Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.08.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES „ Monday, August 8, 2011- 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the August 8, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Lindstrom, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioners Cauchi and Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker and Senior Planner Ruben Hurin III. MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the July 11, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission was deferred to the next regular meeting, since there was not a quorum of members present at that meeting in attendance. Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the July 25, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted. Motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Cauchi and Terrones absent, Commissioner Yie abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Yie noted that staff has recommended that Agenda Item 3 (1409 Rollins Road) be continued. Community Development Director Meeker added that the continuance is recommended since a number of additional code compliance issues have been identified on the property that will require further discussion with the applicant prior to proceeding with consideration of the request. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Agenda Item la (1032 Balboa Avenue) was removed from the Consent Calendar. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 8, 2011 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1a. 1032 BALBOA AVENUE ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 8, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. James Chu, 1032 Balboa Avenue; represented the applicant. In response to the letter from the neighbor at 1028 Balboa Avenue; a survey was prepared around 7-years ago and noted that the fence for 1028 Balboa Avenue is actually on his property. He has agreed to work with the neighboring property owner to maintain access to the garage on that property. Public Comments: Jack Phelan, 1028 Balboa Avenue and John Tulich, representing the owners of 1017 El Camino Real, spoke: Not anticipating problems but wanted to be certain that the issue of the driveway for 1028 Balboa Avenue crossing the property line with 1032 Balboa Avenue is brought to the attention of the Commission. Expressed concern that the special permit for declining height envelope will block light to the balconies on the adjacent apartment building. The two -car garage is being placed on an easement where nothing is to be built, and the structure is too close to a power pole. (Commissioners — clarified that the structure is forward of the easement by one -foot; the applicant has complied with setback requirements. Meeker— there is no requirement for maintaining a distance from the power pole. Hurin — noted that the speaker was referencing another property, not the project site.) Commission comments: What is the applicant's intent regarding resolving the property line matter with the adjacent property owner? (Chu — will perhaps use different pavers without a fence; place a fence closer to the rear of the property. Intends to work with the property owner to reach an agreement. Will most likely need to disclose this condition to future property owners.) Is a shared driveway possible? (Chu — no. Will not know how to definitively approach a solution until the surveyor sets the corners in the field and the property line is established. Hurin — the property owners could choose to enter into an easement agreement to preserve a useable driveway.) 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 8, 2011 The project plans are predicated upon being able to move the fence? (Chu — yes.) The project could not be shifted slightly? (Chu — may require an additional approval if this were done.) Is there a 19-foot separation between the houses regardless of the location of the property line? (Chu — not certain. Commissioners — testimony indicates that this distance doesn't exist between the structures. Phelan — is 9-feet, 2-inches at the closest point.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 July 12, 2011, sheets A.1 through L.1 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. 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; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 13, 2011 and June 10, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's June 27, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 13, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's July 13, 2011 and June 14, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 13, 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 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 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; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 8, 2011 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 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 Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:21 p.m. 2. 1787 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KING LAU AND ELIZABETH SIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAIME ARGUELLES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 8, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 8, 2011 reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Noted that there were no story poles installed, and there was not a notice posted in front of the property. (Hurin — noted that the project did not trip the threshold as a new construction project. The Commission did not request story pole installation at the prior meeting.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Jaime Arguelles, 449 Abbot Avenue, Daly City and Elizabeth Sin, 1787 Escalante Way; represented the applicant. Based upon the meeting with the designer reviewer, changes were made that reflect the Commission's direction as well as the suggestions of the design reviewer. Described the changes. Commission comments: ■ Asked if the property owner met with the neighbors? (Sin — did not have any comments, the most affected neighbor was comfortable with the changes.) ■ Noted discrepancies in the garage door design (lights on the existing door, but none on the proposed elevation); there are discrepancies related to the existing versus proposed design elements and other features; need to see what is being approved. The shadow line on the plan obscures some features. (Arguelles — there are windows shown on the existing plan.) ■ Is the intent to retain the existing garage door? (Arguelles — yes. Will not be making any changes to the existing structure.) Need to be certain that the drawing matches the existing features so that it is clear what is being retained. ■ Is the railing on the front remaining? (Arguelles — yes, it is to remain.) ■ Need to be certain that new features match the existing. ■ The front elevation is improved; however, the side and rear elevations continue to appear very flat; need to provide some form of relief — could provide a rear porch that can add some interest, perhaps a trellis, or a bay window. Would like to see changes in these areas. The design still has a ways to go. ■ Has another location been considered for the addition? The placement of the addition will impact the feel of the cul-de-sac. (Sin — wouldn't want to build on the other side of the house, since it would be much closer to Trousdale Drive. Arguelles — there is only 15-feet clear, level area on the other side of the structure.) ■ Feels that the proposed location of the addition is the better alternative. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Need to ensure that the drawings are accurate, reflecting all design elements, including those elements that are to be retained on the existing structure. Requested that story poles be erected prior to the next scheduled meeting. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 8, 2011 ■ Appears that there is a chimney provided for a fireplace; but it does not appear on the proposed building elevations; clarify. ■ Need to correct errors on the drawings; ensure that the proposed plans are clear. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant as stated on the record and with further direction to erect story poles. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:41 p.m. 3. 1409 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AUTOMOBILE RENTAL BUSINESS (GENESIS CHEN, PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, APPLICANT; HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; HOWARD HONERLAH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER This item was continued to a future agenda, as indicated at the beginning of the meeting. 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. City Council Regular Meeting of August 2, 2011: ■ There were no actions from Regular City Council meeting of August 1, 2011, as the meeting was cancelled. FYI: 211 Primrose Road — review of minor changes to the parking lot facade of a previously approved application for design review: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1410 Howard Avenue — review of requested clarification to a previously approved commercial design review project: 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 8, 2011 Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 7