Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.07.08 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, July 8, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the July 8 , 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, Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Sargent to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 5, final paragraph before Item 5; insert “The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable” after the voice vote notation.  Page 6, third bullet from the top of the page, second sentence; replace “Spike” with “Spoke”.  Page 8, ninth bullet from the top of the page, second sentence; delete second “will not”.  Page 8, ninth bullet from the top of the page, final sentence in parentheses; replace “The” with “There”.  Page 15, fourth bullet from top of the page; delete second “on”. Motion passed 7-0-0-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted that, based upon a conversation between the City Attorney and the applicant’s representative (Mark Hudak), Agenda Item 5 (1442 and 1460 Burlingame Avenue) is to be deferred until the July 22, 2013 agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 8, 2013 2 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1130 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXPAND THE OUTDOOR PATIO SEATING AREA AND TO INCREASE THE HOURS OF THE USE OF THE PATIO AREA OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (SAHARA RESTAURANT) (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYERS ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RALPH T. BEHLING TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated July 8, 2013. He noted a letter received after distribution of the packet from the property owner. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had a conversation with a waitress at the restaurant regarding tenants on the property – she was not aware of any problems. Commissioner De Martini noted that he had a conversation with the owner of the restaurant regarding soundproofing between the business and neighbors. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Questions of staff:  None. Commission comments:  Need confirmation from the building management that there is concurrence with the expanded hours of operation for the patio proposed by the applicant.  Provide a summary of closing hours for other restaurant uses within the area, particularly those that are close to other residential uses.  Seek concurrence from Walgreen’s permitting the relocation of the rubbish and metal storage containers.  Receive clarification regarding where employees park for the business.  Where will customers be encouraged to park? Is parking for food establishment uses handled the same as on Burlingame Avenue?  Describe noise impacts from the current patio operation – how significant are the impacts?  Check Police records to determine if complaints have been received relative to the existing patio configuration.  Are there any other residential units in close proximity to the patio area that could be impacted?  Is the use of hookahs on the property allowed; are they an impact upon tenants and adjacent uses? 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 7:13 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 2. 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 __________________________ CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 8, 2013 3 Commissioner Yie 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 Gaul. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 2208 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NOT SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW) (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYERS ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND ROBIN WATSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 8, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Questions of staff:  If the variance is approved and a future homeowner subsequently wished to increase the square footage, would that owner be required to seek Commission approval? (Meeker – yes, unless the restrictions on lot coverage were changed.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer represented the applicant:  The project was revised to eliminate the request for the side setback variance.  The existing home falls far below the maximum FAR allowed and the existing residence already exceeds the lot coverage maximum.  The lot is less than 5,000 square feet in area, smaller than other lots in the area.  Very small addition is proposed.  Are attempting to keep the remodeling of the second floor within the existing roof plane as much as possible.  The projection requiring the variance is to provide access to the second floor without making changes to the super-structure of the second floor. The extra 8.5 inches helped to create extra ceiling height to get to the second level.  Noted a letter from the neighbor to the left concurring with the plan. Commission comments:  Noted an error in the table in the staff report. (Strohmeier – indicated that the information in the text of the report is correct, the table is incorrect.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 8, 2013 4 Additional commission comments:  Bulk of work is within the existing envelope.  Are attempting to work with the existing structure.  Concerned that the lot is not truly that much different in area than other lots in the area; nearly one- half of the lots in the area are substandard – not sure where the threshold would be for granting a variance. Concerned that approval of the variance may set a precedent. (Strohmeier – noted that the minimum lot area in Burlingame is 5,000 square feet; though the typical lot area in the Easton Addition is 6,000 square feet.)  Believes the variance is supportable – the mitigating factor is that they are building within the existing volume. The dormers will have a less than significant impact upon the massing.  Zoning regulations are written around the common lot configuration – this lot would not be allowed to be a lot today as it is only 4,900 square feet in area. Most regulations are crafted based upon an assumption of the 6,000 square foot lot area. The applicant hasn’t exceeded the FAR for the lot.  Are not saying that because the lot is substandard this is carte blanche for exceeding the standards.  The Commission is not setting aside the issue of lot size; lot coverage and FAR relate to that factor.  The coupling of the substandard lot with the existing massing of the house in this instance, should allow the property owner to make improvements that do not result in a lot of impact.  The overage is only 86 square feet. 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 date stamped June 26, 2013, sheets P1 through P6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Building Division’s June 4 and April 12, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s April 22, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s April 15, 2013 memo, the Parks Division’s April 12, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator's April 18, 2013 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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; 5. 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 6. 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 Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 8, 2013 5 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 7:30 p.m. 4. 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 (NOT SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW) (KRISTIN BERGMAN, BERGMAN DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID SANDERSON AND KATHRYN FISHER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 8, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Questions of staff:  Is storage area in the lower level included in floor area? (Strohmeier – yes.)  If the space were altered by adding a vestibule to separate the entry from the garage, could it then become a bedroom? (Strohmeier – this may be possible, but a minimum ceiling height of 7’-6” is required.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Kristen Bergman represented the applicant.  The Building Division requires a 7’-6” ceiling height in the storage area for it to be considered habitable area. Commission comments:  Is a bit more conflicted on this application because greater floor area is being requested. Are adding to existing massing that is already there, so this makes the addition more palatable.  There isn’t the argument to be made that the lot is not comparable to other lots in the area.  Are only asking to increase from two to three bedrooms.  Requested clarification of the argument for the variance. (Bergman – are adding floor area within the existing massing, the variance is not based upon the small lot area. Are not adding to lot coverage.)  Feels that they ought to be able to use massing that exists.  How many square feet of area are being counted as floor area that can’t truly be used as habitable area? (Bergman – the entire lower area adjacent to the garage.)  Is appreciative of preserving the existing structure and its existing features; this supports the request.  Could detach the garage and exempt it from the floor area, but would be a greater impact upon the neighborhood.  Is problematic to add a bedroom without demolishing portions of the structure.  Noted that the storage area could be converted to living space without permits at some point.  Is appreciative that the homeowners want to stay at the location. The home has charm and character.  Likes the design, it is done well.  There are compelling reasons to approve the application. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 8, 2013 6 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 conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 17, 2013, sheets A.01 through A3.0 and Topographic Map, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s April 1, 2013 memo, the Building Division’s May 17 and March 15, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s March 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s March 18, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's May 21 and March 18, 2013 memos shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the floor area ratio and parking variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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; 5. 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 6. 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 Sargent. 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 7:43 p.m. 5. 1442 AND 1460 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 Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the matter until the July 22, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, based upon the applicant’s representative’s (Mark Hudak’s) concurrence with the City Attorney’s desire to review the basis for the variance more closely prior to having the matter reviewed by the Planning Commission. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 8, 2013 7 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Chair Sargent recused himself as he resides within 500-feet of the property. 6. 1412 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ATTACHED CARPORT WITH A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (JODI AND MARK CAMPION, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ROBERT NEBOLON, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 8, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Questions of staff:  The office is not considered to be another bedroom? (Strohmeier – access is provided from another room. The family room and office count as one bedroom.)  Do the storage area and den in the basement count as bedrooms? (Strohmeier – because the den is open to the staircase, it is not considered to be a bedroom. The storage area has direct access to the garage; without a vestibule, it can’t be considered a bedroom.) Vice-Chair Davis opened the public comment period. Robert Nebolon and Jodi Campion, represented the applicant.  Similar to a project proposed around ten years ago.  House has up to five bedrooms counting the den.  Want to match the new windows to the old windows.  Want the addition to match the existing structure as best as possible.  The addition stays within the footprint of the existing carport while providing covered parking that can be accessed from within the house. Commission comments:  Admires the house; loves the entry.  Believe the massing is very simple – trying to turn the carport that doesn’t fit the structure into something that does.  Have the owners approached the neighbors at 1406 Drake? (Campion – the neighbors are very aware of the program for the addition and have no problem.)  Encouraged looking more closely at the type of garage doors that will be provided? (Nebolon – had a similar discussion regarding the doors the last time and provided doors with glass. Doesn’t object to doing so with this project.)  Likes the design. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 8, 2013 8  Regarding the windows in the bedroom to the left on the first floor; looks like the window has already been changed as it is different from the existing elevation showing that window. (Campion/Nebolon – doesn’t plan on changing the window as it has been replaced previously.)  Asked about the bars on the windows. (Nebolon – will be removed.)  Feels that the garage doors could be improved to better integrate into the window pattern on the house.  Asked if the declining height envelope is determined from the property line? (Strohmeier – yes.)  Clarified that the existing roof material will be matched on the addition. Encouraged looking at a material that allows the new roofing material to be used to match the pattern of the existing roof. (Nebolon – will look at alternatives.)  Wants to see the roofing material determined sooner rather than later – provide a brochure for the roofing material.  Would like the designer to determine a means of continuing the pattern of mismatched windows; perhaps use divided light windows over the garage like on the left front elevation.  Is the existing living room window original to the construction? (Nebolon – would need to review the construction of the window to determine this. Suspects that cheaper wood windows were used when they were replaced in the past.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Chair Sargent recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:07 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 July 2, 2013:  The City Council granted the appeal of Vanguard Properties re: the extension of the conditional use permit for 778 Burlway Road – the permit was extended for a period of two years. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 8, 2013 9 XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary