Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.05.29CITY O dl 9 o�coHnT I. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Tuesday, May 29, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California Chair Gaul called the May 29, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; Civil Engineer Doug Bell and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. ROTATION OF OFFICERS The annual "Rotation of Officers" occurred; the following are the Planning Commission Officers for the next year: Chair: Michael Gaul Vice -Chair: Tim Auran Secretary: Richard Sargent IV. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the May 14, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 3, Commission comments, first bullet: delete "is" after "Church" ■ Page 3, Commission comments, ninth bullet: insert "on -site "after "double-park"and "roadway"in the second line. ■ Page 8, Additional Commission comments, first bullet: replace "food" with "foot" in the second line. Motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent). V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. VI. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 regarding Agenda Item 1 (1365 Drake Avenue) as his firm has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers. 1. 1365 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO LEGALIZE CONVERSION OF A DETACHED GARAGE TO A RECREATION ROOM (DREILING TERRONES ARCHITECTURE, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JORGE AND MICHELLE TAYLOR, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 29, 2012. Commission comments: ■ In favor of the project since it is a modest change and continuation of an existing condition — has a carport been explored as a covered parking solution? ■ Sees no reason to consider granting a variance for not providing covered parking. It would appear to be easy to provide a porte-cochere or a modest carport without significantly impacting the rear yard and eliminating the need for a variance. ■ The side setback variance and the conditional use permit are acceptable. ■ A carport may help to provide storage on the property. ■ Referenced a prior project on Laguna Avenue where a carport was approved as a covered parking solution. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. 2. 1132 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW BASEMENT AND A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARK SILVA & DARCI FLETCHALL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 29, 2012. Commission comments: ■ Asked why showers are not allowed in the basement? (Strohmeier — to discourage secondary dwelling units.) ■ Like the seamless appearance of the addition. ■ Ask the designer to look at a more natural location for the bathroom in the basement. ■ Would like to see the item back on the Consent Calendar. ■ Would like a soils report to be prepared? There could be water issues in the area that may affect drainage. (Bell —a geotechnical report is required for the project.) ■ Will not review the soils report from a technical standpoint, but could help to inform the decision regarding the special permit. ■ The roof line blends with the original design of the house. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 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. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 3 (1102 Balboa Avenue) as he has a business relationship with the project architect. He left the City Council Chambers. 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 (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 23, 2012PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETINGAT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Believes it is still a nice project, most changes are not substantive, except the changes along the driveway side (right elevation), the elimination of the windows in bedroom two removed some of the detail and articulation on that elevation — needs more details, perhaps a small window, off to the side to provide articulation. (Chu — can move one of the front -facing windows to that wall.) Perhaps provide three transom windows in bedroom two along right elevation. Accepts replacing the arched window with a rectangular window on the front, but still feels like something is missing; perhaps provide a transom window at the top on the front elevation. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 Commissioner Terrones 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 March 14, 2012, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L1.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that the design of the right elevation at bedroom two shall be modified to include an additional window(s), and an additional window shall be provided on the front elevation at the stairwell; these changes shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to building permit issuance; 3. 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); 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 16, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's March 21, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 19, 2012 memo, the City Arborist's April 11 and March 20, 2012 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 16, 2012 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 7. 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; 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 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; 10. that the project shall complywith 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; 11. 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 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 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; 14. 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; 15. 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; 16. 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 17. 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 4. 316 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHRIS SANDELL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, STRATHDEE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Fred Strathdee, 108 East Court, Foster City; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Still disappointed in the drawings; there are attic vents shown on the elevations that are not shown on other portions of the plans. ■ Need details regarding the flashing to be provided where the windows meet the roof. (Strathdee — raised the windows to provide sufficient clearance. The gable windows in the bathroom are provided because they are in a bathroom and are intended to preserve privacy while providing light.) ■ The drawings remain incomplete. ■ Noted that there is adequate space to provide flashing where the windows meet the roofline; the plans are well thought out. ■ Need to provide more gable end details, including attic vents. (Strathdee — suggested adding these details to match the existing features.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Terrones 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 May 15, 2012, sheets Al, A3 and A4 and date stamped April 3, 2012, sheets A0, A2, A5, House Location and Elevation Study and Landscape Layout; 2. that attic vents shall be added in the gable ends on the south elevation, upper gable on the front elevation, and on the north and rear elevations, to match existing attic vents elsewhere on the home; 3. 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); 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 20 and February 22, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's February 29, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 21, 2012 memo, the City Arborist's February 27, 2012 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 20, 2012 memo shall be met; W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 6. 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; 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 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; 10. 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; 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 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. 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; 14. 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 15. 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:31p.m. 5. 2841 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL, SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND AN UNCOVERED DECK FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PAK LEE, SEDES ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT: EILEEN OUYANG. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Pak Lee, 4695 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara; represented the applicant. Reviewed the issues raised by neighbors regarding the trees — do not wish to add landscaping that blocks the views. Commission comments: ■ Why is the new tree being provided within the corner of the rear yard? Are there three or four existing trees in the rear yard? The arborist refers to four existing trees within the rear yard. (Lee — the fourth tree is being provided in order to comply with the City's requirements.) ■ Could there be a tree planted in the rear yard that won't grow to block views across the property — would like clarification from the City Arborist. (Strohmeier — clarified that the fourth tree is required by the code. Meeker — can work with the Arborist to determine an appropriate species that will reach a height that does not block the views.) ■ Met with the adjacent neighbors as well as the neighbor on the street to the rear— it appears that if a large tree is placed in the rear yard, then it will block views. Consider planting a tree that is not only slow -growing, but will not reach a height that blocks views. • Is there any reason why the street tree is placed at the location shown; could it be placed further downhill — is it required by the City? By placing it at the location shown, it could block views. (Lee — required by the City, and clients would prefer it not to block the front door.) ■ The story poles do not show the deck outline, but there could be the potential for some views blocked from activities on the deck. There could be some potential view blockage from the downhill neighbor. ■ Requested clarification regarding the location of the new deck; is it at the existing floor height adjacent to the existing deck? How does it compare in size? (Lee — the new deck will extend out seven feet from the structure; doesn't have information regarding the existing deck.) ■ What type of railing will be provided around the deck? There are some options that could be impactful upon views. (Lee — noted that the guard rail is to be glass.) ■ Have required a condition requiring trees to be trimmed to a height that doesn't exceed the roof height. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 ■ Doesn't necessarily believe that the deck will be a problem from the uphill property. ■ Agrees that given the grade differences between properties there are likely no impacts from the decks. ■ Neighbor's concern seemed to be more about the guard rail. ■ Clarified that the roof deck on the lower level addition is the same level as the adjacent floor. Public comments: Michael Gross, 2845 Frontera Way; Silvia (no surname given), 2824 Las Piedras Drive; Benson Chou, 2841 Frontera Way; and Kim Chew, 2833 Las Piedras Drive; spoke: ■ Concern was about view blockage from two trees added that will block views and the rear addition to the structure — it will impact the view. ■ There is a patio provided at the ground level, but a balcony is being added that is raised. ■ With respect to the tree at the rear of the lot; concerned about enforcement of a tree -trimming condition. (Meeker— clarified that though such a condition has been imposed in the past, it is better to require a species that will only reach a specific height as the condition is difficult to enforce.) ■ Spoke to the relocation of the street tree and the view blockage — requested that it be moved to the far eastern side of the driveway on the property — would create an impetus for the property owner to keep it trimmed to prevent blocking his own view. (Strohmeier — can work with the Arborist to determine the acceptable location.) ■ Anything over six- to eight -feet will block views within the right-of-way. ■ With respect to the rear addition; looking at the proposed rear elevation diagram, there is an existing patio at the ground level. However; the deck atop the addition will be higher than the existing patio; it is a balcony, something that doesn't exist today. His view will be blocked by the addition. (Commissioner — what is the difference between the speaker's floor -level versus the proposed addition — it appears to be about an eight foot difference.) ■ Views will be completely blocked from certain areas of his home by the addition. Can the deck and rail be framed -out? (Commissioner— asked if story poles could be used forthis purpose? Meeker — yes.) ■ Cannot control or enforce what will be placed upon the balcony — could ultimately face view blockage. ■ Is concerned about blockage from the deck on the east side of the structure. (Commissioner — doesn't see that the deck is raised according to the plans. If the deck were shorter would it still impact the views?) ■ Asked for additional review of the configuration of the deck and impacts upon the views. ■ Concerned that the deck addition will impact privacy of her property. (Commissioner — asked how much of the applicant's home can be seen?) Can't tell how much the addition will impact the view. (Commissioner — there is quite some distance between the homes; there is not likely going to be an impact. Strohmeier — clarified that the new deck is only seven -feet deep and will be at the same level of the adjacent floor.) ■ Want to have as small a tree as possible planted within the rear yard so as not to impact the views from the subject property. ■ The new tree will be placed in front of the existing tree and will be limited to sixteen feet in height and planted in front of the existing trees. ■ The new deck is less than one-half the size of the existing area enclosed by the guard rail leading downstairs. ■ Want to create an area to walk outside where access to the rear -yard can be gained. ■ Feels that the change in the roofline will impact views to the SFO runways. ■ Trees will take away more of the view. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 (Commissioner — asked Chew to provide contact information to facilitate access to the property in the future.) Additional Commission comments: The drawings are somewhat deceiving; the deck is actually being built upon the grade line. Show the rail. Imperative to provide this level of detail and clarification. Perhaps provide elevations. If the wood deck is only one -foot off of grade, then a guard rail would not be required. Help the neighbors understand that a rail will only be provided along the roof deck. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Noted that the neighboring property appears to be ten -feet above the subject property and will not be impacted by the addition and the deck. ■ Would like to see clarification regarding the outline of the roof deck (with story poles) to verify the true impacts of the deck. ■ Provide contact numbers for neighbors and property owner. ■ Provide more information regarding the appropriate tree within the rear yard that will not exceed height and the placement of the street tree. ■ Would be helpful to show the grades of the abutting lots to provide some perspective. ■ Provide an existing site plan for comparison purposes. ■ Provide access to the rear. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant as indicated in the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. 6. 101 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED CAR - APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KENT PUTNAM, APPLICANT; HUGH HYNES, PROTO ARCHITECTURE, LLP, ARCHITECT; 101 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 Alan Frost, 566 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: On the front elevation; there is shaded area flanking the customer entry — is that a color change? (Frost — yes, will be a hard edge with a color change.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. 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 19, 2012, sheets A.001, D.201, D.301, A.201, A.301 and A.302 and date stamped May 11, 2012, sheets A.101, A.401, A.402 and A.003; any changes to the exterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 20, 2012 memo, the Park Supervisor's April 24, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's May 14, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 23, 2012 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 24, 2012 memo shall be met; 3. 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; 4. 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); 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 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; 7. that the project shall complywith 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; 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9. 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:\ 10. 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 Division; and 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc. according to the approved Planning and Building plans The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. will inspect and note compliance of the ) to verify that the project has been built Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. 7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) — PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ALLOW UP TO THREE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) ZONE WITHIN DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME. STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report. Questions of staff: ■ Asked how the two vacancies count into the 44 total restaurants? (Meeker — the vacancies are included in the current count as they are already approved as food establishments.) ■ Asked if this approach is considered spot zoning? (Guinan — not spot zoning since it encompasses the entire street.) ■ What type of controls will the City have to ensure that there are no phony applications? (Meeker — indicated that the Planning Division will only accept complete applications where the proposed food establishment operator is identified and is a party to the application.) ■ How do you draw a distinction between food service and retail when a business includes both aspects? (Meeker — is based upon the definitions in the code, which address seating area and other factors. The City Council direction only suggests consideration of "full -service" food establishments.) 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Commission comments: None. Public comments: Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road and Greg Terry, 1440 Chapin Avenue and Ben Neilson, 1260 Burlingame Avenue; spoke: ■ Noted that difficulty of replacing tenants within the 1400 block of Burlingame Avenue and Primrose Road, north of Burlingame Avenue. ■ Is getting harder and harder to find tenants. ■ There are retail spaces sitting vacant on Burlingame Avenue that are receiving no interest from retail tenants; however, there has been restaurant interest in a couple of spaces that are not yet available for restaurant use. ■ If approved, the amendment will be a huge shot -in -the -arm for Burlingame Avenue. ■ Are beginning to see that restaurants help to bring people into the downtown and help support the retail shops. ■ Noted that increase in activity at Howard Avenue and Primrose Road due to the new food establishment uses in that area. ■ The vacancies in the area are not helping anyone. ■ Noted that he can't name names of the proposed businesses that are interested. ■ Has several strong restaurant operators that can bring something different to town. ■ None of the entities have competition in town currently. ■ One of the biggest complaints from customers is the lack of parking within the Downtown — has been a problem for the past 20-years. ■ When he opened his business 20-years ago, it had a much more "village" feel. ■ The economy is not what it was previously; the regulations were created to preserve a healthy economy. ■ Would rather have a community of businesses that are doing well, than a struggling community. ■ The community asks how many restaurants can be supported — there needs to be a balance. ■ There is a point of diminishing returns — pay attention to the health of the community. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed Additional Commission comments: ■ Has been concerned about the number of vacancies in the 1400 block of Burlingame Avenue. ■ The parking will always be a problem. • Would be excited by having a bigger name restaurant coming in to the City. ■ Agrees with Hudak's comments regarding restaurants driving the vitality of the Downtown. ■ There is a void in the 1400 block of Burlingame Avenue. ■ Feels that there is merit in the proposal. • Could encourage the retail businesses to stay open later. • Concerned that the ordinance is directing too closely to specific locations. ■ Agrees with opening up the restrictions. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment to the City Council. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Chair Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8 (1423 Laguna Avenue) as he owns property within 500-feet of the subject site. He left the City Council Chambers. 8. 1423 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES EXISTING ON SITE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED ONE -CAR GARAGE (STEPHANIE AND MINESH SHAH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARTINKOVIC MILFORD ARCHITECTS. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Auran opened the public comment period. Brian Milford, 520 Sutter Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Feels the design approach works in this instance. ■ Would help if there was some sort of small window added in the work area on the second floor— this area is very visible from the driveway side and will help from the front view. ■ Feels the project is supportable. ■ Appreciates the desire to keep as much yard space as possible. ■ No problem with shifting the garage from two -car to a one -car garage. ■ Complemented the write-up accompanying the application. ■ Feels the addition is a bit massive; did the applicant consider placing it on the other side. (Milford — considered how the addition would affect light into neighbors' properties. The design approach also preserves privacy within the rear -yard on the property as well.) ■ Critical to work with the client and the builder to ensure that the project is built as designed. (Milford — have been doing preliminary pricing to address this issue.) Public comments: 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 1► 6no There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Auran 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 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:02 p.m. Chair Gaul returned to the dais. 9. 2525 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MOMENTUM BUILDERS, APPLICANT; BRITT ROWE, ARCHITECT; PETER AND CHERYL JAUNICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Jamie Pantuso, 2762 Filbert Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Nice design. ■ Is there an opportunity to pull in the addition? It is generally easier to do so on a larger lot. (Pantuso — tried to minimize the impact to the rear yard as much as possible. There would be no room for a master closet if this were done.) ■ The right side of the existing building is close to the neighboring building. ■ On the rear elevation, the house will be on stilts? (Pantuso — no, will be enclosed.) Concerned that the area will not be built as shown on the plans; will require lateral support. (Pantuso — will be an enclosed area. Is all under -floor space, have thought of putting in false windows to minimize the massing of the area.) 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 ■ Is this area counted towards FAR? (Strohmeier— if it is accessible and has adequate floor -to -ceiling height then it would be counted as floor area. Pantuso — yes, it was counted in the FAR.) ■ Clarify the means of support for the rear addition. ■ Concerned about extending the non -conforming setback along the area where underfloor space is enclosed but not useable — the area could be built without a solid wall. (Pantuso — there is a lot of vegetation between the properties that blocks views.) ■ Likes the way that the project has been stepped down the property. ■ Recessing the addition would break up the wall on the right -side elevation. (Pantuso —there is not a lot of room to squeeze the addition in without impacting the living area above. Noted that the home to the left has a courtyard in the area; the wall on that property extends the same way.) ■ The topography and the downslope create a challenge; justifies the design approach. ■ The addition is only a one-story, elevated section; but need to address how the under area is enclosed. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul 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 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:15 p. M. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 10 (1009 Capuchino Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the subject site. He left the City Council Chambers. 10. 1009 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW TO ADD A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT THE REAR OF AN R-2 LOT (MATT TRAGOUTSIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; THOMAS MCCARVILLE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 Are there restrictions with respect to windows from property lines. (Strohmeier — noted that the restriction doesn't apply to secondary dwelling units.) How is a turn -around provided for the parking? (Strohmeier — have the required back-up area on the plans.) Provide dimensions. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Thomas McCarville, 3240 Scott Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Appreciates the comments and attention to detail with respect to the design — are retaining the single-family feel. Good use of the lot. Noted that two different types of rails shown — consider perhaps a wrought -iron rail by the stairs, with a wrought -iron stair; would likely be fire rated. (McCarville — attempting to meet fire rating.) Check with the Building Official. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul 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 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent, Commissioner Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:23 p.m. Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. 11. 1400-1402 BURLINGAME AVENUE AND 303 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED BAC — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DAVID SEGAL, DAVIDS TEA, APPLICANT; SARGENTI ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; 1400 BURLINGAME LP, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 29, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 Asked if other internally illuminated signs are present on Burlingame Avenue? (Meeker — will research and provide samples.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. David Ruhr, 1473 185t" Avenue, Bellevue, Washington; and Adam Revesz, 461 From Road, Paramus, New Jersey, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Asked for details of the internally illuminated signs. (Revesz — provided a description, but can provide drawings of the sign.) ■ Would they consider placing a door on the Primrose Road elevation as well, rather than the proposed window? Could set up a sidewalk cafe seating in that area. (Ruhr — there is a grade change, and it is a location for display areas. Steps would take up a lot of square footage. Revesz —from a loss prevention standpoint, having a limited point of entry works best. There are operable sliding windows on that side; there is also the opportunity for outdoor seating on Primrose Road and Burlingame Avenue.) ■ Provide a material board for the tile and the white oak and finishing of the building. ■ Appreciates taking off the awnings. ■ Show rendered elevations; something that shows the color scheme. ■ The City Arborist will require trees on the Primrose side; important to provide some trees to help to shelter the area and make it more pleasant for seating. (Ruhr — willing to work with the Arborist in order to improve the corner of the site while still preserving visibility.) ■ How will the streetscape work on Burlingame Avenue affect the Primrose frontage and the corner of the intersection? ■ Could use more benches downtown; applicant proposing to add tables and chairs in right-of-way (Meeker - need to be careful with suggestions for streetscape improvements along Burlingame Avenue; assessment district passed and there is now an approved streetscape project along Burlingame Avenue, which will include street furniture. Guinan - makes sense for the applicant to stay in touch with the Public Works Division so that any requirements placed on this project are consistent with the streetscape project.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Glad that space is being unified. Provide additional information regarding the material and type of wall sign proposed. Eft CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 29, 2012 Provide material board showing proposed color, tile and white oak slats. Provide additional information regarding required street trees along Primrose Road. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the additional requested information has been provided as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:39 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 May 21, 2012: The property owner vote regarding the creation of the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Assessment District passed; the City Council voted to create the assessment district. The entire streetscape project, including underground utilities and a new streetscape is to be completed by late 2013. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 19