Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 04.11.11 APPROVEDgMN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AMIL CNIB APPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 11, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Yie called the April 11, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Terrones, Vistica, Gaul and Yie Absent: Commissioners Lindstrom and Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 3, Item 3 (307 Primrose Road), Commission comments, fourth bullet, third line: revise "not deal a breaker" to read "not a deal breaker. Page 6, Item 4 (112 Bayswater A venue), Commission comments, sixth bullet, insert "large "before "family room" and replace "from" with "for" following "Variance" Motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Cauchi absent, Commissioner Gaul abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Marshall Loring, 1741 Celeste Avenue, San Mateo; spoke: Invited the Planning Commissioners to attend a tour of "Contra Costa Centre Transit Village" on Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 9:45 a.m. in Walnut Creek. He noted that the first 20 registrants will be provided with "Clipper" cards to cover transit fare to the location. Interested parties should meet at the Millbrae BART station on the specified date and time. VI. STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Item 1 (1447 Laguna Avenue) since he owns property within 500-feet of the subject site. He left the City Council Chambers. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 1. 1447 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO A PLAYROOM AND CONSTRUCTION A NEW DETACHED CARPORT (SUZANNE SENGELMANN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JENNIFER MILLIKEN, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 11, 2011. Questions of staff: None. Commission comments: ■ Generally supportive; the house is charming. ■ Good idea to create additional living space without adding square footage. ■ Would be a minor modification if it didn't require a conditional use permit. ■ Provide more specifics about the layout of the interior of the space in the playroom. ■ Is it possible to eliminate the conditional use permit for the windows by re -working the skylights and moving them further from the property line in order to reduce potential neighbor impacts? If the skylights remain, they should be tinted and flat, rather than domed. ■ Will not support the request at all; we do not allow a living structure near the adjoining properties where activities may occur that will affect the neighbors. Need to send a strong message that this will not be permitted. ■ This is the cheapest way to add more living space to the property. ■ Seems that an FAR variance may be required since the 400 square foot exemption would be eliminated for the garage. (Hurin — explained why this would not be required.) ■ Added the exemption for 400 square feet for a garage because it was an existing pattern in the neighborhood; this request would keep the mass of the buildings broken up, consistent with the neighborhood character. ■ Would need to include a condition on the use of the carport to prevent it from being used as a storage area. ■ How would the second -unit regulations apply? (Meeker— Not certain if the property would qualify, but the regulations are not imminent at this time; could reapply once they are adopted, if denied.) ■ Building elevations are not shown; concerned about egress from the structure. ■ Noted inconsistencies in the dimensions on the plans; clarify. ■ Would like to see how the space is to be used; the closet is laid out inefficiently; could it ultimately be used for some other purpose? ■ Do not allow a toilet and a bath in an accessory structure; is creating a duplex in an R-1 zone. 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 7:19 p.m. Commissioner Gaul 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. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 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. 2a. 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK 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 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 Auran. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Gaul recused, Lindstrom and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 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 Reference staff report dated April 11, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Clarified that the parking variance could have been handled as a minor modification if the space were only two -inches longer. Requested information regarding the size of reduced parking spaces being proposed by the City. (Commissioner — noted that "unistall" spaces are typically 8.5-feet x 18-feet in dimension.) Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Clarified the process leading to the request for a parking variance; was necessitated by the family room being considered an additional bedroom, and the parking space being too shallow. ■ Appreciates that bulk and mass are not being added to the existing structure. ■ Doesn't see a problem with the size of the garage; the photograph provided by the applicant demonstrates that it is useable. (Meeker — noted the dimensions for a full-size versus small -size SUV; a full-size SUV would generally be around 17-feet in length, the applicant's vehicle is roughly 15-feet in length.) ■ Supports the variance request, almost as a reward to the applicant using the garage for parking. Public comments: 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 Bryan Spaulding, 1208 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Moved into the home knowing that they could make the situation work for them. Appreciates the need for regulations. There are other extenuating circumstances about moving the floor plan forward on the lot since it would affect the neighbor's landscaping. (Commissioner — why add the bathroom to the family room? Spaulding — was advised to make it a full bath to add value to the home; additionally, the space can be used for guests when they visit.) 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 Department date stamped March 15, 2011, sheets 1 through 4, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 3. 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; 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 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; 6. 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 7. 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 Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 4. 1561 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BARRY CHEN AND FAY DU, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 11, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Reconfigured the garage to comply with standards; eliminated the need for a variance. Created a gable roof over the entry; are on a tight budget. Switched to a wood rail on the entry porch. Commission comments: ■ Did a good job revisiting the design of the front porch. ■ Clarified that the existing garage door will remain; the existing panels will remain? (Robertson —the door will remain; the panels are not too recessed, is more a paint design). ■ Calling for 6X corbels under the window boxes; may be able to get away with reducing these to 4X corbels; would perhaps save some money and lighten the design. ■ Likes what has been done with the design; why were columns added? (Robertson — to support the gable; will be simple columns.) ■ Thanked the applicant for eliminating the variance request. 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: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 29, 2011, sheets 1 through 7; 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 April 11, 2011 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 22, 2011 and January 11, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's January 13, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's January 12, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 10, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 11, 2011 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 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; 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 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 No too opposed to the 6X corbels; could help the design. Only suggested the change in the corbels to help out the applicant; is not a deal breaker. Or as an alternative could double the 4Xs instead. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. 5. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, SUITE G, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (JOE ZHEN, APPLICANT; JULIA WAN, DESIGNER; GREEN BANKER LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 11, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Asked for an explanation of how the number of required handicapped spaces is determined? (Hurin — believes at least one space is needed for the first 25 spaces.) Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Joe Zhen, 4388 El Camino Real, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Employees will be required to park in the public lots. Other tenants are supportive of the proposal for a restaurant. Commission comments: ■ None. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ If a variance is granted; then it would eliminate the need for an additional handicapped parking space; this is somewhat of a concern. ■ The parking analysis was prepared with a couple of tenant spaces vacant; a large portion of the building is already empty. ■ Could we require other employees of other businesses to park off -site? (Meeker — cannot impose the condition upon other tenants.) ■ Disabled people could park within the existing parking lot as configured, given the simplicity of the layout of the parking lot. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 ■ The Commission does not have the authority to grant variances from federal requirements, such as ADA requirements. ■ An accessible parking space would only require the removal of one parking space and could share the access to the existing accessible stall. ■ Noted the hours of First Republic Bank and the proposed restaurant are complementary. ■ Convinced by the findings of the parking study; supports the request. Commissioner Vistica 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 February 18, 2011, sheets T1 and AO through A2; 2. that all employees of this food establishment, including the owner, shall park in public parking Lot T (located north of Broadway) or in any other available public parking lot; employees shall not be allowed to park in the private parking lot at 1155 California Drive; 3. that the Parking Variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the tenant space is replaced by a retail use or the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 4. that the food establishment shall not exceed 2,500 SF including a waiting area, dining area, kitchen, food storage and restrooms; 5. that the food establishment may not be open for business except during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week; 6. that any changes to the floor area, use or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Parking Variance; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 14 and February 14, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's January 18, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's January 31 and February 24, 2011 memos, the Parks Supervisor's January 12, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 11, 2011 memo shall be met; 8. 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; 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; and 10. 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 Parking Variance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded 7: 59 p.m. Vice -Chair Yie left the meeting at 7:59 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Chair Vistica indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion on Item 6 (611 Bayswater Avenue) since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the dais. 6. 611 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DJ PROPERTIES LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOANN GANN, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 11, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Commissioner Terrones opened the public comment period. JoAnn Gann, 244 Fulton Street, Redwood City; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Concerned about the profile of the cultured stone; can tend to look a little fake if not installed properly. Would like to see a sample of the stone selection and further study of the details. ■ Discouraged vinyl -clad windows; encouraged to consider aluminum -clad windows. ■ Likes that the design celebrates the approach to the front porch; perhaps consider an asymmetrical detail, like a fin wall, near the garage. ■ There may be some way to take the portion to the right of the entry to better transition it to the second floor. Provide a better connection to the roofline. (Gann — would it be better to include a gable at this point? Commissioner — could help.) ■ Be certain that the eave of the garage is two -feet off of the property line to ensure that adequate clearance is provided. Public comments: Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; spoke: Have done a pretty good job of using the space. Is respectful of the neighborhood and other properties around it. Provided photographs that demonstrated the potential for vehicles to hit the gas service; would like a bollard placed in front of the area to prevent it from being hit by vehicles. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 The plans show an existing seven -foot fence; it actually is only present in the rear 30-feet of the property; the remainder is just a "contraption" not really a fence; wants the fence to be completed to match the existing seven -foot fence. Near the edge of the home, there is a gate where the fence fell over within the front 15-feet of the property; willing to work with the property owner to re -install the five-foot fence at this location. The driveway does not show an apron like other driveways on the street do; wants to be certain that the apron does not encroach upon the property at 615 Bayswater; wants the public planting space to be resurrected. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Asked the City Engineer to comment on the driveway and gas meter issues. (Bell — will be required to meet standards for the driveway, and encouraged installation of a bollard to protect the gas service.) Clarified that the minimum width of the driveway is 9-feet, 6-inches. Would encourage speaking to PG&E about relocating the gas service. Due to a lack of a quorum of Commissioners participating in the discussion, this item will appear on the Regular Action calendar Commission comments have been addressed by the applicant. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. Chair Vistica returned to the dais. 7. 2305 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND MAJOR RENOVATION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; JAY T. JANTON AND GAYLE A. MILLER-JANTON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 11, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Vistica opened the public comment period. Jay Janton, 2305 Hale Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Asked about the "metal slate" roofing material? Requested a sample. (Janton — is a metal material designed to resemble slate.) ■ Questioned the purpose of the court in the rear yard? (Janton — for a game similar to bocce). ■ On Sheet A6, shows a 2-inch stucco header trim; and noted casings as well; is this a wood material, or stucco -covered foam? Would prefer to see wood trim, rather than a faux finish. (Janton — believes is drawn as foam with stucco finish, but wants it to be wood.) ■ The design is handled nicely, as is the massing; could be even better on the front elevation. Encouraged celebrating the entry a bit more; perhaps a slight hip -element to draw focus to the entry. ■ Likes the 12 x 10 covered porch. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 11, 2011 Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Provide roofing sample or cut sheet. A couple of missed opportunities could be explored; could also explore the connection between the first and second floor as a means of providing an exterior expression to tie the floors together. Chair Vistica 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 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Lindstrom, Cauchi and Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:29 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Noted that the annual election of officers will be placed on the April 25, 2011 agenda. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 4, 2011: Congratulated Commissioners Yie and Gaul on their reappointment to full terms on the Planning Commission. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — March, 2011: No complaints. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Vistica adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William Meeker Community Development Director 11