Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 02.08.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 6URLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 8, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the February 8, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones, Cauchi and Yie Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 1, Roll Call: delete `Brownrigg" and one of the "Terrones" ■ Page 2, fourth bullet from top of page: delete "such regulations'; replace with "water rationing". ■ Page 5, Item 3, bottom of page: delete "Appeal procedures were advised". ■ Page 6, Item 4, bottom of page: delete "Appeal procedures were advised". ■ Page 8, Item 5, add a bullet under "Commission comments';- insert: "Significant concerns have been raised by neighbors across the freeway regarding the light levels of the prior "Sheraton" sign" ■ Page 9, Item 7, last paragraph: delete "Appeal procedures were advised'; insert: "The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable" Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner 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. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 8, 2010 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 Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Yie pulled Item lb (814 Crossway Road) from the Consent Calendar. 1a. 1212 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA FIRSTAND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LENGTH FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CRAIG AND PAIGE HEDGES, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran 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 Cauchi. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion related to Agenda Item lb (814 Crossway Road), since he is a potential contractor for the project. He left the Council Chambers. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1b. 814 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE AND MICHELE JACKSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 8, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant Commission comments: Why was the window squared -off? Was not a suggestion of the Commission. Thought the existing window was more attractive. (Grange — more consistent with the style of the house.) The angled -top windows were an attractive feature, but the change is not a deal breaker. Clarified that there will still be a door at the top of the steps on the enclosed porch. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 8, 2010 Noticed that the rear garage door has two steps down. (Grange — the two steps are not correct; the garage door is flush with the courtyard.) Plans need to be corrected prior to building permit submittal to accurately show the transition between the garage and patio at the rear of the house. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie 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 January 28, 2010, sheets A3.1 through A3.3; and date stamped January 13, 2010, sheets Al. 1, A2.1, A3.4, A4.1 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 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 November 24, 2009 memo, the City Engineer's November 30, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 30, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's December 7, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 30, 2009 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 8, 2010 2007 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 10. 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; 11. 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 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioner Lindstrom recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom returned to the dais. 3. 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA — APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR A NEW WALL SIGN ABOVE 24 FEET ABOVE GRADE (PAUL SALISBURY, DWA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 8, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four (4) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Asked if the Sign Ordinance addresses the brightness of the signage; could conditions be attached to restrict illumination? (Meeker— the ordinance does not address the lighting intensity, but since a Variance is being requested, it is within the Commission's purview to condition the approval in a manner that addresses any concerns regarding lighting levels.) Clarified that the amount of signage on other elevations has been reduced to permit the larger sign on this building face. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 8, 2010 Paul Salisbury, 1555 Bayshore Highway; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Is the reduction in lighting intensity based upon the reduction in the size in the sign and/or the reduction in the intensity of illumination? (Salisbury — it is a combination of both a reduction in size as well as intensity reduction due to the changed light source.) ■ Would like to see the lumens/square foot output of the prior versus the proposed signs. ■ Asked if the proposed LED lights could be dimmed? (Salisbury — LED lights cannot be dimmed.) ■ Is there the possibility for the signage to be backlit in a manner that the letters themselves do not illuminate, but are "halo" lighted? (Salisbury — yes, but there would still need to be enough light for the sign to be visible. The proposed sign would be internally lighted.) ■ Would the applicant be open to not illuminating the "H" logo portion of the sign? Could be a compromise solution. The lower portion of the building is not visible from the neighborhood due to the existence of the sound wall. Could also consider placing the sign lower on the building for this reason. (Salisbury — not sure this characterization is accurate; the light may be more diffused as the sign is placed higher on the wall.) ■ Is there LED signage in the area that could be viewed to determine the night-time impacts? (Salisbury — Can ask the sign company to identify other signs that are similar in construction and intensity.) ■ Need more clarity on the reduction in lighting intensity comparative to the prior sign. (Salisbury — the 20% reduction in light output is primarily attributable to the change in light source; from neon to LED.) ■ Perhaps have the City Engineer review the light output, or have City Engineer provide criteria as to what we should be considering; request a comparison of lumens/square foot. Public comments: William and Margie Marion, 615 Plymouth Way; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; ■ Entire bedroom would glow red when the Sheraton sign was installed; concerned that the new sign might only be a different color glow on the property. ■ What is the light output? ■ Concerned that the applicant may desire to have the "H" logo serve as a beacon to the hotel. ■ Noted that it was primarily the large "S" on the Sheraton sign was visible; though can see over the sound wall from the second story. ■ A neighbor's tree partially blocks the view, but would be more visible if the neighbor's tree were trimmed. ■ It is unfortunate that the Sheraton sign is no longer present; hard to compare. ■ Noted that "Hilton" is a shorter name than "Sheraton"; this is part of the reason for the reduction in size. ■ The luminosity is the real issue; believes the lighting intensity is comparable. ■ Feels that the signage will be detrimental to the neighborhood. ■ What are the extenuating circumstances that warrant a sign of the size proposed? ■ Companies spend millions of dollars to establish their brand; the applicant doesn't want to denigrate its brand by installing an oversized sign; should be similar in scale to the signage on other hotels. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 8, 2010 ■ Would like further information regarding where the reduction in brightness is coming from. ■ Would it be possible to lower the height of the sign to reduce visibility from the west side of Highway 101; is the "H" portion of the sign necessary, could it be removed? ■ The hotel needs to be able to advertise. Other hotels with less signage have smaller signs, but are directly adjacent to the freeway. ■ Understands the neighbors' concerns. ■ Could mock-up of the proposed signage be placed on the building? Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the matter requesting additional information and analysis from the applicant, as discussed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ If the applicant is going to continue to request the Variance; he needs to expand upon the extraordinary circumstances that warrant approval of the Variances. ■ Everyone in the community supports the hotels, but unclear how much of the illumination is actually reduced. ■ The fact that the prior sign exceeded standards is not justification for the current proposal. ■ When the initial Variance for the prior sign was approved; the true impact upon the neighborhood was unknown; the bar is now higher due to known impacts. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1401 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAVIER CHAVARRIA, JC ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAN MULREADY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 8, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Clarified that the Variance for the covered parking is only attributable to the increase in the number of bedrooms; the garage is not being altered, however. Javier Chavarria, 225 Rockaway Beach Avenue, Pacifica; represented the applicant. Extending the depth of the garage is infeasible; the garage functions at its present size. Additional Commission comments: Commended the applicant on his preparation. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 8, 2010 ■ Overall believes the Variance is supportable and the addition is well designed. ■ Would like the applicant to provide material sizes of architectural elements and window types on revised plans when the item comes back for approval. ■ Clarified that wood, or aluminum clad simulated true divided -light windows are required; please add note to plans. ■ The fascias on the existing house are small and detailed, but on the drawings the fascias appear larger; the end fascias on the gable faces need to match the existing facade; will tie the addition into the rest of the house. ■ The area over the garage door becomes very broad with the addition; more attention is needed at this area; perhaps a trellis structure or awning to add scale to the fagade. ■ Perhaps consider increasing the garage door height; this could help to address the mass at this fagade. • Consider changing the garage door to be more in keeping with the design of the home. ■ Provide more details of existing design features that are being matched. ■ Eliminate discrepancies in the plans. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p. M. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 1, 2010: The Safeway project was approved with all FYI items resolved at the time of City Council action. The appeal of 1441 Balboa Avenue was considered; the Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval, with additional conditions related to landscaping on the adjacent property. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 8, 2010 FYI: 1256 Cortez Avenue — review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1613 Easton Drive — review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1595 Columbus Avenue — review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Construction Project — Complaint Log for January 2010: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 8:06. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary