The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes - 03.22.10 APPROVEDC CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, March 22, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the March 22, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 2, Item 2a, fifth bullet under applicant's presentation; insert "radio frequency emissions" between "maximum" and "level" ■ Page 3, Item 2a, fourth bullet under discussion of motion; replace "most" with "many" • Page 8, Item 4, seventeenth bullet under Commission comments; revise "cramped space outside of bathroom" to read "the bathroom is cramped by wasted space near the entry" ■ Page 8, Item 4, nineteenth bullet under Commission comments; revise first sentence to read "...doors open to the top of the steps". ■ Page 8, Item 4, nineteenth bullet under Commission comments; revise applicant's response by adding "...house; same could be done with tall windows" ■ Page 8, Item 4, twentieth bullet under Commission comments; add applicant's response; "Speier- the windows lie between the lower counter and the upper cabinet.)". Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 22, 2010 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2617 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO REPLACE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE/WORKSHOP (WALT WORTHGE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ALI SADI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 22, 2010. Commission comments: ■ Would like to see a copy of the survey with the project plans to ensure that the location of the property line is correctly shown relative to the structure. ■ Clarify how drainage is handled on the property; is there drainage to the adjacent property? ■ Clarify that the window finish will match windows existing on the house. ■ Provide more detail regarding the purpose and layout of the workshop. ■ The plans for the garage show divided-lite windows, but windows in the house are not divided-lite; there should be consistency between the window types. ■ Would be helpful for the Commissioners to be able to visit the property; provide the best contact information for the applicant. ■ Provide a wood siding detail on the gable of the garage to match the house. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Terrones called for a voice 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 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). 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 7:09 p.m. Chair Terrones recused himself from participating in the discussion for Item 2 (1333 Howard Avenue) since he has a business relationship with the owner of the property. He left the Council Chambers. 2. 1333 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (HERBERT PEREZ, APPLICANT; JOHN BELTRAMO, ARCHITECT; MICHAEL GIOTINIS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 22, 2010. Commission comments: ■ Will there be any other type of training equipment on the property (e.g. weight training equipment)? ■ Will memberships be available; or will patrons come only for classes? ■ How is the class schedule run at the Foster City facility? There could be large groups of people from 3 p.m. and later, given that school will be out of session during those hours. ■ There could be more parking impacts than the previously approved restaurant use due to the nature of the use of the facility. ■ Verify the time on the metered parking in proximity to the facility. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 22, 2010 ■ Class sizes will be dictated by the size of the facility; doesn't feel there will be that great of an impact. ■ Is there the potential for designating drop-off zones? (Hurin — would require approval of the Traffic Engineer.) • There are some parallel parking spaces in the area that could be used for drop-off. ■ Would like to know what percentage of the students are under driving age and what type of carpooling occurs with the current operation in Foster City; this type of information should be provided in support of the Variance. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Acting Chair Yie called for a voice 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 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioner Terrones recused). This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. Chair Terrones 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. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from voting on Agenda Item 3a (1113 Cortez Avenue), since she resides within 500-feet of the subject property. 3a. 1113 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LAWRENCE AND MARY JO NEJASMICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi moved approval of Consent Calendar Item 3a (1113 Cortez Avenue) based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner A uran. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioner Yie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. 3b. 398 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STANLEY LO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran moved approval of Consent Calendar Item 3b (398 Primrose Road) 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 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 22, 2010 Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 1444 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JIM AND BARBARA MILLET, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHNNY GO, NII ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Staff noted that the application should be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 2010 to permit the applicant time to revise project plans. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application until April 12, 2010. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Terrones called fora voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent. The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 822 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOANN M. GANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TIM AND LINDA AITKEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. JoAnn Gann, 2441Fulton Street, Redwood City and Timothy Aitken, 822 Linden Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Will the gate at the front of the driveway remain? (Gann — yes.) ■ Has the entry been windowed off; was it originally open? (Aitken —was always windowed. He likes it the way it is.) ■ Design looks nice; the addition is incorporated well. ■ Consider continuing the stacked stone along the right side to provide more articulation. ■ Clarify details on the porch; which direction do the stairs run? ■ Treat the chimney differently from the remainder of the house; may be nice to provide the stacked stone on the chimney, rather than stucco. ■ Provide more detail of window trims being used. ■ The landscape plan only shows a new walkway; is this the only change? (Gann — yes.) ■ Asked about the stucco trim around the window on the front porch. (Gann — currently, 4-inch stucco trim.) ■ Asked what material would be used on top of the stacked stone. (Gann — stone will be used.) M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 22, 2010 Is the existing chimney being removed? (Gann — no, it is staying in place.) Is the railing on the rear deck existing? (Gann — yes.) On the upper floor; bathroom 4 is accessed through bedroom 3; bathroom 3 is accessed from the hallway, so must also service bedroom 2; it may be desirable to have both bedrooms use the same bathroom and gain additional floor area. (Gann — the applicant wants a bathroom for each child.) Public comments: Kevin Eng, 825 Laurel Avenue; spoke: On the rear elevation, can see the existing roof now from his bedroom; the window on the rear will be looking into his bedroom and kitchen areas. Is it possible to change the window? (Yie — if windows were made clerestory, could address privacy issues and provide a bed wall. Aitken — there is a greater than 12-foot tall hedge along the rear; would like to retain the current design. Gann — could plant another tree on the property to provide more privacy to the neighbor.) Noted that the hedge is on the neighbor's property (825 Laurel Avenue). 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 Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ The design review guidelines discuss using landscaping as a means of addressing privacy concerns. ■ The applicant should provide clerestory windows in the bedroom; they would also add to their privacy. ■ Not certain how long it would take a tree to provide adequate privacy screening. ■ The applicant will likely be providing privacy screens on the windows as well. ■ Looks like the windows will be at least 50-feet from the rear property line; likely 80-100 feet from the neighbor's structure. The Commission can encourage the applicant to consider the revised windows as a means of addressing the neighbor's concerns; however, the two structures are quite distant from each other. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:48 p.m. 6. 2200 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND BASEMENT, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW BASEMENT QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER: JOE AND CATHY GUGLIELMI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 22, 2010 Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Requested clarification of the calculation method for the declining height envelope given the shape of the property (Hurin — explained how declining height envelope is calculated on an irregular - shaped lot). Clarified that the setbacks are being maintained at the existing locations. If the foundation is removed due to engineering considerations, could it be replaced at the lesser setback, as shown? (Hurin — yes.) James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo and Joe Guglielmi, 2200 Poppy Drive; represented the applicant. ■ Clarified that the plate height for the basement is nine feet. ■ The special permit is requested due to the irregular shape of the property. ■ Referenced a petition signed by all adjacent neighbors supporting the project. ■ The neighbor to the left has suggested some changes that are agreeable to the applicant, including: retention of the existing hedges along his driveway and left side property line; deleting the installation of a proposed six-foot fence between the properties; keeping the existing 12-inch high stone wall along the neighbor's driveway; and attempt to recess the light -well for the basement into the footprint of the house. Additional Commission comments: ■ Is there any way to reduce plate height at some location so that the roof doesn't need to be truncated? (Chu — will not be noticeable, and there is no flat roof in this area.) ■ Is a railing needed at the porch? (Chu — may require a rail.) ■ From the guest room, could provide a pocket door into the bathroom to provide more privacy. (Chu — the room will likely be used as a den or office.) ■ Nice design. ■ Commended the applicant on speaking to the neighbors in an effort to address any concerns in advance. ■ Will the gate be automatic? (Guglielmi — is a manual wood gate that will be retained.) ■ Is the gate set back far enough for one car? (Chu — yes.) The size and shape of the lot support the Variance application. ■ Seems that the front entry is a bit grandiose. The existing porch has a somewhat cloistered feel; can understand the desire to increase the mass given the second floor; could the arch be smaller? Consider bringing down the scale of the archway. ■ What is the material under the tile roof on the chimney cap? (Chu — will be copper.) ■ Are the downspouts and gutters copper? (Hurin — will be copper.) ■ Does seem like a grandiose house; agrees with bringing down the scale of the entry. ■ Doesn't see a chase for exhaust from water heater and furnace; clarify this on the plans. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Agrees that the entry is too large. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 22, 2010 Understands why the setbacks are proposed; but it is unconscionable to allow it to be built with only a nine foot wide driveway; the right hand setback could be adjusted to provide a useable driveway. May want to reconsider the architectural design and provide an attached garage. Applicant response: The applicant is accustomed to using the driveway as it exists. 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. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: Reconsider the proportions of the corbels at the front gable; they look a bit heavy. 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 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:15 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 March 15, 2010: None to report. FYI: 1021 Cortez Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. Miscellaneous: Chair Terrones provided an update regarding Commissioner Vistica's condition. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes March 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary