Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.04.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 23, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the April 23, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica, Yie and Cauchi (arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Gaul Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 2, Agenda Item 1 (1245 El Camino Real), Commission Comments, second bullet, replace "small" with "large". Motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Gaul and Cauchi absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted that the applicant for Agenda Item 3 (1102 Balboa Avenue) has requested that the matter be continued until the next available Planning Commission agenda (May 29, 2012). V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 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. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 23, 2012 1. 1325 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JARET AND SUSAN BUTLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran indicated that he will recuse himself from voting on this item, as he resides within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Gaul and Cauchi absent, Commissioner Auran recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:06 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 1032 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (CRAIG SUHL, APPLICANT; JAMES CHU, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 23, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Craig Suhl, 1032 Balboa Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ Felt the horizontal siding on the entry gable would look better with the design. ■ Thought that the composite shutters would work well and last longer; can't see that much of a difference. ■ With respect to the fluted columns; decided to revise the design as built as he felt it would look better. ■ Wasn't attempting to undermine the Commission's decision; looking back he likely wouldn't have made the changes in advance of Commission approval if he had known that an amendment would be required. ■ Neighbors have congratulated him on the improvement to the property. ■ Requested approval of the revisions that were made. Commission comments: Was he planning on submitting a letter requesting approval of the changes — he has developed other properties in the area? (Suhl — didn't feel that the changes to the aesthetics that were made in this instance would be significant. Had he had more experience with "Colonial" design, he wouldn't have proposed the original design elements.) 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 23, 2012 ■ Doesn't have a problem with the shutters and the columns; but notes that the side lights at the entry were to be simulated true divided -light, but have been installed as single pane. ■ The success of many projects is based upon following through with the details through the construction process. ■ Knows that as a "spec" house, the finances need to "pencil out". When projects are built to the maximum (or near maximum) FAR, then a lot of money goes into building the square footage and interior finishes. ■ Likely would have approved the column design. ■ Is "ok" with the material of the shutters, but noted that the original shutters were more proportional to the window and gave the appearance that they could be functional — the installed shutters are purely ornamental in design and appearance. The narrow width to the shutters makes them look non-functional. ■ Felt that the pediment at the front gable appears a bit "odd"; preferred the arch of the original design. Is also concerned about the "turned -in" eaves that have been eliminated. (Suhl — felt that aesthetically, the revised design of the eaves and the entry pediment worked better.) ■ Understands that design still occurs during the construction process; however it comes down to whether or not the Planning Commission feels that the design still works with the alterations. ■ Feels the changes are miniscule that they should be approved; the original shutters weren't proportional either. ■ None of the changes appear problematic; none of the "Colonial" design homes are truly of that type; they were originally designed to be appropriate for the area in which they were built — what occurs in this area is an "interpretation" of the style. ■ Feels the design holds together well as revised; but could see making some of the details more authentic. ■ Would have been better to have submitted for approval of the changes prior to building them into the project. ■ Recalls making the comment to the designer (perhaps on this project, or another project) that the shutters needed to be of a design that they appeared authentic. The shutter on the drawing is shown larger than the "installed" product. Would like to see larger shutters. ■ Felt the original design of the pediment looked nice; but can accept the current design. ■ The width and the material of the shutters are of concern. Public comments: Diana Hicks, 1020 Balboa Avenue; spoke: The prior home on the property was an absolute "shack" — can't believe that the Commission is picking apart the design at this point. The home is magnificent; beautiful inside and out. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The original design was better looking, but it is not that far out of character with the revisions. The home is very handsome. Would have liked to have seen the shutters installed as originally approved, but can approve it as revised. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 23, 2012 Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 2, 2012, building elevations; and date stamped July 12, 2011, sheets A.1 through A.3, and A.6 through Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 13, 2011 and June 10, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's June 27, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 13, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's July 13, 2011 and June 14, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 13, 2011 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; April 23, 2012 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the 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 according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Supports the motion with some reluctance. Has a concern about approving such changes without prior Commission approval. after they have already been made in the field Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Gaul absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m. 3. 1102 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ALVIN YANG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN This item was continued to the May 29, 2012 agenda at the request of the applicant. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 23, 2012 4. 316 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHRIST SANDELL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, STRATHDEE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 23, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Fred Strathdee, 108 East Court Lane, Foster City; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Doesn't see a "bed wall" in the upstairs bedroom. (Strathdee —originally had higher windows in the design, but didn't determine where the bed would be placed, so the windows were made taller.) ■ Asked how the new roof pitch complements the existing roof line? (Strathdee — is of the same pitch.) ■ Commented regarding the placement of windows right at the roof line; this may be problematic. ■ There is a large blank wall on the upper, east elevation. ■ Likes how an effort has been made to complement the existing design. ■ Can something be done to revise the roofline to make it look less like an addition and more like part of the original home. Calls attention to itself — need to attempt to make the design more integrated. ■ There could be an issue with the front windows into the master bath — look at this and ensure that it can be achieved without need for a later FYI. ■ Feels that plan flows nicely, but need to make an effort to better integrate the roof lines. (Strathdee — have a wrap -around window at the stairs; extending the roof around would have impacted the window.) ■ Perhaps look at providing a dormer at the stairs. (Strathdee — this was the appropriate location for the addition as it is near a prior addition.) ■ Noted that a window is missing into the stairway shown on the west elevation; though it is shown on the floor plan. ■ On the "AS' elevation; the window over the water closet — is the window actually shown at the top of the plate? Is the ceiling vaulted? (Strathdee — it was the intent that the area be vaulted.) Public comments: None. 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 RegularAction Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 23, 2012 Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Gaul absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:51p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 16, 2012: ■ The proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance were introduced; adoption is scheduled for May 7, 2012. ■ The appeal of the Extenet wireless communications matter was upheld by the City Council for six (6) of the eight (8) sites, but denied for two (2) of the sites. FYI: 107 Loma Vista Drive — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1596 Columbus Avenue — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 7