Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.01.14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, January 14, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the January 14, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Davis, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Sargent to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 1, Roll Call; replace “Lindstrom” with “Sargent” for those members present.  Page 11, twelfth bullet from the top; replace with: “Noted that the setbacks could be modified in a manner (e.g. landscaping, etc.) that prohibits passage through the area, while minimizing impacts upon the neighbor.” Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi 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 Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would need to recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 1 (1425 Cabrillo Avenue), as he owns property within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 1. 1425 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE FROM STORAGE TO A WORKOUT ROOM WITH A FULL BATHROOM (MEGAN WARREN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AMY LOU AND ANDREW WOODS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 14, 2013. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 2 Commission comments:  Doesn’t appear that the massing of the structure will be affected.  Address how many bathrooms are in the existing residence.  Why is there a need for a shower in the accessory structure?  If no closet space, then it is unlikely that people would change clothes there.  More information on the design of the windows adjacent to the property line; obscured glass, one- hour rating, wired glass?  Noted that there is a certain percentage of the windows that would need to be one-hour rated.  Is the space going to be conditioned? This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to 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 Gaul asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Yie requested that Agenda Item 2a (2109 Hale Drive) be removed from the Consent Calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 2109 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES EXISTING ON SITE (FROM A TWO-CAR GARAGE TO A ONE-CAR GARAGE) FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL (WILLIAM PASHELINSKY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SEAN AND ELAINE BRENNAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 14, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Given the letter from the neighbor; is the driveway configured so that a vehicle may park in the driveway without extending into the sidewalk? (Hurin – clarified that a code compliant 20-foot long uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway; this parking space may extend to the inner edge of the sidewalk.)  Have there been parking complaints received regarding this property? (Hurin – there have been no complaints received to his knowledge.) Sean Brennan, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 3  Looks like the curb length is being extended with the modification.  Noted that the tree removed is a street tree. (Hurin – believes it has been removed; a new tree is to be planted further west. Shifting the driveway apron helps provide a more direct access to the garage.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 5, 2012, sheets A-1.01 through A-3.02, BIG-1 and L1; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 16 and August 31, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's September 24, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 31, 2012 memo, the City Arborist's November 15 and September 12, 2012 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 30, 2012 memo shall be met; 3. 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; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 3. 1612 MONTE CORVINO WAY, ZONED R-1– APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE- STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JADE LUM, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ALICE NEEDHAM, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report dated January 14, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 4 suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Asked if the room behind the garage is considered to be one of the four bedrooms? (Hurin – if the room is 70 square feet in area with a window, then it would be considered a bedroom.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jade Lum, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  The design changes have improved the project; can support the project.  Have integrated the shingle feature and the stucco well.  Likes the added details on the porch.  At the exterior walls near the living room at the front; will the board and batten be removed? (Lum – yes.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 December 7, 2012, sheets A.1 through A.10; 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 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; 5. 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 5 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 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 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; 12. 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 13. 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 Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would need to recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 4 (2608 Hillside Drive), as he owns property within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 6 4. 2608 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRET BOTTARINI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 14, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Brett Bottarini, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Clarified that the siding on the existing garage will be removed and replaced with stucco to match the new home.  Will be a beautiful house. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran 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 January 2, 1013, sheets T.0 through A.6 and Boundary and Partial 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 City Engineer’s October 16, 2012 memo, the Chief Building Official's October 4, 2012 and November 28, 2012 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s October 4, 2012 and November 28, 2012 memos, the Fire Marshal's October 9, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's October 22, 2012 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 7 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, 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. 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; 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 8  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 5. 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA (ANZA AR EA) – APPLICATION TO RENEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AS AN INTERIM USE (AMY CHUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER (STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN) Reference staff report dated January 14, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Amy Chung and Nancy Mariscola, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Is concerned about the continued use of the property only for parking; have any efforts been made to secure other usage of the property. (Chung – want to look at the options after the next five years, then consider other use of the property, particularly given that Burlingame Point is being developed. Would like to continue to do business. Do have plans to replace the existing buildings, but don’t wish to do so unless the permit is extended.)  Could conceivably see the business continuing, but not as the sole use of the property.  Would rather see another use of the property. (Chung – want to talk to parties about building something in addition to the parking. The current owners are investors that want to make better use of the property.)  The City has been working with the property owners in the area for years to encourage better use of the property. Is supportive of continuing the operation until the opportunity arrives for better use of the property.  Believes that the issue of housing in the area should be revisited. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 13, 2003, As Built Site Drawing, Sheet 1; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 9 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s March 31, 2003 memo requiring the applicant to remove and replace the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter, fronting the subject property, at the owners expense shall be met (completed); 3. that the conditions of the City Arborist’s March 31, 2003 memo shall be met within a year of the approval of this application; this condition requires the removal of the existing Lingustrum (Glossy Privet) trees along Airport Boulevard and the replacement with 5 gallon Frazer’s Photinia spaced four feet apart, proper irrigation shall be installed as part of this condition (completed); 4. that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters on a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance by June 1, 2003 (completed); 5. that this use permit shall include only the parcels identified as Block 7, Lots 1-13 and Block 5, Lots 8-12 (APNs 026-344-040 through -100 and 026-363-300 through -390), and these lots shall be operated as a single facility with one entrance/exit at the designated airport parking gate identified as 615 Airport Boulevard, and one maintenance only gate; and should the use of any of these lots be changed from long-term airport parking the use permit shall become void and a new application for a use permit shall be required; 6. that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with 1,236 total parking spaces (eight parking spaces reserved for employees, ten spaces reserved for bus shuttle vans), a maximum of 19 employees, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site; 7. that all employee parking stalls shall be striped at 9' wide by 20' long (completed); 8. that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problems; 9. that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved landscape design; 10. that overflow parking of rent-a-car agency vehicles and storage of other vehicles is permitted providing on-street loading or unloading of such vehicles does not occur during peak 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. hours, and providing the area used has legal internal access within the parking lot area; 11. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2007 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 12. that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on July 20, 2018. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 10  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 6. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED SL – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION TO ALLOW OPERATION OF A CAR RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; VANGUARD R/E HOLDINGS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 14, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Requested clarification regarding the extensions of the conditional use permit. (Hurin – 5-years the last time, previously, two-years at a time.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Burlingame; Peter Van Valkenberg and Will Withington; represented the applicant.  Need to make investments in the property to accommodate continued use of the property.  Have a professional maintenance company maintaining the Bay Trail currently.  Are proposing to conduct the green-vehicle programs from the location; zip-car and some electric car charging stations. Need a base for this type of operation, so investment in the site is necessary.  Over the long-term wish to sell and redevelop the property.  The economic climate is not conducive to development currently; either continue with what is there now or wait for the site to be sold to be completely redeveloped. Until that comes along, they need the best operations possible.  Will continue to market the property; is still listed with a broker.  Hopefully with the Burlingame Point project, there will be renewed interest in redevelopment in the area – will likely take that development to proceed before this interest arises.  Seeking a 10-year extension so that improvements can be made and amortized.  Is intended to be an interim use of the property; seriously interested in redevelopment of the site at some point in the future. Commission comments:  Does Enterprise have electric cars in their fleet? (Hudak – yes. They also have other locations in the Bay Area.)  Would encourage photovoltaic solar installations to save on utility costs.  Would be nice to see the use of the property intensified in the future, but if not now, it would be nice to engage in greener activities on the site. (Hudak – not the highest and best use, but likely the highest and best use currently.)  This is the best use of the property at the moment, technology will require the company to adapt.  Not convinced that ten-years is ideal for an extension; would rather extend for five-years. (Hudak – run the risk of not having sufficient time to complete the project properly for the improvements necessary for the new programs. Whether the project proceeds or not, the real estate market is still what it is. Want to make the investment to make something worthwhile.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 11  The prior City Councils did a good job of planning the Bay-Front area, but five-years is not necessarily enough for the real estate market to turn around.  Feels that the same arguments are being made today that were made in 2009. What differences does it make if it is five-years or ten-years. (Hudak – from an accounting standpoint, the investment needs to be amortized over the period of the extension of the permit.)  If the extension were approved for ten years, then would like to see a status report at some interim period to keep track of activities on the site. Would ensure that some improvements are made to the property.  Let the applicant continue the operation and to survive until the economy improves to the point that redevelopment of the site for a better use is encouraged.  Encourages investment in the property consistent with the policies of the Bay-Front Specific Plan.  Does investing into the property add to the value to the property when sold? (Hudak – the sale of the property would completely swamp the cost of the improvements.)  Outlined the improvements that the applicant wishes to make to the property. (Meeker – indicated that benchmarks could be established that require performance within a specified time frame. Perhaps a continuance with direction to pursue this approach is warranted.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant to identify milestones that will be targeted within the first five-years of a ten-year extension if approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  Enterprise has been a wonderful tenant in Burlingame. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:03 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussions regarding Agenda Items 7 (1640 McDonald Way) and 8 (1032 Cortez Avenue) because he has a business relationship with the architect for both items. He left the City Council Chambers. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1640 MCDONALD WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SUNEIL KOLIWAD & LEENA JADHAV, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 14, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 12 Questions of staff:  Noted that the applicant needs to clarify the justification for the variance involving the uncovered parking space. Believes that the applicant has mistakenly addressed the justification for the covered parking space, when justification for the variance to allow the uncovered space is needed.  Noted that the existing covered space is non-conforming, based upon its dimensions. (Hurin – noted that for existing garages, as little as 18-feet is acceptable.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. James Chu, San Mateo; and Suniel Koliwad, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Have done a great job on the plans.  Requested clarification on the windows; will they be aluminum clad wood windows? Simulated, true divided-light? (Chu – will clarify; will be aluminum-clad.)  Are all of the windows being replaced in the house? (Chu – will keep a few of the windows at the rear.)  On the right elevation, there may be one existing window retained. (Chu – only a few will be retained at the rear of the house.)  Are the existing windows wood? (Koliwad – yes.)  Show details of the wood trim around the windows on the plans.  The addition is done well; is adding to the improvements that are occurring within the Ray Park neighborhood.  The lot is a bit shallower than a standard lot; this could be support for the existing sub-standard uncovered parking space, plus the location of the existing garage. A small car could still park in the space. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  Concerned that the lot coverage is being reduced and that the existing conditions cannot be changed; why not on the Consent Calendar. Should not be put through the hassle when this is an existing condition that cannot be changed. 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 5-0-1-1. (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 13 Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8 (1032 Cortez Avenue) as she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers. 8. 1032 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; 1032 CORTEZ BURLINGAME LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 14, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. James Chu, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Was remodeling considered? (Chu – foundation problems prevented the home from being remodeled.)  Define the wood-shake pattern so that it is ensured that the roof is built as it is shown.  Not a typical design that is seen in Burlingame; will be a handsome home.  Seems like some of the windows may line up with the neighbors’ windows – requested that this be reviewed. (Chu – small windows are facing the neighbors. There is one window that is needed for egress.)  Design works well with the neighborhood.  On the right driveway elevation; would a window box count as floor area if it did not extend to the floor? (Hurin – yes, it would, the cantilever would count as lot coverage. Would need to reduce lot coverage somewhere else.)  The right elevation is a large, blank wall, though it is a driveway elevation. This is common on older homes.  The window detail above the dining room helps on the right elevation.  The half round planter doesn’t show on the floor plan for the front elevation. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 14 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 4-0-1-2. (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioners Sargent and Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. Commissioners Sargent and Yie returned to the dais. 9. 812 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (TONY LEE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PETER GONG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 14, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Requested clarification regarding meaning of Low-Density Residential. (Hurin – primarily single- family, but other uses regulated by the State may be allowed.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Tony Lee, San Francisco and Peter Gong, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Will this be a single-family use? (Lee – yes.)  Seems like a lot of bedrooms with a small kitchen. (Gong – will house his elderly uncle and aunt; large bedrooms will not be necessary.)  The area above the front window on the photo is not reflected properly on the drawing.  Not capturing the essence of the Spanish-style of architecture at all. Not adding anything from Spanish architecture on the rear.  Could incorporate downspouts and other features that could accent the architecture. Disappointed in the design. (Lee – appreciates the suggestions. The structure has a flat roof; only the front of the structure has Spanish design features.)  The designer doesn’t understand what is expected from a design standpoint.  Agrees that there is not a lot of Spanish design on the majority of the house, but there are elements on the front. Should carry through on the addition.  Should install windows that are consistent in scale and design with the Spanish Colonial architectural style.  Must address the style, because a lot of mass and bulk is being added to the building.  Not opposed to extended-family living, but must look at the massing of the exterior of the structure.  Could look more closely at the new hallway leading to the bedrooms; is a large, vacant space that is only preserved to retain the stairs to the cellar.  Encouraged making the bathroom on the first floor ADA compliant given the age of the residents in that portion of the home.  The flat roof and boxiness of the existing single-story rear is exacerbated by the second-story addition.  The details on the small, existing house work but when enlarged, more detailing is needed.  Noted that the parapet on the roof deck does not appear adequate, will there be a railing? CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 15  The tiles that are on the structure look flat; would look better with more substantial terracotta tiles. Public comments: Tom Longa and Christine Chan; Burlingame; Sheila Janakos, Burlingame; Ross Hight; Burlingame; Andrew Wallace; Burlingame:  Have grave concerns about what is being done to the property; will be the only home on the block that is a two-story home – will not fit into the character of the neighborhood.  Questions the intention of the building; under the impression that it will not be a home housing an extended family, will be used for something completely different.  The home is directly across from Washington Elementary School; parking is impacted already; if there are more people living on the property there will be no parking available.  If elderly individuals are living on the property, will they be navigating the stairways?  Asked the Commission to ensure that the home is designed as a family home.  Once the second floor is erected, sunlight to their property will be affected; will need to spend considerable money to modify the landscaping.  Sad to see another older house being replaced.  The design doesn’t fit into the neighborhood.  If the home is converted to a board and care facility, then there will be inadequate circulation for emergency vehicles so close to the school.  Lives in the twin house to the left; concerned that his home will be boxed-in if the home is built too large.  Have maintained the character of his home.  First impression is that the proposed change will be a loss of the character of the neighborhood.  There should be decorative trim on the structure to reflect the Spanish design.  Would encourage another color other than white.  His garage is attached to the applicant’s garage; wants to ensure that his garage remains in-tact if removed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Community Development Director Meeker and City Attorney Guinan provided an overview of federal and State land-use restrictions and case law that affects the ability of cities to regulate land-uses in single-family zones within the State of California. Best not to focus on who will be living within the residence.  Concerns relate to the design, not to the occupancy.  Lack of articulation and lack of the applicant addressing the design guidelines is problematic.  Supports sending the matter to a Design Review Consultant.  Design could be easily taken to a Spanish Colonial style; a lot of concrete, provide more softscape; window designs could be modified to reflect the architectural style; incorporate more tile features; garage doors are a large slab, could be designed to be more of a carriage-type door.  Review the impact of the neighborhood and light impacts upon the neighbor.  Address the massing of the structure.  Look at the building in context with the school and the large apartment building behind.  The project is below the maximum FAR; this provides the opportunity for shifting the building envelope. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 14, 2013 16 Commissioner Auran made a motion to refer the application to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:01 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  Community Development Director Meeker indicated that a new Planning Manager has been selected; Kevin Gardiner will begin his duties in the position on February 25, 2013. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 7, 2013:  Approved the modifications to the design, including the deck, for 2843 Adeline Drive. FYI: 1325 Drake Avenue – review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Pulled; vinyl windows, size of attic vents, front elevation bay, chimney vent details are the matters that warrant discussion. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log – December, 2012:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary