Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.09.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California September 26, 2011 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the September 26, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica Staff Present: Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 2, fourth bullet down from the top of the page, add "because of lot size" after "ordinance". ■ Page 2, seventh bullet down from the top of the page, add "of" after "impact'. ■ Page 3, second bullet down from the top of the page, second sentence, add "because the concern is that Walnut Avenue is an especially narrow street' after "should be taken off the street during construction" ■ Page 8, fourth bullet before "Public comments", replace "trip" with "trim" Motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica 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 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 There were no Consent Items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1515 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACK RESTRICTIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT, FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GERRY GALLAGHER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 26, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier 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. Mark Roberston, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Like improvements made to the design. ■ Add sills to windows on East Elevation to match West Elevation and on window above redwood panel wainscot on South Elevation (Roberston — will add missing sills to windows.) ■ Is sloped piece above front entry going to be a stucco ledge so water doesn't stay on it? Design feels a bit odd, don't know what a better solution could be. (Robertson — Yes, will be stucco.) ■ What is the horizontal band material? (Robertson —will be foam or fiberglass painted a trim color.) ■ If detached garage were moved four feet away from the side property line there would be no need for a Special Permit; Pittosporum will help to mask the eave on the garage. ■ Have three or four houses in a row that are similar in design; need more diversity in design, carriage house or updated bungalow design would have worked well here. ■ Front door looks a bit lost, appears hidden in cave; concerned about front of house, is there a reason it has to be recessed so far? ■ Can casement window in living room be replaced with an access door to add flow and circulation to front of house, would like to see flow of house improved. (Robertson — will discuss this with the owners.) ■ Is there a reason why there are no simulated true divided lite grids on the sliders on the South Elevation? (Robertson - owners want to maintain a view into the garden.) ■ The hip roofs and eaves make the front door disappear; concerned that not enough natural light will get into the house. (Robertson — front door is only in a five foot niche.) ■ Is the cap above stone veneer also stone? (Robertson — yes.) Public comments: None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 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 September 14, 2011, sheets 1 through 8, 1-1.0 and 1-2.0; 2. that sills shall be added to the windows on the East Elevation and on the windows above the redwood paneling wainscot on the South Elevation; 3. 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); 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 Chief Building Official's June 24, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's June 27, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 27, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's June 29, 2011 and August 29, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 27, 2011 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; 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 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; 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, 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:18 pm. 2. 1821 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHANG JIE AND JASON LU, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; AND FENG XUE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated September 26, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 100 El Camino Real, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Commend applicant for working with neighbors to resolve issues. Can a condition be added to impose the agreement between the neighbors with regard to the tree height? (Guinan — yes, applicant indicated agreement with that condition and therefore can be imposed.) Plan has been greatly improved. Public comments: Sean Liu, 1826 Castenada Drive and Otto Hui, 1830 Castenada Drive; spoke. Met with the applicant over the weekend to discuss the landscaping in the rear yard, agreed with applicant that the height of the trees would not extend more than 36 inches in height above the grade at the top of the hill (grade at 1826 Castenada Drive). Concerned that the height of the new roof will obstruct their view; would like applicant to install a string to show the height of the new roof. Additional applicant comments: Difference between elevation at back of house and grade at top of hill is 32 feet; new roof will be 15 feet lower than grade at top of hill; there is no way the height of house will block the neighbor's view, they're looking down on the house; volunteered to stand on the roof and show difference in height between existing and proposed roof ridge. Additional Commission comments: Are story poles not required for single story additions in the hillside area? (Hurin - Commission may request that story poles be installed for any addition in the hillside area.) Need to keep in mind that this is a single story addition, project is before the Commission because the increase in plate height requires design review, if there was no increase in plate height we wouldn't need to review this project. Essentially the project involves a one foot increase in the plate height and a change in roof pitch; applicant has reduced the roof pitch substantially compared to original proposal. Landscape plan shows a row of trees along the entire rear property line, but are you agreeing to move all of the trees down further on the lot, not just behind 1826 Castenada Drive, since these other neighbors may have the same concern? (Meyer — yes, agree to move all of the trees along the rear property line down further on the lot.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Unfortunate that the neighbors didn't come to previous meetings to share their concerns with the project; a condition can't be added to require installation of story poles, but suggest that the applicant meet with the neighbors to show them the height of the new roof. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 14, 2011, sheets A-0 through A-6, L-1 through L-3, C-1 and G-1; 2. that the new trees shall be planted at the bottom of the slope and that the height of the trees would not extend more than 36 inches in height above the grade along the properties which abut the rear property line of 1821 Ashton Drive; the trees may be trimmed through mutual agreement between the neighbors; 3. that prior to the final inspection, the applicant and/or property owner shall obtain the necessary permits from the Parks Division to remove the existing Liquidambar street tree and plant two new 24-inch box street trees (Raywood Ash or Red Maple species); 4. 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); 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first floor or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 15 and March 30, 2011 memos, the Parks Supervisor's May 12, April 21 and May 16, 2011 memos, City Engineer's February 24, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 14, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's February 15, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 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; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. 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; 14. 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 15. 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: Ridge is 19 feet above grade, the ridge is lineal with the structure an only a small portion is at this height. ■ Improvements to the project have reduced the mass and bulk. ■ Not a great design, still too bulky, don't think house should be brought forward as much. ■ Wish neighbors came to previous meetings with their concerns, could have addressed size of roof, neighbors will be looking at a lot of roof. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m. 3. 1420 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DON AND KATHY STEUL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 26, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier 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, 55 W. 43d Street, San Mateo and Don Steul, 1420 Cortez Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 Added kitchen area is de minimus and balances the elevation with a large saddlebag on the right side; also balances with the bay on the second floor. Improves the design, but think there are plenty of ways to work with the existing structure and still stay within the declining height envelope; plate heights don't have to be eight feet, can create a closet space or even a sleeping area with lower plate heights. 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 conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 7, 2011, sheets A.1 and A.2, proposed main floor plan, proposed upper floor plan, proposed rear elevation and proposed right elevation; and date stamped March 2, 2011, sheets A.3 and L.1, existing building elevations, proposed front elevation, proposed left elevation, detail drawings 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 basement, 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 February 3, 2011, January 14, 2011 and December 2, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's January 4, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 6, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's February 3, 2011, January 18, 2011 and December 8, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 2, 2010 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 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 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 4. 819, 831 & 839 MITTEN ROAD, ZONED IB — APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE (THE KASTROP GROUP INC. ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 BRIDGE BANK. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN AND VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report dated September 26, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Would a similar ingress/egress easement be required between Lot B and the adjacent lot to the west? (Hurin — an ingress/egress easement currently exists between these two properties as indicated on the plans.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Michael Kastrop, 2345 Spring Street, Redwood City; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Lot B has what appears to be an existing building from an adjacent property which extends onto Lot B. Is this going to be an issue relative to the property line? (Kastrop — understanding is that it is a maintenance shed attached to a building on the adjacent property) (Hurin — a reciprocal easement exists for the portion of the building which extends onto Lot B.) The parking appears to flow between the buildings and lots; does the same owner own both lots? (Kastrop — there will be separate owners). Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chair Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 21, 2011 memo shall be met; 2. that developmental approvals are not part of this action; 3. that the lot line adjustment and 24'-0" wide ingress/egress easement along the property line between Lots A and B shall be recorded with the property at the San Mateo County Recorders Office and a copy of the recorded documents shall be sent to the City Engineer; 4. that prior to recording the lot line adjustment with the property at the San Mateo County Recorders Office, the additional 988 SF of landscaping on Lot B, as shown on the plans date stamped September 13, 2011, sheets 1 and 1-1.0, shall be installed by the property owner and inspected by the Planning Division; and 5. that if either of the structures on Lots A or B is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Parking Variance(s) will become void. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 5. 1409 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AUTOMOBILE RENTAL BUSINESS AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK TO A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED AWNING (GENESIS CHEN, PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, APPLICANT; HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; HOWARD HONERLAH. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 26, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ Was a traffic study conducted in the past to address safety concerns which resulted in the conditions of approval to prohibit unloading and loading vehicles on the public street? (Strohmeier - did not find any reference in the file to support this condition.) ■ Did staff visit the site to confirm car washing activities? (Strohmeier — the Chief Building Official visited the site and observed buckets used to clean windshields under the awning. Applicant provided receipts which document that vehicles are washed at a nearby car wash facility a corner of Broadway and Rollins Road.) ■ Do we know if there are other businesses on Rollins Road that are allowed to off-load on Rollins Road? (Strohmeier — other businesses in the area do use the public street to load and off-load goods, however loading and off-loading for those businesses is not limited because they are permitted uses which did not require a conditional use permit.) ■ The applicant applied for a building permit to install the awning but it was never routed to the Planning Division for review? As far as the applicant knew the awning was approved and legal since a building permit was issued. (Strohmeier— yes, that is correct. The applicant was informed that the awning did not comply with setback requirements after the awning was finaled.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Genesis Chen and Ron Barloff, 1409 Rollins Road, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Awning is needed for proper shelter for employees to clean vehicles outdoors; for protection of employees from sunlight and bad weather. Wasn't aware that awning was not reviewed by Planning Division. Property is large enough to accommodate 90 vehicles. Many customers arrive at same time to rent vehicles, need more vehicles to accommodate customers. Commission comments: ■ When staff spot checked the site there were 121 vehicles, so how can 90 vehicles be sufficient to support your business? (Chen — moved business from San Bruno to Burlingame and used the Rollins Road site for all of the vehicle parking. At that time had many new cars coming in without license plates, had to store cars until license plates were received.) ■ If unloading and loading of vehicles on the public street is denied, how would the business be affected? (Chen - unloading and loading would occur off -site at other locations and vehicle delivery process would change.) ■ Please describe cleaning of vehicles at this site. (Chen — when rental vehicles are returned, the interior is vacuumed and windows are cleaned in awning area, there is no washing of vehicles at this site, cars are washed at Valero gas station nearby.) ■ Why can't vehicle unloading occur on -site? (Chen — for safety reasons, to avoid conflict between the truck and customers.) 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 ■ Does this business require a conditional use permit because of its location on Rollins Road? (Strohmeier — a conditional use permit is required for rental car companies in this zoning district). ■ Don't think it's safe to have truck off-loading on Rollins Road. ■ Concerned that applicant is asking to park more vehicles on site to accommodate fleet and as a result there is not enough room on -site to safely off-load vehicles; if there only 60 vehicles on -site then it would be more likely to safely off-load vehicles on -site away from the customers (Barloff — loading and unloading does not occur on a daily basis, it's seasonal and occurs when new fleet comes in and old fleet is taken off the inventory. Currently, rental car companies are reducing the fleet since the season is over; fleet will increase in February and March.) ■ Is there a way to restrict when fleet is increased and decreased? (Barloff — yes, this can be controlled.) ■ This lot may not be big enough for this business. ■ Unfortunate that awning was not routed to the Planning Division, but it doesn't mean that it is any more legal or allowable. ■ Why couldn't awning be built elsewhere on property to comply with setbacks so that a variance is not required? Chen - to put it elsewhere on the property means taking up more vehicle space. What is hardship on the property for granting a variance? ■ For this site to operate the way the applicant needs it to operation, the applicant is saying that he needs to intensify the use, but it is creating an impact on the neighbors. (Barloff - reason for increase is to accommodate vehicles coming in at different times of day and year, want to create a cushion just in case there are not enough employees on site to move vehicles; want to rent cars out, goal is not to keep cars on site; business is open longer hours which means customers are coming to the site at different times and business needs accommodate that.) ■ Don't have an issue with on occasion having 90 vehicles on -site, however concern is that more vehicles on the premise prohibits unloading of cars on site occasionally and places the awning in a location that requires a variance. (Barloff — will make other arrangements to unload vehicles. However, requesting that the Commission grant approval of 30 more vehicles on -site to safely and efficiently run business.) Conditional of approval prohibiting the loading and unloading of vehicles on the public street should remain. ■ Still need to evaluate setback variances for awning, what is exceptional circumstance? (Barloff — Enterprise Rent-A-Car previously had an outlet at the front corner of the building where the awning is; can't place it where the customers are and can't place it where the disabled -accessible spaces are located, best location on property is away from consumers and vehicles; this area was not previously covered because Enterprise was only open until 5 pm, Payless is open until 10 pm.) ■ Concerned that vacuum noise will impact adjacent property. (Barloff —awning helps to keep the noise down.) ■ What happens to returned rental cars that are damaged? (Barloff — damaged vehicles are picked up by a body shop for repairs.) Is that body shop located at 1379 N. Carolan Avenue? Saw 11 damaged vehicles on North Carolan, are they from Payless? Concerned that public street is being used to store damaged vehicles. (Barloff - no, Payless is not affiliated with that body shop in any way, believe that body shop provides repair services for other rental car companies.) ■ Concerned with vacuum noise, this is the reason for having setbacks; not convinced that awning is necessary; think there are other alternative locations on the lot. ■ Cannot support unloading or loading of vehicles on Rollins Road or Carolan Avenue; don't think this is the right lot size for this business. ■ Don't see a problem with unloading and loading of vehicles on Rollins Road since this is an industrial area, doesn't impact neighborhood. ■ North Carolan Avenue is severely impacted; concerned with increasing intensity of business. ■ Perhaps application should be referred to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission (TSP) for review and recommendation regarding impacts from this business on North Carolan Avenue. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. ■ If application is referred to the TSP, would application be continued? (Guinan — yes, application would be continued and be brought back to the Planning Commission at a later date once the TSP has formulated recommendations.) ■ Now that applicant is aware of setback requirements, they should consider alternative locations for the awning so that a variance is not required. ■ TSP works closely with the Police Department, can review issues regarding unloading and loading of vehicles, loading zones, impacts on North Carolan Avenue, identifying rental vehicles on the street. ■ Concerned that need for having to offload vehicles on street is because use is being intensified. ■ Applicant needs to clarify frequency of unloading and loading of vehicles during the year and how it can be controlled to reduce impacts. ■ Applicant needs to address issue of exceptional circumstances for awning at the location; location of existing utilities is not a hardship, utilities can be relocated. ■ Delivery and unloading/loading of vehicles can be better coordinated to keep them off the street. ■ Applicant noted access to an additional site; how many spaces would be available at this location to know overflow capacity. Commissioner Auran moved to continue the application with the direction to forward it to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission for recommendations on how to solve the traffic, parking and delivery issues discussed, and that prior to the application returning to the Planning Commission for review, it is expected that the applicant review the setback regulations and a proposed an alternative location for the awning so that a variance is not required. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:22 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1526 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 26, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Since the proposed project is 1 square foot below the maximum allowed FAR, will the FAR certification be required? (Hurin - yes, a condition of approval will be included to require the FAR certification.) 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 Chair Yie opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Are permeable pavers proposed for the hardscape throughout the site and will strips in driveway be grass? (Chu — yes.) ■ There is a lot of mass at the front, lot is at the crest of the hill, can the two-story element be reduced or recessed? (Chu — building elevation is very balanced; story poles don't show all of the angles and articulation, only show the overall envelope; landscaping will also help reduce massing; combined setback between buildings is 25 feet.) ■ Difficult to articulate pop -outs on house with story poles. ■ Is there a structural reason why there needs to be three columns at front porch? Concerned it reduces the usability of the porch. (Chu — don't need to have three columns for structural reasons, think it looks well-balanced with three columns, will take a look at it.) ■ Is this the right house for this neighborhood? Neighborhood is eclectic with a mix of styles; this is a large house, but it's on a large lot. ■ Wrap wainscoting around to porch. ■ Like generous amount of front and rear porches. ■ On garage, wood brackets are shown with no overhang; perhaps add an overhang or trellis. ■ Pull garage further off property line or eliminate fence. ■ Lot is at peak of hill — great place for flat roof, prairie style house. ■ Where are story poles positioned? Is it at the front of the house or at the second floor roof? (Chu - story pole plan and certification will be submitted for next meeting showing what has been installed.) ■ Consider a gable end at the rear of the garage for more attic storage. ■ May want to adjust story poles to more accurately reflect articulation of house. ■ Request City Arborist to review and comment on existing pine tree at rear of house, they don't have a long life expectancy, doesn't look healthy. ■ Outriggers and knee braces stick out too far from gables, will become a maintenance issue. ■ Have you considered a contemporary design for this area; think it will work well. Public comments: Carol Mink, 1541 Los Montes Drive and Gemmy Tsai, 1530 Los Altos Drive; spoke. ■ Live directly behind subject property; value our trees, views and general nature of hillside area. Sky is an important factor; was shocked when story poles were installed, view of distant western hills will be taken away, sky where sun sets will covered; was in neighbors house at 1545 Los Montes, a third of their yard looks into the western hills and sky, story poles cover these views; views of bay have been preserved well over the years with flat roofs and building into the grade. ■ Pine trees in area are shedding more than usual, but appear to be healthy. ■ Next door neighbors were concerned when house behind them was being constructed; distant views are important and will be cut; house is incompatible with neighborhood in terms of size, too large for neighborhood; hope design could be adjusted to preserve views. Welcome Commission to view story poles from their property. ■ Concerned with the height, a flat roof would help to reduce height. ■ Met with applicant, discussed privacy issues, appreciate reducing size of windows, would like to see number of windows reduced. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 Impact is greater because it is at top of hill, will be tallest house on block, and would like to see roof height reduced. House is quite tall and long along the side property line, will lose view of sky and trees; indirect sunlight will be also blocked. House at 1522 Los Altos Drive has done a good job to reduce bulk, has a lower roof and reduced number of windows. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: ■ Will need to visit adjacent properties. ■ Encourage applicant to increase lot coverage and reduce height, perhaps build into the topography more, to address view blockage. ■ Don't think we can require applicant to increase lot coverage and build into the topography since the hillside ordinance addresses impacts from projects on long distant views of the bay and not of the sky or trees, and it appears that this house will not have an impact on bay views (Hurin — clarified that the hillside ordinance addresses impacts from projects on long distant views from habitable spaces, the ordinance does not specify that only long distant bay views are considered.) ■ Existing large pine trees will block any view of the proposed house from the people downhill on Los Montes Drive. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the action calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p. M. 7. 1344 PALOMA AVENUE, 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; TODD MASTER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 26, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Mark Roberston, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Have you considered shifting the second story addition forward to eliminate cantilever at rear? (Roberston - no, we're trying to work with existing walls and minimize impact on the street.) Like the design and that you're working with existing structure, especially with the sloped roof in bedroom #4; gives the house a lot of character. Suggest recessing the weather head and utilities. 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 ■ Think the entry would look better if it were at the front of the house instead of side; would enlarge porch area and create a more usable porch. (Robertson - will look into it, but it could be pricey.) ■ Will you be able to find shingles to match the existing shingle siding? (Robertson — contractor will be looking into this.) ■ The existing house has corner boards, will they be retained? (Robertson - yes.) ■ The existing front window has fake interior mullions. Is it in your budget to replace this window to match the new windows? (Robertson - no, but second floor windows will be simulated true divided lite.) ■ Important to note that this is a remodel, applicant is making a commitment to preserving an existing house, project is approximately 800 square feet below the maximum allowed FAR and 740 square feet below the maximum allowed lot coverage; commendable for not overbuilding and appreciate the commitment. 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 Gaul. Discussion of motion: Consider relocating the entry and stairs to the front of the house, would look well and function better. 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 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p. M. 8. 1390 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED SL —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION WITH RETAIL SALES (DAN GIFFIN, STUDIO GREEN ARCHITECTURE LLP, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT: AU ENERGY LLC. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 26, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Request is to approve expansion of the convenience store. How can vending machines be controlled in front of the building? (Hurin — there are no regulations in the Municipal Code that apply to vending machines, however they can be addressed through conditions of approval for the project.) Is the existing car wash subject to any water reclamation requirements? (Hurin —this project will be reviewed by the NPDES Coordinator to ensure that the car wash facility will be in compliance with all applicable regulations concerning the discharge and treatment of water.) IN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Dan Giffin, 3090 Fite Circle #103, Sacramento; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ What is proposed material at corner of building? (Giffin — will be a steel mesh, intended to draw your eye to the front door.) ■ Does the rendering represent the intended color? (Giffin — the exact colors don't always transpire when printed, colors will be standard Shell branding colors which will be toned down.) • Suggest adding an awning structure at the front of the building. ■ Suggest painting window frames instead of using anodized frames, salt water in area may pit and corrode the frames. (Giffin — window frames will be powder coated white.) Change note on plans to reflect a white powder coated window frame. • Consider adding a fin element or similar structure to provide as much shading as possible to windows on western exposure. ■ Concerned with rounded front element and location of front door on flat portion of building; consider relocating the entry door within the rounded element or tying in the shade element with the entry door. ■ Clarify corner panels on front elevation to match rendering. ■ Why is the proposed building height at 21 feet? (Giffin - it's a design element to draw people in from area, also trying to introduce something more dynamic and contemporary.) 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: Add condition of approval to address vending machines. A shade structure, fin or similar design element should be incorporated at the front of the building. 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 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:23 p. M. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 26, 2011 ■ None. FYI: 2200 Poppy Drive — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 20