Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.08.26 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California August 26, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the August 26, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, and Terrones Absent: Commissioner Yie Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Approval of the August 12, 2013 meeting minutes was deferred until the September 9, 2013 meeting. Chair Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli to approve the minutes of the July 22, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 10, 8th bullet, window header trim was exaggerated and did not seem necessary.  Page 10, 10th bullet, columns could be spaced out more as an acceptable solution. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Yie absent). Chair Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Item 1, 1st bullet under Commission comments, need confirmation from the building management that there is concurrence.  Item 1, first paragraph, Commissioner DeMartini’s comment referred to a conversation with the owner regarding soundproofing between the business and neighbors, not the upstairs tenants.  Page 8, 1st bullet, different from the existing elevation showing the window. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Yie absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Gardiner announced that Item #9 will be continued to the September 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR None CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 2 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED CAC – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY (PURE BARRE) WITH CLASSES (ALYSSA BOTHAM, APPLICANT; MICHAEL NILMEYER, ARCHITECT; IAN PAGET, CORTINA INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had received a tour of the property. No other ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Planning Manager Gardiner presented a summary of the staff report, dated August 26, 2013. Commission questions and comments:  Can be a good use for the space, symbiosis with other uses in the area, can add some life to the street.  Wants to find reason for the variance. Ask applicant to re-address the variance – currently application implies that the use needs to go downtown and this would be the best place for it. Instead, needs to focus on the exceptional circumstances. Could emphasize the exceptional fact that a standard look at the parking requirement for this type of use would imply a certain number of parking spaces, but the classes will only be “x” size so there will only be a certain number of people on site. This could provide the exceptional circumstance to support the application.  If they have another operation that is similar, could they tell the Commission a bit about how it operates? Confirm the number of people in a class and the business works under that model.  Find out from building owner whether spaces in the building are assigned to tenants, to get a sense of how many spaces might be available for this particular tenant.  If the spaces are not assigned, would like to know if during the times the classes are scheduled would there be a lot of vacant spaces?  Reference of the tech building on Myrtle Road (270 East Lane application), the applicant did research of counting open parking spaces at various times of the day. Does not need to be a formal parking study, but something informal that could be helpful for supporting the variance.  If parking spaces are assigned, they should be indicated on site plan or floor plan. Also acknowledgement of paid public spaces across the street – the applicant is aware that there is a city lot that potentially the employees could park at or the clients would know about.  The applicant should address that there is only one bathroom. The Building Division comments indicate a need for two bathrooms.  Does not need to be a full-blown parking study, but maybe a parking consultant could write an expert letter that itemizes what everyone is commenting on. Could help clarify the issues and show there will not be a conflict.  Benefit of location is that it is close to shopping; someone who goes to the fitness studio might then go shopping at Burlingame Avenue. It could relieve some of the parking congestion currently experienced for shoppers. Could be a benefit for the city. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 3 2a. 1341 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARCO CAVALIERI, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item. Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the item based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Chair Sargent. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. 2b. 3072 ATWATER DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR AN INCREASE TO AN EXISTING PLATE HEIGHT FOR A SINGLE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ERIC NYHUS, NYHUS DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EMMELINE TRAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Davis was recused from this item. Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the item based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Chair Sargent. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner Davis recused). Appeal procedures were advised. 2c. 1012 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, WITH DETACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM ONE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MR. AND MRS. FRED BERTETTA III, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Davis moved approval of the item based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1109 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANDREW PECEIMER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) No Commissioners reported ex parte communications, and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated August 26, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent, Commissioner Terrones and Commissioner DeMartini noted that they were not present at the design review meeting for the item but had viewed the video. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Andrew Peceimer represented the applicant: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 4  In the last meeting there were some good ideas. After comparing neighboring houses windows and chimneys, made the changes to the plans.  Will be using Burlingame labor for air conditioner installation, construction.  Hope to have the additional bedroom to accommodate the family’s needs. Commission comments:  Can support the variance request, but noted that the variance application has not changed.  As justification for the variance, the applicant stressed that work was done on the house previously with permits that did not trigger the need for a variance or anything else as the number of bedrooms did not increase.  Justification for the variance would be the substandard lot size, the existing garage condition, and the existing structure that is not otherwise being affected. For the record, these would be the exceptional circumstances – not because of any past lack of oversight with a previous building permit application.  Still falling a bit short of findings for variance. Garage is short to begin with, then is exacerbated by having the washer and water heater and utilities in the garage. Changes to the design are good (chimney, windows), but with this extent of a remodel there is a solution where the parking could be resolved. Cul-de-sac may have additional sensitivity to parking.  The Commission sees a lot of substandard garages. The smallest one seen went to a lot of effort to show how the applicant’s Prius would be able to fit in the garage even though it was substandard. Because of the extent of the project there are elements that need to be brought into compliance (Green Points for example) that may not be on the wish list. The importance of the parking is not just because of the remodel, but because a bedroom is being added.  Possibility of putting the washer/dryer in the hall closet upstairs, could have an exterior-mounted tankless water heater, have a door out the side.  (Peceimer: Downstairs bedroom is being removed, so net change is adding another bedroom approximately 200-300 square feet. In cul-de-sac neighbor has three basketball courts. Very few neighbors use their garages. Lot is small and is trying to work with the scope of what is available. Cul-de-sac has plenty of parking during regular hours of the day – it’s not a busy street with limited parking. Reluctant to move utilities upstairs since point of the project is to add more living area, closet space.)  Is the minimum interior dimension for a garage is 18-feet? (Hurin: Minimum for an existing garage is 18 feet. However there are many cases in Burlingame where existing garages are less than 18 feet.)  Acknowledging that there are some steps that can be taken to make the garage larger, the problem is even if the washer/dryer, water heater and stairs were removed there would still need to be a parking variance. This would be a tipping point that makes it a hardship. (Peceimer: Traverse would not fit in the garage.)  For clarification, note on aluminum-clad windows indicates “simulated divided lites” but should indicate “simulated true divided lites.” Wants mullions on the exterior and interior, not a snap-in grid on the interior. (Peceimer: That is my understanding as well.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 5  Support for the variance: existing condition, substandard lot, no work being done to this part of the house. While there have been instances of applicants documenting how their car would fit in the garage, there have also been similar applications with substandard garages where the amount of work that would have been required to bring it into compliance would be too great.  Changes to the design are good, and there are hardships.  Does not seem to be a lot of traffic there, so parking will probably not be a big issue.  If removing washer/dryer, water heater and stairs meant the garage could comply, there would be less justification for the variance. Since it still would not comply, the variance can be supported.  In dissent, would like to see some effort to increase the size of the garage. While it would still be a substandard parking space, it would be more efficient to have the washer and dryer upstairs near the bedrooms and bath. Tankless water heaters can be mounted on the outside of the house. Would be more apt to accept the conditions for the variance had there been some effort to change the garage – right now it is impossible to park a car in the garage, but if the utilities were gone potentially a smaller car could fit. 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 July 31, 2013, sheets A-1 through A-6; 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 June 6, 2013 memo, the City Engineer's June 25, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 10, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's June 14, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 14, 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; 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, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 6 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. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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 14. 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:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1-0. (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner Gaul dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item finished at 7:40 p.m. 4. 1521 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER; ANGUS GAVIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he sent email to the owners of 1532 Drake Avenue to determine if there was agreement between the applicant and the neighbors. No other Commissioners reported ex parte communications, and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated August 26, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Angus Gavin represented the applicant: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 7  Was not at the first meeting, so had not been aware of the tree issue with the neighbors.  After last meeting met with neighbors right away, and agreed on landscaping. Understands their concerns, wants to build a nice project. Commission questions and comments:  Are there restrictions on what can be planted in the PG&E easement? (Gavin: Spoke to the vegetation department at PG&E, also referred to online “right tree right place” resource. There are a lot of recommendations but no real restrictions. Cannot plant anything over 25 feet directly under a line. They highly recommend not planting palm trees since they grow straight up. Recommendations on how to maintain anything that is planted underneath.) Public comments: Linda Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue, spoke:  Had been concerned about the style of tree. When the plans were revised they did not show the specific tree type and style. Some of the shrubs would only grow to the fence line. The tree that was verbally agreed on will be big.  Wanted to make sure it was in writing.  (Chu: The missing word on the plans was “standard.” It looks like a lollipop in shape.)  Not a columnar tree – instead it will give a canopy for privacy. (Chu: This is what we agreed on, we just missed the word in the notation. Prunus caroliniana standard, 24” box, spaced 6-7 feet.)  Drake Avenue has a lot of cars parked on it. Houses are not in keeping with space available, impacts neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. No discussion 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 August 14, 2013 sheets A.1 through G.1, L1.0, L2.0 and Partial Topographic Map; with the clarification that the particular species planted along the fenceline shall be the Prunus caroliniana standard. 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 City Engineer’s April 1, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's March 7, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s June 28, 2013 and March 12, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal's July 1, 2013 and March 4, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 25, 2013 and March 5, 2013 memos shall be met; 5. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 8 measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated February 27, 2013; 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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: 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 9 according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 5. 1616 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WITH A NEW DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED FORWARD OF THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (SUSAN L. KELLY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; EMILY BROWN, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN No Commissioners reported ex parte communications, and all Commissioners had visited the project site Reference staff report dated August 26, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission questions:  This application is only for a variance – it’s not subject to design review? (Hurin: Correct.)  Is that why there is no sign in front of the property? (Hurin: Yes.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Emily Brown represented the applicant, Susan Kelly attended as the property owner:  Available for questions. Commission questions and comments:  Coming down the stairs from the deck, is it required to have 36 inches clear on the landing down from the stairs? On A1.1 it does not look like there is a clear enough landing between the stair and the gate. (Gaul: Not sure if that applies, especially on the exterior.)  Spoken with neighbor to see if they have any issues? (Kelly: Has shared the plans with the neighbors. She was most concerned about the neighbor who borders the garage but has not heard any objections. The neighbors on the other side support the project.)  On the drawing the location of the stairs coming off the deck towards the garage do not seem to be in the right position. The existing site plan has the stairs leading to the wall, but the stairs actually lead to the door. When the garage is expanded, the stairs coming down from the deck will not be in front of the door, they will be in front of the garage. (Brown: Will check that.)  Does the side of the garage form the fence that the neighbor looks at? (Brown: Yes.) There needs to be coordination so that when the garage comes down there won’t be a fence. May need to coordinate with them to put up some temporary fencing. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 10 Commission comments:  Because of the location of the creek, it is physically impossible for them to meet the garage setback requirements of being in the rear 40% of the lot. Seems like a reasonable hardship.  Seems to be the norm on the block. The other houses are in the same situation and have done the same thing. Commissioner Sargent 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 August 5, 2013, sheets A0.1, A1.0 and A2.0 and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory structure shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the detached garage shall only be used for parking 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 Side Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s July 3, 2013 memo, the City Arborist’s July 9 and August 7, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's August 8, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator's July 15, 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 Davis. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. 6. 1225 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, 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 This item was removed from the agenda. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 11 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AMY GILLIS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Chair Sargent recused himself as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. Commissioner Terrones recused himself based on a business relationship with the school district that owns the adjacent property at Hoover School, and working through the school district with the prior property owner of the subject property. Chair Sargent and Commissioner Terrones left the chambers. Vice-Chair Davis assumed position of Chair. Commissioner DeMartini met with the husband of applicant. He had asked if the applicant had met with the neighbors located uphill from the property. No other Commissioners reported ex parte communications, and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated August 26, 2013, with attachments. Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  To clarify, the project approved previously had a 9’-1” plate height on the second floor? (Hurin: Yes.) Vice-Chair Davis opened the public comment period. Jack Chu represented the applicant, and Amy Gillis was present as the property owner. Commission questions/comments:  The house has a stately look to it. The present house looks a bit dwarfed, so making it this big will look a lot better.  Vinyl windows are being kept, and it shows the stucco around the windows on the second floor of the existing house will be taken out and new trim added to match to the new windows. If went a bit further and replaced those windows with the same style being used on the rest of the house the design would have more cohesion. It is up to the applicant whether they would want to do this, however – nobody else can see it from the street.  Design is very well done.  Would be helpful to know what the height above grade is. Add dimensions to exterior dimensions, Sheet A.5. (Hurin: Height from top of manhole cover is 38’-4”, close to front corner. This would be pretty accurate from adjacent grade. Also the lot has a cross slope, so this is from the lowest point. If a measurement were taken from the upper end of the lot it might be less than 30 feet. There has been a survey, so could check and see what other points near the house have been measured for reference.) (Gillis: Because the house sits down and in, it is difficult to see any neighbors when standing at the house.) Public comments: Paul Lynch, 2845 Canyon Road, spoke on this item:  Probably the closest house to the subject property. Cannot see the house from his property. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 12  When the project was first proposed he was in support, and he continues to be in support.  It is very tasteful and has not changed much from the original project.  Given the size of the property, there needs to be a stately house.  Has concerns with potential subdivision of the lot. It is an issue with him and with the neighbors. Would like subdivision to be discussed with how it relates to the new addition, since it would make the lot smaller. (Kane: Under environmental review if something is considered one project it cannot be divided up or piecemealed where one portion is reviewed but not the others. Understanding from staff is that is not the case here, where a particular approval would be linked to a potential lot line adjustment such that they need to be considered together as one project.)  On plans confusion with approved existing new footprint and an as-built existing footprint. Did not understand the approved and as-built conditions were for the new footprint. (Hurin: Will take a look at those numbers. As-built typically refers to existing. There have been some modifications done to the house with permits that did not require a public hearing or design review.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comments:  Likes the design but concern with the increased height. A number of the homes on Kenmar can be seen from the house. Nervous that if an additional six feet is added on top, the views from Kenmar will not be what they are today.  Not sure if story poles are warranted or not, but thinks they may be. Wants neighbors to know what an additional six feet would look like and make sure they are comfortable with it.  Would be more comfortable requesting story poles if there was someone at the meeting expressing concern or had received letters. Assuming all the neighbors in the area have been noticed and a sign has been placed in front of the property, would be reluctant to require story poles but would support the application being on the Regular Action Calendar rather than Consent.  Concern with relying completely on noticing – don’t know if neighbors are not home or on vacation, but assuming if they are not at the meeting they do not have an issue with it.  If it is brought back on Regular Action there will be two notices and two public hearings. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2-1 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. Chair Sargent and Commissioner Terrones returned to the chambers. 8. 824 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (ERIC GEE, DESIGNER; JOHN BRITTON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 13 No Commissioners reported ex parte communications, and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated August 26, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff:  What constitutes a bedroom? Does the wider opening on the study mean it is not considered a bedroom? (Hurin: If more than 50% of the room or wall is open to another room or hallway, it would not be counted as a bedroom.) Even with a closet? (Hurin: We do not look at whether or not it has a closet.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Gary Gee represented the applicant, and John Britton attended as property owner:  Available to answer questions. Commission questions/comments:  On the south elevation is there any reason why the hot water heater and furnace are not combined into one room? If they did there would only need to be one exterior door. Would be a little less costly to build and would look cleaner. (Gee: Nobody has ever asked us to keep it separate. Is the concern the view of the two doors on the elevation?) (Gaul: The separate appliances are required to have separate combustion air so would need to be in separate enclosures.) (Gee: Various jurisdictions require separate enclosures, we just made that assumption.)  Notes aluminum-clad wood windows in one area, vinyl clad wood windows in another area. (Gee: Front has aluminum-clad windows, back windows are vinyl. Could put the metal-clad around the building if consistency is a concern.) Heightened scrutiny on vinyl-clad windows, and there are simulated true divided lites with substantial grids. (Gee: We are receptive to that. Up for the quality look also.)  Why are the windows different? (Gee: Value engineering – thinking is vinyl could be used on the windows not facing the street.)  Difference in cost between aluminum-clad and vinyl-clad windows will not be hugely different. Preference would be for all of the windows to be the same. (Gee: It would be better to have all metal-clad windows throughout.) Aluminum-clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites is the preference.  Articulation on front and rear elevations is good for reducing the massing. Has there been thought given to the sides as well? Particularly the north elevation, seems massive. (Gee: North elevation is aligned with driveway adjacent. Thought the proportions would be correct viewed from the front elevation. Emulates some of the early arts and crafts homes in the area. It is set further back from the south property line. Didn’t think the north side was as obtrusive since it is not as close to the property line. There is also heavy vegetation so it will not be as visible from the street.)  Front and back nicely articulated, but the sides are still bulky and need some work. On the north side could take the upstairs bedroom window and pop it out as a bay or dormer to give some relief to the elevation. (Gee: Also there is not a piece of trim going across the break up the elevation. Could have an 18-inch projection at the window.) Brackets underneath a bay to support it.  Could look at adding a chimney to add some relief and a something vertical. It would add another element that would break up the horizontal line.  Right now there is 9-foot plate over a 9-foot plate, and it stacks up with a big stack on the bottom and a big stack on the top. Maybe do a 10-foot plate on the lower floor and an 8-foot plate on top, or 9’-6” and 8’-6” just to get a sense of base and top. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 14  The back elevation has a variety of materials, wood columns. The front elevation has a lot of shingles. Could have wood columns for the pilasters. (Gee: Could have wood pilasters.)  If trying to go for the early arts and crafts look, the 2 x 12 barge rafters do not say that. In the neighborhood a lot of the barges are 2 x 6 or 2 x 8 – smaller scale. (Gee: Could put another layer on it with a smaller piece to bring it down, it would look like a layered barge. Would look thinner at the edge.)  In neighborhood there are big front porches. The back porch is good, but the front seems too tall and skinny for the house. Would encourage increasing the size of the front porch. The neighboring houses all have porches capable of handling chairs and a sitting area. It is a quiet street and it would be a nice addition.  Another possibility with the plate heights would be to have 7-foot plate heights on some of the walls on the second floor and let the ceiling slope up. Would reach a 9-foot ceiling relatively quickly.  Could also have some bays or gable ends that would open up towards the driveway so the elevation does not look as flat.  Fireplaces can be a great architectural element even though it is a direct-vent fireplace. Since it is direct-vent the chimney would not have to be to the code of a wood-burning fireplace – it can just break the plane of the roof above it. A different material like stone could help break the side up.  Be sure to be aware of the 100 sq ft exception for porches that won’t count towards the square footage.  A porch is worthwhile even if it uses some of the interior floor area. People are very receptive to covered porches with shady areas to sit. Great for this environment.  The banding on the front elevation is good – would be nice to have that continue and have the windows and door come up to the height of the banding. (Gee: Had thought of a generous stoop entry but it could be expanded to a porch.) The door on the east elevation also seems squat compared to the windows. With the banding it would look good to have the same window and door head heights. (Gee: Could have an alignment of the heads of the doors and windows.) It would not be raising the sill of the door, it would be making it taller.  (Gee: The building is set back further than what is required so there may be some room to maneuver the porch and move one of the front walls on the ground floor to accommodate it. We are not at the minimum setback in the front.)  If the front porch is increased it could be nice to create more of a walkway from the sidewalk to the front porch, rather than a side access from the driveway. It would be a more direct shot at the front door. (Gee: Maybe a curved walkway.)  On the south elevation on the bottom right, the shingled portion above the pair of double-hung windows would be better trimmed out than shingled. (Gee: If it’s the header between two columns we can revisit that to make it wood.)  Garage door is not lined up with the gable, symmetrical. Is it because the landscaping is deeper on the left side of the garage? (Gee: Yes, the driveway is pulled away from the property line for the landscaping strip.) Public comments: The neighbor from 822 Linden Avenue (to the right/south of the subject property) spoke:  Concern about windows between the two houses lining up. Don’t want to have stairwell windows facing each other, or children’s bedrooms lining up facing other windows.  Appreciates what they are doing with the project, given the condition of the existing house.  Would rather not have to look at the doors of the water heater and furnace on the side of the house.  Landscaping – keeping tree in the back corner, but interested in what else will be planted for privacy issues between the two houses. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 15 Comments:  Looking at the south elevation, it looks like there are some opportunities to adjust some of the windows on the second floor. Perhaps the window at the stair could have a higher sill that still allows light into the stairwell but does not align with the sill on the neighbor. Window in the bedroom towards the front could probably be adjusted if it is a better alignment with the neighbors.  The design is close but needs some work.  Does not need to go to design consultant, they have a close enough start.  Come back on action since a number of things have been asked to be addressed. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 9. 1418 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEAN MARIE LABONTE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner DeMartini recused himself as he has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of the subject property. No Commissioners reported ex parte communications, and all Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated August 26, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant and Jean Marie Labonte attended as property owner.  Available to answer questions. Commission questions/comments:  What will second floor look like from the front elevation? Front elevation looks like it has a blank wall, but not clear from the side elevations. (Geurse: The addition is stacked in the rear of the residence. The wall being referred to is a parapet wall. Sheet A.6 shows the wall at Grid Line C. It’s the far wall, approximately 35 feet back.) Where in the floor plan? (Geurse: Sheet A.1, Grid Line C.) So putting anything in that wall would mean getting rid of the vanity and mirror? (Geurse: Yes.)  Design cleans the house up nicely. The additions are handled very gracefully.  Are the existing awnings in the front going to be removed or are they staying? (Geurse: Currently they are being removed. There will be wrought iron railings for the bottoms of the windows.) The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 16 existing metal awnings are ugly but it would be OK if they were canvas awnings and shading was still desired. They would add a nice element consistent with the Spanish Revival style. Could go either way, just clarify.  New wrought iron window boxes are shown in front. Will the existing ones be replaced? (Geurse: Yes, wants them to match.)  Existing chimney has some shoulders and it narrows up near the top. Will there be any changes to the chimney or will it stay as is? (Geurse: It will stay as is. Drawings will be corrected.)  Easily approvable project – massing handled tastefully.  Would like letters from neighbors or reports of conversations with neighbors, to ensure they are aware of the project. (Labonte: One neighbor is here in the audience.) Public comments:  None. The person referred to by Ms. Labonte waved but declined to speak. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Chair Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None 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 motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner DeMartini recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications: - City Council regular meeting August 19, 2013  Accepted. - FYI: 1540 Newlands Avenue - review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. - FYI: 1207 Burlingame Avenue - review of requested changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review Project.  Called up to be reviewed at subsequent meeting. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes August 26, 2013 17 XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary