening we’ve handled the privacy issue.) Public comments: Cynda Bailey, 3 Belvedere Court, spoke on this item:  Main concerns are the privacy and being looked on. It feels much way worse with the revisions, really feels like a fish bowl now. Now can see all the way into the backyard.  The trees would help, but are concerned about trusting people to look after needs with follow- through.  W ould like to specify what types of trees. Could put up small pole trees and say it meets the 24” box requirement. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 8  Doesn’t understand sight line of the trees. Would expect they would trim the back at bottom of deck, not at rail since they are building a clear fence railing. If the trees are trimmed at the bottom of the deck, will we still be looked down on?  (Gaul: It would be good to specific tree species, so we would know a rate of growth, maximum height, canopy, evergreen versus deciduous.)  (Terrones: Would encourage them to talk to the City Arborist to determine the best type of tree to be planted here because if they’re going to plant a tree that is going to get topped, what is the right kind of tree that you would want to do that to on a regular basis. Also better potential for getting a tree that will be fast growing with a large canopy that is going to screen views the way we are talking about and not just be sticks or lollipops. The arborist could present a list to select from.)  (Yie: Regarding the position of deck, the trade-off is the closeness versus the angle. Is there a preference?)  Would prefer that they take the original plan and push it back towards Belvedere Court.  Doesn’t have space on property to plant trees themselves. Still wants to be pushed back from canyon.  (Yie: Between this configuration being proposed here versus the one they proposed before, which would you choose?)  If had to choose, would go back to the original.  Back fence to be worked on is on a very steep hill. Wondering if there is a way to make sure in writing that whoever is doing the work will not let the rocks fall down as they are doing work. (Kane: Not part of project being considered here. It is something that is controlled by other city requirements in terms of the manner of construction.) (Chair Sargent: The fence is not part of the scope of work of what we are considering here.) (Strohmeier: If a fence is built to the City’s code standards it does not require a permit. The construction of a fence is often a civil matter between the property owners as long as it is in compliance with the Code requirements.) (Terrones: There will be Building Department conditions for the deck for any debris, regardless of any fence.) David Cauchi spoke for the applicant:  No problem with the arborist and list of trees if that is a Condition of Approval. If there needs to be approval for which types of trees, hoping that could be brought back as an FYI.  Debris falling down hill, the Building Department will be able to handle that matter. Doesn’t believe anything would spill down into the yard in any event. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  Based on the neighbor’s comments, the original configuration is better.  If it’s pulled back further can get two rows of trees.  If the neighbor is OK with the deck being closer to the property line and that is what the applicant originally wanted, that would be the direction to go.  Visiting the property at 2614 Summit Drive, the issue is with other trees that are on the property. Does not think this deck or trees will intrude on her sight lines and the geometry of her best views.  In terms of the adjacent property at 3 Belvedere Court, the applicant is making an important point in protecting privacy. In the hills there are larger properties and people are used to privacy. Worked to try to address these issues that are not necessarily as protected by right as other issues might be. This applicant is working to make it best as best as they can but also maintaining their rights to improve their property.  Work with arborist to specify the type, size, and quantity of trees to best screen the deck would be a good condition to apply to the project. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 9  Seems there is a lot of discretion with the trimming the trees and making sure what is shown in the rendering is actually what happens.  The neighbor could put trees in themselves if they wanted to change the configuration of their backyard. That would put the control totally in their hands. Can only go so far as requirements on trimming trees.  Don’t have specific ordinances that, by right, protect privacy like this. Getting into monitoring long- term maintenance of trees is a burden we can’t place on ourselves as a city and staff. However we can place conditions that say trees would be planted in an appropriately healthy condition and will include irrigation. Pick a tree that will reach the height of the railing and be able to tolerate the trimming and topping that is likely to occur.  Nice that the neighbors are willing to work with each other. If they like the original plan and having the right trees, it will solve both of their problems. Commissioner Terrones 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 June 12, 2013, sheets T.0, SP.2, A.8 and A.9 (Rear Elevation - North); and date stamped June 18, 2010, sheets SP.1, SP.3 through A.9 (Building Section) and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 26, 2013, April 23, 2010 and February 5, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 1, 2010 and December 15, 2008 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s April 30, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 26, 2010 and November 24, 2008 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 26, 2010 and November 21, 2008 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 10 plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 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 Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  Approve the original scheme that was presented, received May 1, 2013.  Added condition that trees be planted between the two properties through consultation with the City Arborist in regards to the size, quantity, and appropriate species for the intended screening including consideration for the type of tree that can be trimmed and topped as designated for this requirement.  Permanent irrigation shall be included as part of the planting of these trees. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner DeMartini absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m. 6. 1207 AND 1209 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 24, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commission questions:  None Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 11 Karen Hess represented the applicant:  Heights of doors have been reduced to 9 feet.  Added mullion across the two show windows.  Also showing entrance to office door at 1209 Burlingame Avenue to have new door and sidelite to align with 1207 Burlingame Avenue. Commission comments:  Has the height of the door been lowered from before? It looks the same. (Hess: It is at 9 feet right now.)  Looks like the height of the doors is shown at 9 feet. Before the dimension was not specified but it was around 10’-6”. The existing frieze is at about 9’-3” so the doors as shown would be about 9 feet.  Horizontal mullion makes an amazing difference. Having that reference point really helps.  Replacing the giant pole handle on the door with what is shown now is also an improvement (Hess: The handle is the shape of a bow and ties in with the brand.)  The skinny door at 1209 Burlingame, because it is narrow it looks really tall. Proportionally the other door looks better. Maybe eliminate the sidelite and have just one big door.  The stucco band is actually a piece of wood that’s falling apart. With the storefront going in, not sure the stucco band needs to be such a fat thing. The storefront has really delicate lines, so perhaps it could be more of a trim piece that provided a transition from the tile above.  The tile on the street level is like a mosaic, from Round Table. The tile above is significantly different, it is an older 3” x 6” subway tile. It is a really pretty tile and it would be nice if something could be found to match it. It would be nice if it could come down the walls, but not sure if it would be practical.  Maybe just do something that would be similar, in the same color palette.  Building has a lot more character than originally thought. There are transom windows above that will be covered by awning partially. Has there been consideration of something different like at Lucy or Jane & Jack, where they’ve preserved the height of the transom window and then brought out an overhang. It’s very modern, steel structure, but preserves the transom. Becoming evident it is more of a historical building so would like to keep the transoms.  Knows there is a corporate formula that needs to be worked into, but also work with downtown design guidelines, not cover transoms.  Adding horizontal mullion helps. Door at 9 feet is a scale that can work. There is a limited palette to work with in a storefront this wide. Replacing the office next door is an improvement even at 9 feet; it is elegant.  (Hess: The canopy itself reduces the scale.)  Is there a canopy in the New York store? (Hess: No, not on Madison Avenue. Canopies are usually used in places with smaller scale.)  The awning does not need to be cookie/cutter, canvas over piping. Could have something that is a simple horizontal that provides the cover over the door but could be a bit more contemporary like the rest of the storefront. Ron Karp represented the property owner:  The cheap tiles will be removed. Per the letter from Jennifer Pfaff, will try to preserve the classic subway tiles and add in more decorative ones. Where windows are have been filled in they have been covered in sheet metal.  The designer has worked on what was discussed last time.  Regarding scale and height, the new street light posts will be 14 feet. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 12  The office door at 1209 Burlingame can be a single door and remove the sidelite.  Wants to maintain the specialty food use for 6 months to do something else. Preserve the right in the event the jewelry store goes away, could combine the jewelry store with the space behind.  Trying to find more subway tiles. Working with a company called Exquisite Surfaces to source the tiles. Trying to match, but can’t give a code number. They will be like kind, wants to preserve it. Commission comments:  OK with maintaining the food use.  Change of materials would need to come back as an FYI.  Hoping the wood transition piece could be something more minimal – something more elegant that would line up with the mullion on Kate Spade. Would need to be reviewed as an FYI.  Fire Clay Tile in San Jose may be able to match it. Locally made, does a lot of subway tiles with different glazes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  Scale is better.  If the canopy was in line, the office door could have a canopy to match Kate Spade.  Concern about preserving the transom windows. Making suggestion that it does not need to be a canvas awning. Downtown Specific Plan asks to preserve some of the architectural details like transom windows and specifically says not to cover them with canvas or canopies.  Showing transoms on Sephora was great, and uncovering the transoms on The Melt. Not sure if the existing ones here have value. From the historic photo it is hard to tell if they were transom windows covered by a banner, or if there were ever transom windows there. Chair Sargent reopened the public hearing. Ron Karp spoke on this item:  Does not think what is thought to be transom are actually windows.  The diagram from Jennifer Pfaff shows wood, boxy square windows. They’re not like the classic ones at Sephora. Question from Commission to Karen Hess:  Is the proposed blue awning the desired solution? (Hess: In our locations where we have awnings, they are canvas over metal frame.)  Are there stores without awnings? (Hess: Yes, that is more common. Awnings are typically for the quaint street locations.)  Is an awning needed here? (Hess: The storefront does recess in for shelter, but the awning adds a feeling that is a little more quaint. Would also suggest infilling with same subway tile) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  OK with the awning.  Like having transom windows, but not a big fan of canvas awnings. Would be interested in exploring some different options for the awning. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 13  As an “archetype” having a storefront with awning and transom windows above is a traditional order, but that can be done in various contemporary finishes and modern materials and still achieve that same effect.  In this instance they have gone with a 9-foot door, and effectively a transom window above that going up to the underside of the awning being proposed. There is also mechanical equipment shown behind where a transom window would be.  Would like to carry across the whole storefront. Want to match transom of the office door to match so it would carry across.  The office door creates a break between Kate Spade and the jeweler. Likes interplay between the Kate Spade space, and the taller element of the door to the offices with the transom. Commissioner Davis 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 June 14, 2013, sheets T-0, A-D, A-E and A-1 through A-6; 2. that the replacement tile on the façade and surrounding details shall subsequently be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a “FYI” item; 3. that the entrance door and surrounding trim of 1209 Burlingame Avenue shall subsequently be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a “FYI” item; 4. that any other changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. 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); 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 30, May 16 and April 12, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's May 23 and April 22, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal's April 15, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's April 18, 2013 memo shall be met; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that 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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 14 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 project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 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 Sargent. Discussion of motion:  Tile and surround detail come back for review as an FYI.  The replacement for the office door and surrounding elements at 1209 Burlingame Avenue come back for review as an FYI. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1-0 (Commissioner DeMartini absent, Commissioner Gaul dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:58 p.m. 7. 1462 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE IN AN EXISTING PARKING AREA (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; CATHY NILMEYER, ARCHITECT; WURLITZER TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER This item was pulled to allow renoticing. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1225 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SCOPING, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE, AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, SIX- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM. (PRIMEVERE, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; EDI INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER Reference staff report dated June 24, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner briefly presented the project description. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commission questions: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 15  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Alex Mortazavi represented the applicant:  Pilot project. Commission does not see very many of these.  Downtown Plan does not address small projects, 2 to 6 units.  On a project built across the street the water table was at 7 to 9 feet. Had to dewater it, build the structure like a boat. Very expensive – on a larger project it pencils out, on a small project like this it will not pencil out. A large proportion of the site will be eaten up by the parking garage ramp, there will be shoring and waterproofing.  W ould have to excavate entire lot to build underground.  Going underground is financially infeasible for a small project, it is also environmentally harmful because of the excavation.  Parking at ground level is more viable option for small project, either as townhouses or condominiums. Notion of “single family attached homes.”  Stacked units would require every single unit to be accessible per federal standards. Every unit and every room must be accessible. Accessibility is not from the California code; the California code only requires 10%, and it should be able to be converted. It is a new federal law. Having stacked units would require an elevator, 44” hallways, two fire exits, which ends up using about 20% of the building for circulation.  The lot coverage is 50%, so if 20% is taken out of that there is not a lot of volume to work with. 1,250 square feet ends up becoming 1,000 square feet units.  If look at an accessible bathroom in a commercial building, can see how large a powder room would need to be to be accessible. It is not practical for a small project.  Townhouses is preferred approach – single family residences attached, with individual garages and front doors.  Addressed most of the comments commission made. Most comments were about the front elevation. Has introduced cast stone window, arches with the cast stone, the roof, and corbels.  Since 1970s quite a few of these buildings have been built in Burlingame. There are not very many options available for projects like this with the cantilever.  Introduced a pedestrian gate on left next to the driveway, also provided additional entrance on the side with doors on the back. There is a gate, therefore pedestrians do not need to go past garage.  Height of chimneys has been reduced, cast stone detail on balcony.  6-unit building has been separated into two separate buildings of 3-units each. Creates a nice play area/softscape area in the middle with a trellis and a little waterfall area. The waterfall will diffuse noise from California Drive and the train, and also give peaceful setting for people to sit.  Archway between two buildings, and trellises for plants to grow.  Barbeque kept in the back.  Downtown Specific Plan requires high and medium density housing.  Nice way to provide high density, provide single family attached homes.  Front of garage is 24 feet from fence, and the other building is also 24 feet, so it is 48 feet away from next door neighbor.  Planter box to provide some streetscape and planting in front. Commission comments:  Does plans assume higher height to be able to stack taller cars?  (Mortazavi: Staff report is mistaken. On page A-06 the height of garage is 11’-1”. In some of the drawings the dimension is shown from the first floor, but the first floor is higher than the garage. The garage is 6 inches lower. It could be up to 7 inches taller, so that it is 11’-8” by adding one more CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 16 step. That will be able to accommodate a mini-SUV as well as a car. Also provided bicycle storage for two bicycles under the staircases.)  The design is much improved, the front elevation looks a lot better.  Separating the units into two buildings is great.  In specs for garage, recommends that parking system for garage be built separate from dwelling. Assuming because of noise. (Mortazavi: The sound proofing for the units needs to meet State building code. There are also many methods for reducing the sound. It is quite possible to make the garage soundproof. Any noise would be within each individual home, any noise outside would be similar to the garage door opener that would be there anyway.)  Was there consideration of having a garage in back of property with all the spaces in its own building, and then all the townhouses together without any cars. (Mortazavi: Does not work, with the stairway and the entry, so end up with a narrow townhouse. Limited amount of square footage on the ground floor, so needs to cantilever on the upper levels to get sufficient square footage for the living room, dining and kitchen. On a double lot it is different since there is more room, but on a two- to six-unit project it is difficult to do any other way.)  Like the design, but wondering if neighbors have expressed interest? (Mortazavi: Have not heard from neighbors.)  Could have gone with more contemporary design. The proposed design is something the Commission has seen a lot of, which is good since it blends in, but it would also be acceptable to introduce something new.  Concern with vibration with parking lifts units. Anticipating that the lifts won’t be used that much and some people will have just one car. Some lifts might get pulled out. (Mortazavi: Fire code requires two walls, with a 1-inch gap in between – connected, but in a way not connected). It’s a good solution, just concerned if it will be a problem for future buyers.  Other options for materials? It’s a traditional style but the built-up beams are made of stucco that is painted. From the rendering it looks more traditional, but up close might not feel real. Higher up on the GFRC columns won’t be as apparent, but at a lower scale that someone could touch it would be better to go with a real material. (Mortazavi: Does have a foam that looks like cast stone. The beam is an I-beam to support the cantilever, but can paint it dark to look like something a real corbel. Can also wrap it with wood and paint it so it looks like a real wood beam.)  Thought corbels would be wood, not stucco. Need to look and feel real, otherwise will look fake.  Would like to see a sample of the foam trim. There are variations, some of them do look like stone; others can look very fake like a stucco coating. (Mortazavi: Foam with a GRFC on it, similar to what is across the street. W ill bring sample).  Confused with window – says “w/o simulated.” Appears to be a typo. (Mortazavi: It is meant to say “with” simulated true divided lite.)  Would also like to see sample of tile roofing material. There are a lot of S tiles that look fake, versus some that are more genuine-looking.  Visitors would use a call box or intercom at one of the gates to get buzzed in? (Mortazavi: Yes. Video and intercom.) Wants a convenient way for visitors to come in.  Left gate has an archway. Gate on right looks like a back gate. If visitors are using right-hand gate, should have an entry element such as a fin wall with an entry gate similar to the fin walls with the chimneys. Would emphasize that it is the pedestrian entry.  When approaching from the left, will see the side of a thin wall supporting the cantilever. Would suggest adding a return to the wing wall at the garages so it looks more substantial. For the final presentation show some other perspectives showing what the building looks like from different approaches.  Landscape plan shows a common space at back for barbeques, but barbeques end up sitting in the back unused and rusting. Would encourage or ask if there is a momentum for garden plots – raised garden planters so that homeowners have access to a little section of herb garden that has irrigation and is secured so that people can grow some plants and have edibles. Better use for common open space. Victory garden. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 17 Public comments: Anthony Gally, 1206 Floribunda Avenue, spoke on this item:  Has a similar lot, would like to develop someday.  Supports this project and hopes to do the same in the future. Cooper Green, 1229 Floribunda Avenue, spoke on this item:  Moved to 1229 in January. Eight other tenants (not owners).  Good looking complex, but some windows will look into bedrooms and block some of the sky. Will need to draw blinds for parts of the day or night so people don’t look in.  Most tenants in the building have young children, so it would be difficult if have to have blinds drawn.  Concern with duration of construction, if it takes six months or a year. Concern with dust and particles entering homes with young children and having to have windows completely closed. Doesn’t have air conditioning so it would get very hot. Would be difficult without air conditioning.  Correct that there is 48 feet on the east side towards California Drive, but there is only 10-15 on the west side towards Primrose.  It looks like the project can go on for 7 days a week, even on Saturdays and Sundays. Will make it a challenge to have family time if there is construction going on nearby on Saturdays and Sundays.  Don’t want to block anything, just concerned with 7 days a week of construction. From 10 a.m. – 7 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 am – 6 pm on Sundays would be difficult. Commission questions and comments:  Are these common construction hours? (Terrones: It is everywhere. Normal construction allows for Saturday and Sunday work.)  Windows that will be facing building next door are on the second floor, above the garage floor. There is a stairwell window and a bedroom, but the living areas are on the other side. Most of the time people will be spending will be in the living areas. On the top floor there are two windows, both in the bathroom, and will probably have obscure or frosted glass.  There are requirements for dust control as part of construction, part of the building permit. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. There was no need for a motion regarding this item, as the item will automatically be placed on the Regular Action calendar when the applicant has modified the project as suggested and the environmental analysis is complete. This item concluded at 9:42 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 17, 2013:  The monument sign ordinance was adopted by the Council and will be effective in thirty (30) days. The Council reviewed the issue of the pedestrian trail leading from Davis Drive/Coronado Way to the Mills-Peninsula Health Services facility and determined that the hospital was in compliance with the Conditions of Approval. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 24, 2013 18 - City Council regular meeting July 1, 2013:  The request for a Conditional Use Permit to extend the automobile rental use at 778 Burlway Road has been appealed to the City Council by the applicant. The Council will review the appeal at its July 1, 2013 meeting. - There were no FYI items for review. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary