Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.02.11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 11, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the February 11, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cauchi, Davis, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Auran Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker and Senior Planner Ruben Hurin III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Sargent to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 2, Item 3; rename as Item “2”.  Page 2, Item 3, Commission comments; revise first bullet to state: “Discussed the need for a fire- rated window; a wooden window is not fire-rated. Check the Fire Code requirements as a wood window is permissible if the percentage of open area falls below the standard in the code. A metal window is not preferred.”  Page 2, Item 3, Commission comments; revise second bullet to state: “Noted that if a fire-rated window is required, some options are more attractive than others.”  Page 3, Condition 2; insert “if” after “that”.  Page 4, Item 3, Commission comments, eighth bullet; replaced “has treated” with “will treat”.  Page 6, the second of the motion for Item 3; replace “Auran” with “Cauchi”.  Page 7, Commission comments, first bullet; replace “placing” with “facing”.  Page 9, fourth bullet from top of page; add “and need to provide sufficient time for public review” to the end of the sentence. Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Auran 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 There were no Study Items. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 11, 2013 2 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. There were no requests. 1. 1500 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BUDROCK GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioners Sargent and Yie indicated that they had listened to the recording of the Design Review Study meeting and had visited the subject property and felt they could vote on the project. 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 Cauchi. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 316 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS- BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHRIS SANDELL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, STRATHDEE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECT) (50 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 11, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chris Sandell, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Doesn’t have issues with the changes except for the vinyl windows; why was the change made? (Sandell – the change was made to match the existing windows and provide continuity. The windows were in place when they purchased the property. All of the windows on the first floor were vinyl.)  Recalls that there was a discussion that the windows should have been aluminum-clad wood windows at the time of the action meeting. Agreed that the existing windows could remain, but the new windows should be clad wood windows. Remembers talking about the continuity and perhaps changing out the existing vinyl windows, but agreed not to require this as they were newer. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 11, 2013 3  Noted that the octagonal window on the second floor stands out a bit more as it can’t be painted to match the similar window on the first floor.  Clarified that the windows on the first floor, when changed, would not have required Planning Commission approval.  Looks at the approvability of the application from the outset; doesn’t believe that a request for replacement of the existing vinyl windows would have been made. Vinyl windows are not paintable and they stand out; the joinery is not done well. However, must balance between the number of existing vinyl windows versus the extent of the remodel. (Sandell – the house appealed to him given that it had been remodeled and had new windows.)  The appropriateness of the vinyl windows can vary depending upon the architecture of the house and the character of the neighborhood. Understands that they are durable, but they will always stand out as a “bright white” feature on the home.  Noted that the trim around the first floor windows mitigates the existing windows appearance against the darker stucco; suggested perhaps placing trim around the octagon window on the front to soften the appearance of the window. (Sandell – understands the Commission’s viewpoint regarding the upper window, wanted to match the window with the bottom window. However, the trim on the upper window doesn’t do justice to the appearance of the bottom window.) Public comments:  None. Additional Commission comments:  Asked why the applicant didn’t understand that the approved plans are what was to be built; was there a breakdown in communication? How can this situation be avoided in the future. (Sandell – didn’t understand that the changes that were made would require Commission approval.)  Asked who the builder for the project was? Asked if he was familiar with the requirement that the project be built as approved. (Kevin Thurston, Express Builders – has built in the City before and believed the Commission wanted to be certain that the details on the addition matched what existed on the original home – made everything match exactly. Didn’t cross his mind to consider anything other than vinyl windows give the number of vinyl windows that existed on the ground floor. Wanted to make it look like the addition belonged there.)  Noted that there can be a disconnect between the designer and the builder; not always clear to the builder that the approved plans constitute a “contract” that the project will be built as approved. (Meeker - noted that it is the responsibility of the applicant and the contractor to build the project pursuant to the approved plans. Hurin – indicated that a Commission subcommittee and staff will be discussing a possible procedure for reinforcing the commitment to build per plans. Thurston – noted that the octagonal window is of all aluminum construction. Sandell – feels that a pre-construction meeting with the applicant could be helpful in reinforcing the responsibility to build per plans.)  Suggested that for future FYI’s require the applicant to provide specifications of the windows that have been installed.  There is something to be said for being consistent within the entire house. There were no further comments and Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 11, 2013 4 Commissioner Davis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 30, 2013, sheets A3 and A4, date stamped May 15, 2012, sheet A1 and date stamped April 3, 2012, sheets A0, A2, A5, House Location and Elevation Study and Landscape Layout; 2. that the frame of the upper level octagonal window shall be painted to match the similar window on the first floor; 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 11, 2013 5 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study items. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 4, 2013:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 11, 2013 6 FYI: 2508 Easton Drive – review of proposed 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. FYI: 390 Lexington Way – review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log – January, 2013:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary