Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.09.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, September 24, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the September 24, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner A uran to approve the minutes of the August 27, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 2; fifth bullet from top of page; third line; replace "taken" with "walked" Page 3; third bullet under "Commission comments add "on the garage" following `overhang"in the second sentence. Motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Yie recused) Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 2, first bullet under "Commission comment"- replace "near the large bedroom" with "off the hallway" ■ Page 10, Condition No. 3, replace "that the reciprocal easements for the two parcels" with "that a cross access easement between Parcels 1 and 2, which" and add "shall be recorded on the title of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office and a copy of the recorded documents shall be sent to the City Engineer," following "circulation," ■ Page 10, eliminate Condition No. 6. ■ Page 10, Condition No. 7, replace "Lots A or B" with "Parcels 1 or 2" and eliminate "parking" following "at a later date, the" ■ Page 16; within the paragraph providing the action on the motion; replace "Consent Calendar" with "Regular Action Calendar" Motion passed 6-0-0-0. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 24, 2012 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 for review. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no Consent Calendar items for review. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 307 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED BAC - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (ASIAN BOX) AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (ASIAN BOX HOLDINGS, APPLICANT; TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, DESIGNER; JAMES P. MODISETTE TR, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 24, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nineteen (19) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Frank Klein, Palo Alto and Jim Zack, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Why were the doors moved from the center to the side? (Klein — makes it look more like a retail store and provides better ingress and egress for customers. Also improves flow within the facility.) Did the applicant consider placing horizontal muntins in the sliding windows? (Klein — unsure if that would have been an historic architectural feature of the building — was trying to get close to the original look and feel. Want it to be historically accurate — usually present above the ground floor, but not on the ground floor. Not averse to providing them.) Likes the revised design; feels the glass plates are a nice counter -point to the glass block below. Zack - Believes that having the door at the proposed location is close to the original design. Believes the horizontal muntins would have been too busy. Want to do what they can to match the entry door to the existing wood or aluminum existing window. Are open to wood or aluminum for the 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 24, 2012 windows. The door relocation is primarily driven by the conversion of the space from a retail location to a restaurant location.) ■ Why weren't the doors identified as wood? (Zack — are willing to install wood doors if that is the Commission's desire.) ■ Agrees that the revised location for the doors near the Art -Deco tower plays nicely with the plain glass windows. (Klein — believes the current design plays to the City's desire to make the front of the business transparent from the sidewalk.) ■ Would like the new doors to match the existing material on the remaining door. ■ Does not have a preference for wood or aluminum windows as they just serve as a superficial screen from the outside. (Zack — would like to provide the greatest amount of window area with minimal window frames.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul 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 September 17, 2012, sheets A0.00, A0.03, A2.00, A2.01 and A4.01; 2. that this business location shall only be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 255 SF of seating area, and may not change its food establishment classification to a limited food service food establishment, bar or specialty food shop food establishment; 3. that the new doors installed on the fagade shall be constructed of the same material as the existing door that is to remain; 4. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 5. that the 255 SF area of on -site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 6. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved bythe city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 7. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 8. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for deliveryof prepared food from this premise; 9. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 24, 2012 10. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 11. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 30, August 14, August 8 and June 29, 2012 memos, the City Arborist's June 28, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's July 10, 2012 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's June 20, 2012 memo shall be met; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2010 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 13. 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; 14. 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); 15. 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; 16. 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; 17. 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; 18. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 19. 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 Department; and 20. 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 September 24, 2012 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 6-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (2504 Hillside Drive) as he is the project applicant. He left the dais. City Attorney Guinan indicated that though Mr. Sargent is a sitting Planning Commissioner he retains the right to speak as a private citizen regarding his project and may do so. 2. 2504 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RICHARD M. SARGENT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 24, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Clarified that the change to the windows was to the cladding from aluminum to vinyl — would this assume that the windows are wood? (Hurin — yes.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Rich Sargent, Burlingame and James Chu, San Mateo; represented the applicant. ■ Mr. Sargent reminded the Commission that he is speaking to them only as a private citizen and not in his capacity as a Commissioner. ■ Except for the window change, all other changes are not very visible. ■ Feels that the difference in the cladding material is not discernible. ■ Provided a sample of the window that is a similar to those installed on the property. Commission comments: Believed the window that he observed was a composite window; expressed concern that the sash plate on casement vinyl windows may be less substantial than that provided on other types of windows. (Sargent — included a cut sheet with the submission, and provided a photograph of the window that is installed on the house. The sash is completely wrapped in vinyl, not sure whether it is wood core; but the frame is completely wood and is wrapped with vinyl on the exterior. Agrees that vinyl windows can look cheap, but it is the dimension and installation of the grids that is critical to the appearance — the grids on the house have been permanently mounted on the interior and exterior — he could not tell the difference between these windows and a similar aluminum -clad window.) Have felt that vinyl windows can look cheap and the windows can look like they are assembled in bits and pieces rather than in more solid pieces. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 24, 2012 ■ Vinyl windows can now come in a greater variety of windows than just taupe and white; some can be painted. The nature of vinyl windows is evolving and it now depends upon the specific design series that is to be utilized. Not sure where to go with this topic in the future. Perhaps this should be discussed at a subcommittee level. Sustainability can still be an issue. Can't suggest that they are acceptable if a specific manufacturer. (Sargent — chose Andersen windows because of their quality and reputation in the marketplace.) ■ The Commission has no specific hard and fast policy regarding the use of vinyl windows; it has generally considered each proposal on a case -by -case basis. ■ Is willing to accept the installation of the specific vinyl -clad windows installed in this instance. ■ Is ok with the roof bump -outs being changed to standing metal seam from copper. Doesn't know if they have been roofed with shingles temporarily. (Sargent — noted that the roofer installed the shingles on his own.) Would be ok even if the shingles remained. ■ With respect to the fireplace, the foundation rides a bit higher than shown on the plans; will end up with a lot of concrete below the shingle area on the wall; this is why he preferred the stone on the original design; it made it actually look like something; a shed or something added over time. (Sargent — had hoped to make this element not stand out as much by not including the stone. Not sure what the solution to the problem should be.) ■ No issues with the remaining changes made to the project. ■ Prefers the deletion to the stone at the base of the fireplace. ■ Notwithstanding that the windows in this project look fairly nice; have had a policy of not allowing vinyl; can't recall any instances where vinyl windows have been accepted in the past, except in very specific circumstances (e.g. on a remodel where not all windows are being replaced.) ■ Can recall several instances in the past where the applicant has been required to change the windows back to that shown on the plans. Noted that with the exception of the windows, none of the other changes have been implemented in this project. Need to be careful about changing the policy and setting a precedent with this case. (Sargent — noted some instances where new homes have been constructed with vinyl windows. Noted that some projects he has observed with vinyl windows received final sign -off from the Planning Division. Meeker — noted that in at least one of the instances raised by the applicant, the project was not subject to design review and vinyl windows may be installed in those instances. It is conceivable that some higher -quality vinyl clad windows may have slipped through at final inspection though they were not approved with that material. Staff will be more diligent in the future. The Commission has been pretty diligent in prohibiting vinyl windows on design review projects.) ■ The windows installed on the project are actually wood -framed, vinyl -clad and are not solid vinyl. ■ Concerned more about the environmental impacts of the use of vinyl windows. (Sargent — shares this concern.) ■ Believed that the windows installed on the property are not wood framed, but one solid color throughout. Noted that the sample provided at the meeting is closer to being acceptable due to the "beefier" nature of the elements. ■ Expressed concern about the environmental impacts created in the manufacturing of the vinyl windows and the toxins released into the environment. (Sargent— understands the concern and is required to meet minimum green -points during the construction.) • Is there a means of swapping out the sashes in the windows are changed out to wood with aluminum cladding? (Sargent — the windows are wood on the interior and have been pre -finished on the exterior.) ■ According to the cut sheet, the windows are drawn as if they are wood frame with cladding, but there is a disclaimer that the drawing is just for illustrative purposes. • Noted that all projects stand for themselves and are considered on a case -by -case basis. (Sargent — spoke to a builder who used the same windows without the same detailing. This is the first new house he built in Burlingame; didn't occur that there would be a distinction between vinyl -clad versus aluminum -clad windows — the windows cost him 15% more and he believes they are a better W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 24, 2012 window. The Commission's goal is to create consistency in the community and encourage high - quality design. Doesn't seem like he is being granted an exception, as this type of window is already being installed in the community.) Likes the stone on the rear fireplace better. Not certain where to go with the fireplace design. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ The shed roof change is acceptable. ■ Garage walls are acceptable — have some corner board to finish off the transition to the stucco. ■ No objection to the French doors. ■ Provide stone on the fireplace element. ■ May wish to consider asking the Council to create a policy regarding the use of vinyl windows. ■ Windows — don't have a specific policy, but have historically not approved vinyl windows. Would these windows have been accepted in the original project? Likely not as vinyl windows are not generally allowed. Recalls viewing some samples of vinyl windows in the past due to their design and quality. ■ Is reluctant to move in the direction of endorsing a particular brand and model of windows. Seems to recall a situation where a specific style of vinyl windows has been considered. The installed windows in this case could possibly have been accepted. ■ If these windows had been presented by the applicant at design review, may not have allowed them, but now having seen them in the field, they may be acceptable. ■ From an environmental standpoint there is no City policy prohibiting the use of vinyl windows. ■ This is a bad time to set a precedent, particularly since this discussion has been had multiple times with respect to other projects. ■ For a property on Davis Drive, accepted the replacement of the front windows with aluminum -clad windows while they were still allowed to keep vinyl windows on the remaining windows. ■ Doesn't make sense to approve mixed windows on a new home. ■ All aspects of this residence are quite visible. ■ Would like to take a closer look at the windows, preferably with a sample present. ■ Accept all other aspects of the changes and continue the windows. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the change to the shed roofs, the garage wall change from shingle to stucco, and the change of the sliding door to French doors. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the items listed. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent recused). Commissioner Gaul moved to continue the discussion regarding the use of vinyl windows, with direction to the applicant to look at other options for replacement of the windows, and to provide a sample of the existing windows. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 24, 2012 Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent recused). Commissioner Terrones moved to deny the applicant's request to delete the stone veneer from the family room fireplace. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion carried 4-1-0-1 (Commissioner Yie opposed, Commissioner Sargent recused.) Appeal procedures were advised for those items receiving action. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 3. 2508 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (QUALIFIES AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION) (PETER AND JOANIE SCHLAMPP, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; NATALIE HYLAND, HYLAND DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER) (36 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 24, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Clarified the setback requirement for an attached garage. (Ruben — clarified that new attached garages with two single -doors require 25-feet; a single -wide door requires 35-feet.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Natalie Hyland, San Carlos, and Peter and Joanie Schlampp, Burlingame; represented the applicant. ■ Purchased the home with the intent of construction on a single -story addition; after a lot of design input, the project turned into a major renovation. ■ Have selected the "Craftsman -style" for the renovated home. ■ The lot is pretty steep; the front, right corner of the house is the most visible, so put a lot of the design focus at that location. ■ Eventually the applicant's mother-in-law will likely live with the family, which includes two children. ■ Have reached out to neighbors regarding the remodel and have shared the latest design plans with the neighbors. ■ The home was the second home constructed within the subdivision; the original owner of the first home still lives in the neighborhood and appreciates the design. ■ The neighbors at 2512 Valdivia Way have lived on their property for decades — recalled views of the former hospital and SFO. Most of what has impacted their views in recent years has been the growth of the Magnolia tree on the property. The neighbors didn't feel that the project would impact their views. ■ Noted other neighbor support for the project. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 24, 2012 Commission comments: ■ Applauded the applicant for reaching out to the neighbors. ■ Has an issue with retaining the existing garage — require the greater setback for new garages to de- emphasize their appearance. Try to revise the design to minimize the presence of the garage in some manner. (Hyland —noted that the existing garage is just over 19-feet from the front property line. Are attempting to minimize impacts upon the rear -yard. The garage is the only area where there could be some cost savings. Can look at a means of softening the appearance of the garage.) ■ Could perhaps revise the garage to have two doors. ■ Make the front porch a bit more prominent and a more useable feature. (Schlampp — doesn't feel a larger porch would be more useable for the family— prefer to have the rear yard be more useable.) ■ Tough to justify keeping the garage pushed forward when the lot is so large and can accommodate a different approach. ■ Not as opposed to retention of the garage location given that it is a common condition in the neighborhood. Agrees with considering a different door arrangement. ■ Expressed concerns about the scale of finishing materials; could be more substantial to be more in keeping with the "Craftsman" design. (Hyland — the band is really 8-inches including the cap. Some other details have been kept a bit smaller to make it more delicate.) ■ May be able to accept the retention of the garage at the location if more energy is spent to de- emphasize the garage doors. ■ Look beyond the days when all of the activity is in the rear -yard; consider the days when the children are grown and the front porch may become a more desirable space. (Hyland — making the porch more prominent will cutoff a lot of light to the interior. If the porch were continued to bridge the front bedroom to the garage, the gable would be lost.) Suggestion was made to extend the porch to the right. ■ With respect to the Magnolia tree; the landscape plan shows it being removed — encourages the applicant to attempt to retain the tree. ■ Disagrees with the desire to retain the Magnolia tree — in favor of removing and replacing with something native to the area. ■ Look at the stacked stone on the right elevation (in particular) as it looks very heavy. (Hyland — provided because of the significant slope; were planning on providing substantial plant materials in this area.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Story poles haven't been discussed yet, could be beneficial in that it could alleviate any potential delays if neighbor concerns regarding view blockage were to arise. Suggested not requiring story poles, but leave it to the applicant whether or not to erect them. 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 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 24, 2012 action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 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 September 17, 2012: ■ None. FYI: 1416 Cabrillo Avenue — review of as -built change to a previously approved Design review Project: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 8:41. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 10