Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 07.12.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, July 12, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Vistica called the July 12, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioners Terrones and Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2010 and June 28, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: June 28, 2010 minutes: Page 3, Further Commission Comments, first bullet; revise to read "Exploring different architectural solutions for the roof -style (e.g. lower roof pitch, flat roof with up -slope) could have addressed some of the issues". Page 7, Commission Comments, third bullet; revise to read "Looks like the applicant attempted to improve the window design by adding vinyl trim, but this does not work. Instead of adding more vinyl trim, consider adding shutters" Page 14, Miscellaneous; note that Commissioner Cauchi will be absent from the meeting of July 26, not July 16. Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Terrones and Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Randy Vandenbrink, 1412 Alvarado Avenue; spoke: Neighbors to the home being built at 1441 Balboa Avenue had to experience the sound of a generator for nine days since the contractor did not provide a temporary power connection to the power pole at the rear of the property. A complaint was lodged with the Police Department. The City needs to require contractors to respect the neighbors during construction; should not need to CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 12, 2010 listen to unnecessary noise during the construction. Look at this item at the subcommittee level. (Auran — suggested placing on a future agenda.) ■ Noted that Mercy High School says they are on the next agenda; but application has not been submitted to Planning. ■ The high-school is a commuter school; many students come from outside the area; all students drive through the gate to the school; no one walks to the school. ■ Read the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission minutes closely; there was also a traffic study prepared by the Public Works Department. The traffic numbers submitted to the City in January were inaccurate by a significant degree. Believes that the incorrect numbers were used to justify the change in the Conditional Use Permit previously. ■ If the traffic numbers were inaccurate; the approval was based upon incorrect traffic counts. ■ Make a reasonable evaluation of what can be considered for Mercy High School; look at the current, accurate traffic numbers before making a decision. ■ Cannot trust the current projections of traffic and its impact upon the neighborhood. Mercy needs to live up to the promises made with the prior approvals. ■ There is no way that the residents can know if Mercy High School is in compliance with the prior Conditional Use Permit. ■ Look at the performance of the school prior to making a decision; balance the rights of the neighbors with the request of Mercy High School. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. 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. Vice -Chair Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Auran noted that he would recuse himself from voting on Item 1 a (1352 Vancouver Avenue), since he resides within 500-feet of the property. 1a. 1352 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (STEPHEN GARDNER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RICARDO TERRONES/CARLOS ROJAS, DREILING TERRONES ARCHITECTURE, INC., ARCHITECTS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 1b. 2215 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 1C. 1354 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA -APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (JOHN HENRY, PLEGER HENRY ARCHITECTURE LLC, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND P&K PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 12, 2010 1d. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED APPLICATION FORAMENDMENTTO CONDOMINIUM PERMITAND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MIKE PRESCOTT, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Vice -Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-2-1 for Item la (Commissioner Terrones and Lindstrom absent, CommissionerAuran recused, and 5-0-2 for Items 1 b, 1 c, and Id (Commissioners Terrones and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 2525 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCES FORA FIRSTAND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ADRIAN HURIN, CHALK LINE DETAIL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ALFRED AND NANCY JOE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. Adrian Hurin, 317 North Delaware Street; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Clarified that an FAR Variance is still requested for the 126 square foot overage. Addressed the concerns regarding the fence and the railing; believes that there will be a railing required on the stacked -stone wall at the rear; encouraged continuing the wall and rail the rest of the way around the property. Are replacing the fence on the east property line; also encouraged replacing the fence on the west and north property lines; will provide continuity. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Additions are being made to an existing structure; the applicant is being unduly "charged" for FAR due to the existing below -grade floor area, leading to the need for the Variance; also necessitated by the slope of the lot. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 12, 2010 Add Gaul comments. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 30, 2010, sheets G0.01 through L1.01; 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 the fence proposed along the south property line shall be extended along the rear property line and the property line along Adeline Drive to enclose the rear yard of the site; additionally, provide a rail atop the stacked stone wall on the rear of the property to comply with California Building Code regulations; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 29, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's April 26, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's May 11, 2010 and March 30, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's March 31, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 31, 2010 memo shall be met; 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance and Parking Variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7. 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; 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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 12, 2010 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 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; 13. 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 14. 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: Agrees with the motion; the improvements made have helped the project. The peculiar slope of the lot and the fact that it is a corner lot affect the allowable floor area. Vice -Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Terrones and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 3. 1440 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO SECOND FLOORAND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TIM AND EMILY MATTHEWS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Vistica opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: On the east elevation where three dormers are shown; suggested continuing the line between the stairs and the master bathroom to give it more space for a double vanity; would also look fine from an aesthetic standpoint. (Robertson — would impact the height of the structure; do not want to impact the neighbor next door. The 14:12 gable end at the rear is recessed; want to retain light for 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 12, 2010 the neighbor and prevent the structure from looming over the neighbor. The neighbor accepted the current design.) ■ The top -most element for the vaulted ceiling seems like too much. (Robertson —trying to bifurcate the house; wants to make sure that the mass of the house is cut in half. The plate height was lowered substantially.) ■ Concerned about the detail of the new front entrance; looks like the walls are capped with an unidentified material. Is there a way to highlight the entry door; could the entry -way be framed in wood to provide greater contrast? (Robertson — will consider.) ■ The handrail at the entry is too wide, will need hand grips. ■ Consider carrying over the peak on the nearby window at the entry and cap off with brick detail from chimney. ■ Supports the request for a Variance; noted that the lot is not a typical sized lot in Burlingame; unusual dimensions (shorter) in depth, but see if there is any way to eliminate the Variance. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Noted that the architect removed the plans from the rear of the chambers. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: The odd size of the lot justifies the Variance, and it is a minimal Variance. Vice -Chair Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Terrones and Lindstrom). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:44 p.m. 4. 1070 BROADWAY, ZONED RR —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING TO CONVERT AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE SERVICE BUILDING TO SELF STORAGE UNITS AND ADD NEW SELF STORAGE UNITS (MICHAEL R. HARVEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NOEMI AVRAM, GUMBINGER AVRAM ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 12, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Vistica opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Noted that there are no specific parking standards for self -storage facilities; perhaps a standard is needed. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 12, 2010 Indicated that people typically park their vehicles in front of their storage units for loading and unloading; reducing the need for parking spaces within a lot. (Meeker— agreed that this is typically the approach, however, the City cannot count the space in front of the storage unit as required parking.) Discussed the requested fee waivers. (Meeker — noted that the applicant's proposal reduces the intensity of usage of the property from both a traffic and parking standpoint; the change will also reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. Additionally, clearly the proposed use will not impact City park facilities. He also noted that the Storm Drainage Impact Fee is not the same fee as the Storm Drainage Assessment that was recently approved by the voters. There appears to be merit in a waiver of fees with the exception of Police and Fire Impact Fees.) Noemi Avram, 60 East Third Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Noted that landscaping could be used to shield the facility from Broadway. (Avram — will provide significant screening, as designed.) ■ Have given a lot of though to the proposal; supports approval; is well thought out. ■ Identify the landscaping materials and shrubs on the landscape plan when the matter comes back for action. ■ Perhaps reduce parking by one more space to allow space for additional landscaping; therefore, eliminating the request for a Variance from the landscaping requirement. ■ Is there a long-range business plan for the property; will this be the use for the foreseeable future. (Avram — noted that that fire department has considered it to be a permanent use; that is the intent.) ■ Is a sound approach for use of the site, given the potential impacts of high-speed rail. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Tom Dailey, 1280 Rollins Road; and Mike Harvey, 1070 Broadway; spoke: ■ Ironic that the property was once used for storage in the past. • How many of the parking spaces are provided on the CalTrain lot? ■ Doesn't think the proposal is the correct use for the property. ■ Questioned the need for additional self -storage facilities within the area; within a three-mile area, there are five facilities; within five -miles there are eight; within ten miles, there are sixteen facilities; more are not needed. ■ Income at his existing facility has declined in recent years. ■ Looks at Broadway as a location for generating sales -tax; the use will take away sales tax revenue from the City. ■ He didn't request a waiver of fees when he developed his storage facility. ■ This type of use doesn't create new jobs; will actually reduce jobs. ■ This is one of the prime properties in Burlingame; it should be beautiful and look nice; this is not the way the property should be developed at the entry to the City. ■ If part of the application is on leased land; how long will the lease run? ■ Noted that CalTrans has shown that portions of the property will likely be taken for improvements to the Broadway interchange and CalTrain improvements to accommodate high-speed rail. ■ Have relocated the service facility elsewhere within the City; no jobs have been lost, only moved to the other location. ■ No sales will be lost; the vehicle sales operation will remain at the location, and will eventually be relocated elsewhere within the City. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 12, 2010 ■ In the interim; must have cash -flow coming from the property. It will be a two- to three-year transition period. ■ Grade separation of Broadway would eliminate access to the property from Broadway. ■ The remaining building can be converted in the future as well. Additional parking can be provided; but doing so would reduce vehicle inventory, and hence reduce income to the dealership and the City. 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 Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ Would prefer to see the item on the Consent Calendar. ■ Applicant needs to look into elimination of parking space to provide additional landscaping. More information is needed regarding proposed landscape materials ■ Feels that there are so many factors with CalTrain and CalTrans matters, that there should be more information provided for discussion prior to action; term of long-term lease, impact of changes to Broadway interchange. ■ Still has concerns about the leased property from CalTrain; need to take this into account when reviewing the project. How is parking affected if the CalTrain property is lost? ■ Not clear about how many storage units are on the property, can't necessarily see waiver of the Storm Drainage Impact Fee. ■ Should take a closer look at the fee waivers; need to have a better understanding of what the fees are used for. Vice -Chair Vistica 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 5-0-2 (Commissioners Terrones and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. City Council Regular Meeting of July 6, 2010: There were no actions from Regular City Council meeting of July 6, 2010, as the meeting was cancelled: FYI: 1125 Cabrillo Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 12, 2010 Pulled for a full hearing. Provide as -built photographs of the property so that it can be critiqued properly. Miscellaneous: Seems that applicants find means of reducing project costs and subsequently submit FYIs; takes a lot of staff time and Commission time to review such matters. Should find some way to discourage people from going through the FYI process for minor changes. Perhaps there should be a more significant fee or other way of discouraging FYIs; agendize a discussion of this matter for a future meeting XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Vistica adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary E