Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 03.28.11 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 13URLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, March 28, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Yie called the March 28, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Yie, Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica (arrived at 7:04 p.m.) and Cauchi (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Gaul Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker and Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; III. MINUTES Commissioner Vistica moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 1, Roll Call: delete first "Cauchi" ■ Page 3, Additional Commission Comments, seventh bullet, revise "Meeker/Hurin"response to read: "The property owner was notified, the tenants were not. The property owner is responsible for providing notice to tenants." ■ Page 5; bottom of page: move "Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period to after "Questions of staff, which appears at the top of page 6. Motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Gaul and Cauchi absent, Commissioner Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1208 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR COVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A LOWER LEVEL REMODEL TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRYAN SPAULDING, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 28, 2011. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 28, 2011 Questions of staff: None. Commission comments: ■ Expressed concern regarding the Variance request in light of the manner in which our code interpretation works; feels the applicant is rejecting the City's definition of a bedroom. (Strohmeier - Clarified that the additional bedroom is triggering the need for an additional parking space; and that the project does not meet the definition of "substantial reconstruction".) ■ Difficult to support the application; there is substantial foundation work occurring in the area of the garage and the family room. Need clarification why the garage wall cannot be pushed to the rear to create more depth. ■ In this neighborhood, street parking is difficult. ■ The addition could be construed as second dwelling unit given the existence of a separate entry to the rear. ■ Need a greater ability to park off the street, particularly if the addition would ever become a second dwelling unit. ■ Sewer and utility lines can be moved; there is a lot of work being done already; would not be that much more work to move the garage wall to bring it up to standards. • Disagrees with the other Commissioners; the existing garage configuration is an existing condition that will still allow use by a car. ■ It is a hardship that the property was built to prior standards. ■ Requesting conformance to the current garage standards is a hardship upon the property owner. ■ What is the reduced parking space size for commercial spaces that is being proposed in the future? This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 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. Vice -Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would recuse himself from voting on Item 2b (307 Channing Road), since he has a business relationship with the project designer. Commissioner Terrones noted that he listened to the audio recordings of the discussions for Items 2a (1541 Eastmoor Road) and 2b (307 Channing Road) and would be able to vote on all items on the Consent Calendar. 2a. 1541 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND MAJOR RENOVATION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 28, 2011 STEVEN PARIANI TR. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 2b. 307 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOE HOWARD, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2c. 1590 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES AS AN ACCESSORY USE WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (ELLIOTT SCHAFFER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Gaul and Cauchi absent) for Items 2a and 2c; 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Gaul and Cauchi absent, Commissioner Vistica recused) for Item 2b. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 307 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE STOREFRONT OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES (INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITIES FOR CHILDREN) INCIDENTAL TO A RETAIL USE (WENDY EGER AND VERONICA MONTES, APPLICANTS; DWIGHTASHDOWN, ASHDOWN ARCHITECTURE, INC., ARCHITECT; RUTH MODISETTE TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 28, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Veronica Montes, 464 Midway Avenue, San Mateo and Dwight Ashdown, 1681 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Design is much improved; is supportable. ■ Likes that the existing tower element will be retained, and clarified that the tile on the tower will remain. ■ Will there be signage under the light fixtures on the fagade? (Ashdown — yes.) ■ There is still an opportunity for an awning to frame the entry and the signage; could be a nice interplay; not necessary to completely strip the design of the awnings. Can install awnings in the future; not a deal breaker. (Ashdown — felt the removal of the awnings was more in keeping with the "International -style".) 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 28, 2011 ■ Agrees with keeping awnings over the entry to add a spark of color and interest to the entry. ■ Not compelled to encourage installation of an awning. ■ Complemented the applicant on keeping the tower element. ■ Likes the design for the windows on the storefront. ■ May end up with an awning at some point. ■ Thanked the applicant for their efforts to retain the style of the building. ■ The Commission takes the design and character of the Downtown area seriously. ■ Is it possible for one of the windows upstairs to be operable for fresh air? (Ashdown — are looking into this as a possibility.) 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 March 16, 2011, sheets A.001, A.201 and A4.01; 2. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to instructional classes (instruction/activities for children) incidental to a retail use and shall become void if it replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 21 persons, including the full-time and part-time employees and participants; 4. that parents/guardians shall be required to register their child for the sessions and parents/guardians shall physically enter the store to drop-off and pick up their child; curbside drop- off and pick-up and double-parking in front of the store shall be prohibited; the registration policy shall clearly explain the drop-off and pick-up policy and parents/guardians shall be informed of this policy during registration; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 7, 2011 and December 14, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's December 13, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's January 4, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's December 20, 2010 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's December 13, 2010 memo shall be met; 6. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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 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; 8. 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; Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 28, 2011 9. 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); 10. 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; 11. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. 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 Cauchi. Discussion of motion: If an awning is added in the future, it should be of a design consistent with the "International -style" of the building (this would not need to return to the Commission as an FYI). Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Gaul absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MICHAEL NAFZIGER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 28, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 28, 2011 Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ The design guidelines encourage neighborhood consistency. Is it possible for this home to have a setback similar to those located further east on Bayswater? (Grange — those lots are even closer, but then the second floor would also need to come forward. Tried to keep the second floor conforming to the setback standards.) ■ Agrees with the argument for the front setback Variance because the lot is shallow in depth. ■ There is a good argument for the declining height envelope since the lot is narrower than normal. ■ Is a fairly modest house; special circumstances exist in this instance for the special permit for declining height envelope. ■ Concerned with the Variance for lot coverage; the whole point of the restriction is to limit the size of houses proportionally to the size of the lot. Concerned that the argument could be used by other applicants to build a larger home than is warranted based upon lot area. ■ The garage is 125 square feet larger than normally built, and a large family room is provided; is concerned about handing out a Variance for lot coverage in this instance. ■ Could reduce the workshop area in the garage to eliminate two variances. ■ Reduction in lot coverage would not be difficult to achieve. (Grange — could apply later for an accessory structure of 100 square feet, or for a minor modification later to increase the lot coverage by one -percent later.) ■ Is the lot coverage de-minimus? Trying to make this determination. ■ Minor modifications are usually considered relative to additions to existing homes. This is an entirely new home. Justification does not exist under these circumstances. ■ Thought the maximum garage height was fourteen -feet. (Strohmeier — clarified that fifteen feet is allowed.) • Could revise the roof area of the garage to increase above ground storage in the garage. ■ Noted the existence of a 700 square foot basement exemption as a means of adding useable floor area. ■ The design is very charming and modest. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Gaul absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes March 28, 2011 X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 21, 2011: Noted that the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the project at 704 Newhall Road was denied by the City Council, and the Commission's action was upheld. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Lindstrom, Secretary 7