Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.08.2711* CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION oPOW .lR 1 1 . 1 1 IE APPROVED MINUTES .Monday, August 27, 2012 - 7:00 p.m. low City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the August 27, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Sargent and Terrones Absent: Commissioner Yie Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner A uran to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as submitted. Motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie 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 Terrones noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion of Agenda Item 1 (2200 Summit Drive) as he has a business relationship with the Burlingame School District. He left the City Council Chambers. 1. REOPENING OF HOOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT 2200 SUMMIT DRIVE Jacob Furlong, Dreiling-Terrones Architecture, Carlos (from Dreiling-Terrones; no last name given) and Maggie Mclsaac from the Burlingame School District presented an overview of the re -opening of the former Hoover Elementary School at 2200 Summit Drive. Community Development Meeker noted that this is purely an informational item as the City of Burlingame does not have jurisdiction over the re -opening of the school as classroom space. The Commission and public are free to provide commentary. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 ■ Asked how many classrooms, and which classes will be accommodated. (Furlong —there will be 10 classrooms and will accommodate K-5.) ■ Requested clarification regarding site circulation, particularly bicycle circulation. (Furlong — will update the street frontage to improve pedestrian frontage as well as make improvements to crosswalks. Will also provide bike racks.) ■ Will access from the hills to the school be improved? (Furlong — will be maintained, but will not be enhanced. Will address the Poison Oak problem on the hillside. Will not provide ADA access through that area.) ■ Has outreach been done with the neighbors? (Furlong — have had a number of public meetings prior to purchase and have had open houses following the purchase. Generally positive input. Have removed some trees that were diseased and have heard concerns regarding removal of vegetation and traffic. Most people support the schools.) ■ Would be helpful to improve bicycle access — could reduce some traffic and would cause children to get to school in a manner similar to past generations. (Furlong — have discussed creating pool areas where students can be dropped off and walked to the school site in an effort to reduce traffic.) Public comments: None. This item is purely advisory, no Planning Commission action is required. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Terrones 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. There were no consent items for discussion VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 145 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LAURENCE P. AND LINDA DUGONI/GREGORY & GINA GAMBRIOLI, PROPERTY OWNERS STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN The applicant not present — this item was delayed until later in the meeting to allow the applicant to arrive. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 3 (19 East Carol Avenue) as he has a business relationship with the project designer. He left the City Council Chambers. 3. 19 EAST CAROL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, SINGLE -STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 27, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 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, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Great project, likes the improvements. ■ Could the eaves be extended on the garage to provide a bit more character similar to the house? (Chu — will consider.) ■ The extended overhangs are a nice touch. If there were a rake overhang on the garage, it would look less truncated. ■ The changes that were made bring down the scale. 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 amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 30, 2012, sheets A.1 through G.1, L.1, L.2 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. Extend the eaves on the garage to have an overhang and at least a rake overhang at the front to provide purpose for the corbels — this can be approved by 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 Engineering Division's June 14, 2012 memo, the Building Division's June 8, 2012 memo, the Park Division's July 10, 2012 memo and June 12, 2012 memo, the Fire Division's June 4, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Division's June 4, 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; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 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, 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. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1 (CommissionerYie absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 4. 1540 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO THE MAIN DWELLING AND TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING GUEST HOUSE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES EXISTING ON SITE. (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; J.T. AND LAUREN TREADWELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated August 27, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. 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: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 26, 2012, sheets A1.1 through A6.1, 1-1.0 and L2.0; 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 basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 4. that the conditions of the Building Division's June 28 and May 8, 2012 memos, the Engineering Division's May 21, 2012 memo, the Fire Division's May 1, 2012 memo, the Park Division's May 9, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Division's April 30, 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; 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 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; 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 foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as w CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m. 5. 1440 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 27, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Discussed the request for a special permit. Have received a tree removal permit — the existing tree was not healthy and was even too close to the existing home, which would have likely required its removal. Commission comments: ■ Handsome design. ■ Clarify that the windows will be simulated, true divided -light windows. (Grange — will install such windows.) ■ Requested that the City Arborist's recommendation regarding the amendment to the landscape plan be addressed in the project's landscape plan. ■ Provide a greater detail regarding the rafter tails — would like to see more of them (Grange — agreed.) 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 ■ With respect to the various roof pitches; will this look unusual? Would have preferred all roof portions to be the same pitch, perhaps eliminating the flat roof portion. ■ Could also revise the chimney to look less like a water heater enclosure — perhaps make it a different material (e.g. brick base) to add some richness to the design. (Grange — can review the finishing of this element.) Also look at the second chimney that looks out of proportion. ■ Spoke to City Arborist; he feels that the developer prematurely removed the tree — he agreed that the tree should have ultimately been removed. Feels a bit insulted by the action of the developer to remove the tree before the project is approved. (Grange — showed proof of the signed permit. Meeker — noted that a permit was issued for tree removal because it is located within the footprint of the building — no notification required under these circumstances. Is implied in the permit approval that the tree is not removed unless the project is approved. Unusual circumstances exist in that the actual permit did not state that the tree should not be removed in advance of project approval.) ■ Indicated that there is typically public notification in advance of a tree -removal permit — however, there is an expectation that tree removal related to a new project will be noticed as part of the design review notification process in order to reduce redundancy. Should be assumed that the tree wouldn't be removed until following project approval. ■ As a City of trees, the noticing process needs to be complied with, even if it is associated with the design review process. ■ Noted that due to the condition of the tree, it could have been removed subject to the normal tree removal process, regardless of the project. ■ Doesn't see the need for expediency in removing the tree in this instance. ■ If there is a structural safety issue, the City Arborist would waive noticing requirements under this type of circumstance. (Guinan —clarified that the code states that the Parks and Recreation Director shall approve a tree removal permit in the event that a tree exists within the footprint of a new project; there is no formal notification process required. Noted that the code may need to be revised to reflect what is desired by the Commission.) ■ Agrees that the shingled chimney results in too much of that texture on the building — some form of material differentiation is desirable. ■ Also explore the design of the other chimney that appears that it is "hacked off". Public comments: Eugene Podkaminer, Burlingame; spoke: ■ Incredibly frustrated by the fact that the tree has been removed. ■ Spoke to staff to learn how to address the issue — chose to submit a letter early; the tree was removed prematurely. ■ There is something fundamentally wrong with the process regarding the tree removal. ■ This isn't just— trees are public goods and are seen from many places; the removal impacts a lot of people. ■ Noted that staff indicated that situations like this have not happened before. ■ Need to strengthen how the procedure is administered; better coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department. ■ Approval of the plan should be contingent upon the recommendation of the City's Arborist. Additional Commission comments: Would like to see changes to the finishing of the chimneys and other matters detailed in the Planning Commission's discussion. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the matter with direction to make design modifications as requested by the Planning Commission and to revise the landscape plan to reflect the recommendations of the City's Arborist. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Likes the project. Rework the landscape plan consistent with the City Arborist's recommendations. Make modifications as requested by the Commission prior to Commission action. Chair Gaul called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1 (CommissionerYie absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 2. 145 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LAURENCE P. AND LINDA DUGONI/GREGORY & GINA GAMBRIOLI, PROPERTY OWNERS STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN The applicant was not present. Commission Gaul moved to continue the item to an upcoming meeting so that the applicant can be present. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Yie absent). IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study Items for discussion. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council Meeting of August 20, 2012: The City Council endorsed the design direction forthe new Burlingame Avenue Streetscape project. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 27, 2012 FYI: 117 Costa Rica Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design review Project: Accepted. FYI: 904 Bayswater Avenue & 101 Anita Road — review of clarifications for a previously approved residential condominium project: Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — July, 2012: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 10