Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.03.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION EWPL71N9Ak E APPROVED MINUTES Monday, March 12, 2012 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the March 12, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Terrones, Vistica, Yie and Cauchi (arrived at 7:38 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the February 27, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 11, Commission Comments, last bullet; revise to read: "what is being done with the open area between the bottom of the stair rail and the stair tread on the exterior stairs..." Page 13, first bullet at top of page; replace "door" with "gate". Page 13, Commission Comments, first bullet, second line; insert "historically" after "which". Motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 3018 ATWATER DRIVE, ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE -STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SAKKUBAI PRATHIKANTI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 12, 2012. Questions of staff: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 12, 2012 None. Commission comments: • Can see the rationale for the lot coverage variance given that the deep eaves and atrium of the Eichler -style home count towards the lot coverage. ■ Provide clarity as to the "need" for the project - Why is another bathroom being included next to the master bedroom that already has a bathroom? ■ Confirm that lot coverage calculations are accurate taking into account that the shed is being removed. (Strohmeier— numbers in the report are based upon staff calculations.) ■ Asked for clarification regarding counting the eave into the lot coverage. (Strohmeier — noted that anytime the eave extends to 24-inches or greater, the entire feature is counted toward the setback.) ■ Show how the mechanical systems will be installed to service the addition. 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 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi arrived and took his place on the dais. 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. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 9 KENMAR WAY, 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 (MARK ROBERSTON, MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LESLIE MCKNEW TR AND CARY M. PLATKIN TR, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:42 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLES 22 AND 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (SIGN CODE AND ZONING CODE) — PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE WOULD ADD REFERENCES TO THE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADD A MAXIMUM SINGLE SIGN SIZE IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE WOULD AMEND CHAPTER 25.33 TO CORRECT THE NUMBERING OF PERMITTED USES IN THE HMU ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated March 12, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 12, 2012 Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Expressed concern about wall signs covering all of the vertical space on a signable area — need to ensure that adequate "white space" is provided around signs. (Meeker — noted that the signage at "Five Guys" occupies roughly 62% of the vertical dimension of the sign band on that tenant space on Primrose Road — limiting the vertical dimension of signs to 60% would add one -inch above and below that sign; applying a 55% limitation would increase the "white space" above and below by two -inches.) Noted a preference for a 55% limit in the height of signage relative to the height of an identified sign band. (Meeker— noted that given that some signs may include upper-case and lower-case letters, staff will need to use discretion and will require that an average of 55% be required in such instances to provide flexibility in sign design and to ensure that signs are properly proportioned.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the amendments to the Sign Ordinance, with the following modification: To Section 22.48.020(b) — Signable Area; revise to read: "Sign area shall not exceed a maximum of eighty (80) percent of the signable area and no greater than fifty-five (55) percent of the vertical dimension of a designated sign band, and in no event shall the sign area be greater than the maximum sign area specified by this title for the zoning district in which the parcel is located. " The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4. 1480 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW CANOPY AND CONVENIENCE STORE AT A GAS STATION (ROGER ABUYAGHI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KATHLEEN WARMAN, WARMAN ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 12, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes March 12, 2012 Commissioner Terrones indicated that he had listened to the recording of the last Commission meeting when this matter was previously discussed on February 13, 2012 and felt prepared to participate in the discussion this evening. Questions of staff: Are there guidelines for monument signs and/or other similar site features on a corner? Does the monument sign comply with the City requirements? (Strohmeier — the prior design did not comply with the City's requirements; however, the current design complies, though it still requires Public Works Department and possibly CalTrans approval.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. John Campanile, 205C Main Street, Pleasanton and Roger Abuyaghi, 1480 Broadway; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Would prefer a smaller -scale monument sign; something more human -scale. May it be approved by the Commission later as an FYI? (Campanile — agrees — doesn't want to block the view of the store. Meeker — noted that the design of the monument sign is subject to administrative approval by staff — it is not under the purview of the Planning Commission.) ■ Likes the spandrel glass that has been added. ■ Agrees with the location of the bike rack along Broadway. ■ Would prefer a larger bench — could be more useable. ■ Appreciates the changes to the design, but wants to be certain about the details. ■ With respect to the EFIS system; does the designer have experience with such systems — consider using regular stucco? The west -facing wall could conceivably be problematic with cracking and leakage if the EFIS system is used. (Campanile — will likely revise this aspect of the design and use a regular stucco finish — will change accordingly.) ■ With respect to the plaster finish; consider a finish that has a more "old-world" somewhat irregular appearance — something that gives the appearance of having been present for awhile. This design element could comeback as an FYI item. (Meeker— concurred that the finish should comeback to the Commission as an FYI item.) ■ With respect to the cornice line below the eave on the corner element; what are the materials to be used? Smooth plaster over foam can be made to look like stone — this type of finish is preferable. (Campanile — will be foam. Meeker — a sample finish can be brought back as an FYI item.) ■ Is prepared to support the project if the "detail" items are brought back to the Commission as FYI items. ■ With respect to the variance; the property is a small, corner lot with circulation needs that limit how the site may be developed. Are making the site better. ■ Asked if "keep clear" markings could be placed on Broadway to prevent east -bound Broadway traffic from backing up traffic on El Camino Real. ■ On the front elevation, a light pole, traffic signal, City light pole and fire hydrant are present — have not provided details on the plans to demonstrate that handicapped access will be provided along these areas (public right-of-way) adjacent to the property - need to provide handicapped access on the sidewalk. Could be nice to have another antique light fixture on the property. (Campanile — the new signage will be placed on the property. All sidewalk improvements will comply with ADA, City and CalTrans requirements. Meeker/Guinan — all ADA requirements will be reviewed for 121 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 12, 2012 compliance through the plan check process with review by the Building Official and the Department of Public Works.) ■ Feels that certain items have not been completely studied — when a permit is issued what is built could appear differently. (Campanile — have addressed all questions and concerns that have been raised regarding the site development in the past. Will comply with any requirements that apply to the design of the sidewalks.) ■ Spoke to a CalTrans representative (Robin Pon) regarding El Camino Real frontage properties — noted that ingress and egress from El Camino Real for lots of less than 100-feet of frontage could affect the design - could cause the curb -cut to be reduced in width. Could provide the opportunity to install an additional tree. Assumes that the applicant has also discussed the maximum curb -cut allowed from Broadway with Public Works staff. ■ With respect to the canopy, what will the facing material be below the tiles? (Campanile — ACN panels as required by Conoco -Philips. There will be one "76" sign on each side. Are moving slowly with development of the plans due to the economics of the project.) ■ Asked for clarification regarding future changes as plans are refined in response to other agencies' requirements? Be certain to notify the Commission of changes before actually building the revisions into the project. (Meeker — if changes occur, the changes can be brought forward to the Commission as an FYI item.) ■ On floor plan, noted an error regarding the ACN panel note (Sheet A-101A — floor plan). Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Likes the project; feels it has come a long way. Agrees with comments regarding stucco finish. Are protected if changes are required by the Public Works or Building Divisions or any other regulatory agency which would affect the design of the building as approved by the Planning Commission, these changes would need to be brought back to the Planning Commission for further review. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 29, 2012, sheets cs and AS-101 through A-201; 2. that the exterior finish of the building shall be a stucco (three -coat plaster, not EFIS) finish — the finish of the stucco, as well as details and finishing of the cornice material to be applied below the roof of the corner element, a revision (subject to Department of Public Works approval) to include a street lamp that matches the City street light, and any additional changes required through the CalTrans and Department of Public Works approval processes, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review as an FYI, in advance of issuance of a building permit for the project; 3. that two 24-inch box Chanticleer Pear trees, or other species approved by the City Arborist, shall be installed in 3' square decomposed granite planters approved by the City in the sidewalk along 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 12, 2012 Broadway; if it is determined that the installation of these trees is not feasible due to the location of existing underground utilities, the location and number of street trees shall be subject to review by the Planning and Parks Divisions; 4. that any 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 City Engineer's October 27, 2011, July 22, 2011 and May 31, 2011 memos; the Chief Building Official's January 18, 2012, December 22, 2011, November 15, 2011, July 7, 2011 and May 24, 2011 memos; the Parks Supervisor's November 15, 2011 October 14, 2011 and June 1, 2011 memos; the Fire Marshal's October 24, 2011 and May 18, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 16, 2011 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; 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; 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 M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 12, 2012 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Lindstrom). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 2504 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RICHARD M. SARGENT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 12, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43d Avenue, San Mateo and Richard Sargent, 2504 Hillside Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ The existing bungalow looks tired. ■ With respect to the front elevation — appreciates the energy being placed to the front porch; the front elevation looks a bit top-heavy. Want to be certain that it has been studied adequately. Is there a different approach for the front that could place a secondary roof over the front porch that could reduce the top-heavy appearance? ■ Side massing is done nicely. ■ With respect to the exterior light fixtures — light fixture next to the bay bump -out next to the dining room; what is the purpose? (Chu — lights the driveway.) ■ Is concerned with potential neighbor impacts from the exterior lighting shown on the plans; unless there is a real purpose, consider impacts on neighbors or using landscape lighting as a substitute. ■ Feels that the front entry door needs to have a wider statement — feels out of proportion with the columns on the front porch. Could windows be provided, or a double -entry? (Chu — the entry is five - feet wide, not a single -person entry — could be a drawing error.) ■ Feels the brackets above the porch are out of balance with the substantial columns; not the correct proportion. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 12, 2012 Consider surfacing the "hallway" leading to the front door with a smoother material that is easier to walk next to, or of a different color. Asked if the existing home was a "family" home, or recently purchased? (Sargent — recently purchased.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called fora 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 Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Community Development Director Meeker noted that he would be absent from the March 26, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 5, 2012: Nothing to report. FYI: 1352 Vancouver Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — February, 2012: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 12, 2012 Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary