Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 10.25.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURL.INGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, October 25, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Terrones called the October 25, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom and Terrones Absent: Commissioners Yie and Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the October 12, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 5, under Discussion of Motion at bottom of page, first bullet; delete "based upon cultural preferences" ■ Page 7, under Further Commission Comments; to the statement add "it's not clear what the applicant is asking the Commission to consider" ■ Page 7, under Public Hearing Reopened; insert "but left it up to the Commission " after "stairwell" in the third line. ■ Page 11, Item 6 (303 Primrose Road); delete "there were no questions of staff" from the first paragraph. Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie 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 review. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 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. There were no Consent Calendar items for review. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1505 SHERMAN AVENUE (TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH), ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AFTER -SCHOOL TUTORING BUSINESS OPERATING AT AN EXISTING CHURCH SITE (SHERMAN TUNG, APPLICANT; TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 12, 2010, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated October 25, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Sherman Tung and Jesse Tung, 841 Sequoia Avenue, Millbrae and Pastor Jeff Schufrieder, Trinity Lutheran Church Pastor; represented the applicant. The main concerns appear to be about the parking on Sherman Avenue; students will be picked up once parents are finished at work; not all at one time. Students are dropped off and picked up in the parking lot and exit onto Balboa Avenue. Between 4:50 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., noted only 28 cars passing through the area during that time; feels that the school traffic will not significantly impact the area. Parking on Sherman Avenue is already filled up; there are more than nine parking spaces available within the on -site parking lot for parents to use. Could also be persons from the condominiums in the area using Sherman Avenue for parking. Commission comments: ■ Asked for clarification regarding whether or not the tutoring center is currently in operation? (Meeker — noted that the project planner was told that the use was already in place; the applicant was advised to discontinue the use pending Planning Commission action.) ■ Asked if bicycle parking is to be provided? (Tung — all students will be dropped off by car; some carpool together.) ■ How is the youth house used as part of the operation? Observed parents entering the building. (Tung — is not used for the tutoring center.) ■ Regarding the play area behind the house; how is it used? (Tung — used for children to take recess. There is a break between tutorial classes that permits a recess to be taken outside.) ■ The use begins to appear to operate more like an after -school day-care center given the break periods and other characteristics. ■ Is there a break between tutorial periods? Neighbors' concerns relate to drop-off and pick-up. (Tung — students arrive at different times given the discharge times from some of the schools from which the students are arriving.) 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 ■ Is there an actual curriculum? Appears that there are two sessions, but students will be dropped off during those periods of times. (Tung — there actually is a curriculum; the homework help is done first; older students arrive later. Some classes are held once all students arrive.) ■ Are there services held at the church during the same time periods? (Schufrieder — no church activities during these times.) ■ Is the youth building being used? (Schufrieder — use of this building has been discontinued.) ■ Is the tutoring center limited to 30 students? (Schufrieder — will be restricted per the agreement; can have no more than seven students outside at any given time.) ■ Are Sunday services held at the church? What is traffic like? (Schufrieder — yes, services are held on Sundays; on -site parking and street parking is used; there are also neighborhood members that attend the services.) Public comments: Nancy McGee, 1520 Sherman Avenue; Ken Aron, 1600 Sherman Avenue; Kristie LeGrand, 1261 Balboa Avenue; Bill Thompson, 1257 Balboa Avenue; Dorian Alvarez, 1519 Sherman Avenue; spoke: ■ Neighbor submitted a letter on her behalf at the prior meeting. ■ Also referenced letter received from Shermanwoods Homeowners Association. ■ Became aware because there was a lot of noise and traffic at the location due to the activities; have experienced a problem already based upon fewer than 20 children. ■ There is already a lot of traffic pressure on the street; it is only three blocks long; other routes to and from the area are limited. ■ Not complaining because homeowners want to park in front of their residences; but don't want to add more congestion to the area. ■ Also noted vandalism in the area. ■ The applicant's responses during the public hearing do not help to alleviate concerns; the traffic pattern description by the applicant is not accurate; this is the wrong location for this activity. ■ The youth house side of the property is on the residential side of the site; rules were bent previously and activities have been held at that location. ■ Doesn't recall day-care activities in the past; only periodic day camps, but no regular day-care activities. ■ Has lived in the area for 26 years; skeptical of the assessment regarding traffic circulation to and from the property. ■ Appears that up to 60 persons will be present on the property at any given time. ■ Property owners should have been included in the discussions that occurred previously at the staff level; referenced comments made by other departments reviewing the request. ■ Concerned regarding responsibility for compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit. ■ Noted that he has observed more than 20 children in the play area at a time when an approval has not even been granted. ■ Not sure where employees will park. ■ The neighborhood is under pressure; there is limited parking in the area; there is a lot of pressure on the parking supply especially given the presence of the condominium developments in the area. ■ Adding more children to the area will put more children at risk given traffic levels in the area. ■ Read a letter from another neighbor (Robert and Carol Costa, 1265 Balboa Avenue) regarding the proposal; concerns regarding sanitary facilities, fire sprinklers, and the needs of such a wide variety of ages of children. ■ More congestion will be added to the area; additional vehicles will make the streets impassable. ■ Many of the children must be in car -seats; removing the children and taking them into and out of the facility will take time that will create parking and traffic conflicts. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 ■ Is there enough lighting in the area that will not disturb the neighbors? ■ School cannot guarantee that there will be enough access for emergency vehicles. ■ The youth building is a residential property; what will guarantee that it is not used for commercial purposes? Children's outdoor activities will create an impact upon the neighbors. ■ Will the school be permitted to encroach upon the residential neighborhood? ■ Agrees with others' concerns expressed during the public hearing; particularly the traffic concerns. ■ Feels local students will likely ride their bicycles to the location. ■ A board member approached her following the last meeting with the Planning Commission; indicated that only seven students would be allowed outside; but the next day observed 20 children outside; they are outside for much longer than 10-minutes. ■ Appears to be more of a day-care center. ■ No one from the school has approached her to address her concerns. Additional applicant comments: ■ The youth house has always been an educational institution for the church. ■ The large number of children outside was at a time when they were waiting to be retrieved by their parents. ■ Has been concerned regarding noise from other children activities in the area so he is sensitive to the neighbors' concerns. ■ Open to working with the neighbors. (Commission Member— public outreach would go along way towards attempting to address neighbors' concerns.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Referenced what uses came first in the area; the church and the school were already there before the condominium development. ■ Every neighborhood near El Camino Real has parking problems due to the number of apartment buildings in the area. ■ This type of program is customary in the Chinese-American community. ■ The church was there previously; people bought homes knowing that the church was in the area and that activities related to the church would occur. ■ This plan is not well thought out; particularly in terms of community outreach and a real plan to ensure that it works. ■ Need to work with the neighbors to attempt to resolve any potential issues; would have liked to have seen that the proposal was well thought out and presented to the neighbors in advance of the public hearing. ■ Supportive of the project; could be good for the community. ■ Doesn't believe that the use needs to be limited to only Burlingame residents. ■ Still have concerns and problems with the application; though fully supportive of the concept. ■ There are complications inherent in the application; for example, even if absolute control of the play area is achieved by limited the number of children; there would be an extended period of time for breaks spent outside that will be an impact upon the neighborhood. ■ Are being asked to consider parking on another portion of the property that will overlap into the Balboa Avenue portion of the neighborhood, lapping; this is not the right location for this use. ■ The applicant already acknowledges that children will be driven to the location; that there will be no bicycle usage. E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 ■ Appears more like after -school day-care. ■ Though a limit of 30 students at a time could be imposed; could still be problematic due to potential overlap between sessions. ■ Needs a stronger business plan and more clarity about the activities. ■ The use will greatly impact the single-family neighborhood. ■ The curriculum is a very important part of the discussion; needs more clarity and traffic and parking impacts must be addressed. ■ Can't support the current proposal. Commissioner Gaul moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: ■ Need more outreach to the neighbors. ■ Need greater clarity regarding the operation. ■ Doesn't feel that there will be thirty vehicles associated with the use; there will be some carpooling. ■ Could provide a traffic study to clarify potential impacts. Acting Chair Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 3-2-2 (Commissioners Auran and Cauchi dissenting, Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 2. 904 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (BO THORENFELDT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAIME RAPADAS, A/R DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty -Seven (37) conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Questions of staff: Clarified parking space count and landscaping variance. Can the driveway in front of the space be considered a delivery space? (Hurin — could be used for that purpose, but does not meet the standards.) Jaime Rapadas, 801 Mahler Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Project needs more detail, particularly at the front entry. (Rapadas — will look at providing more detail.) Is pushing the maximum lot coverage to the limit; results in a boxy appearing building. The design has improved with some additional details, but variances are requested because the design has been pushed to the maximum lot coverage. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 ■ Would be good to see a building that is articulated and will enhance the neighborhood. ■ Would like to see better detail and finishing materials used. ■ The support columns for the building appear to restrict vehicle access; has any consideration been given to how they will be protected? (Rapadas — the lower portions will be protected with steel plates.) ■ Changes that have been made are not remarkable. ■ Design lacks detail (e.g. garage door, window materials, etc.) ■ Are seeking special approvals based upon maximizing the design of the lot. ■ Need to build a quality project to receive a return on the investment; boxy and looks cheap. Public comments: None. Additional applicant comments: Have complied with the comments of all departments. Feels the project will enhance the neighborhood. The neighborhood is filled with bulky buildings; the project represents a better design. Additional Commission comments: There is not an adequate explanation of the extraordinary circumstances that warrant the variance approvals. (Rapadas — could widen the driveway to provide space for the delivery space.) The lot is only 5,000 square feet in area, smaller than many of the other lots in the area; is in an area where intensification of use can occur, but needs to see some revisions to the variance applications to provide justification, along with some changes to the project massing.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Need further justification for the variances. Need enhanced design for the entry way and massing. Commissioner Cauchi moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom: Discussion of motion: None. Acting Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 3. 1345 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 100, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (GARY L. FLICKINGER, APPLICANT; DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; GREEN BANKER LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 100 El Camino Real and Gary Flickinger, 1345 Howard Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ The existing parking lot does not have the dimensions available to allow adjustments to increase parking and/or provide accessible parking. ■ The City Engineer has pointed out that he is opposed to allowing traffic to exit through the City parking lot. ■ Has discussed the difficulty of providing an accessible parking space on the site with the Building Official; will be spending most of the improvement monies on accessibility improvements within the interior and at the entry to the facility. ■ Parents can not only drop students off at curb -side, but can drive into the City parking lot behind the property and walk from that location into the building. Commission comments: None. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: There is sufficient parking in the neighborhood. Parents will likely use other businesses in the area after dropping off their children. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the martial arts studio shall be limited to 1,589 SF on the ground level within the existing commercial building at 1345 Howard Avenue, Suite 100, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped September 14, 2010, sheets P1 and P2; 2. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance shall apply only to a martial arts studio and shall become void if the martial arts studio ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3. that all activities associated with the martial arts studio shall occur indoor only; no portion of the exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the martial arts studio; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 4. that if a parent or guardian parks more than one block from the martial arts studio, the parent or guardian must walk their child to and from the studio; the applicant shall inform parents of this policy during enrollment; 5. that the martial arts studio may only be open for business on Monday through Thursday from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (closed on Sunday); a break between sessions shall be provided to accommodate transitions between classes; 6. that no tournaments shall be held at this site; 7. that any changes to the floor area, use, or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 8. that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning, Public Works and Building Divisions; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 25, June 14 and September 15, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's and City Engineer's March 1, 2010 memos, the City Arborist's March 2, 2010 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's February 26, 2010 memo shall be met; 10. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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; 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; and 12. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: ■ Will add activity to the area. ■ /s a good use in combination with the similar use on the adjacent property. ■ While the parking doesn't fully comply, the parking lot is workable. ■ Previously approved a greater parking variance for the adjacent property that was never exercised. Acting Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p. M. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 4. 1301-1311 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCES FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT FRONTAGE AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS (AVTAR JOHAL, APPLICANT; AVTAR JOHAL REVOCABLE TRUST/TRUST B UNDER THE JOHAL FAMILY TRUST/JAGIR K. JOHAL 2001 IRREVOCABLE TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER; B & H SURVEYING, INC., LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR) a. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCES FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT FRONTAGE FOR A LOT SPLIT OF ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS, PARCEL A AND PARCEL B — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN b. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 5, TOWN OF BURLINGAME NO. 1 SUBDIVISION, 1301-1311 BURLINGAME AVENUE — PM 10-02 — PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report dated October 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Two (2) conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend approval of the application to the City Council, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works; and 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 14, 2010 memo, the Senior Planner's August 12, 2010 memo, and the Building Official's August 4, 2010 memo and the Fire Marshal's August 2, 2010 memo shall be met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Acting Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would need to recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5 (1423 Paloma Avenue), as he is the property owner. He left the Council Chambers. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1423 PALOMAAVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TOBY LONG, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 25, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Toby Long, 6114 La Salle Avenue, Oakland; represented the applicant. ■ Are attempting to incorporate green building/sustainability principles into the design. ■ Are providing an open floor plan; also looking at providing light to the interior and providing relationships to exterior space. ■ The expansive covered space at the rear of the building will permit the interior space to extend into the rear yard. • Attached garage is proposed. ■ Natural palette of materials is proposed. Commission comments: ■ Is a good design. ■ On the front elevation of the garage; are two doors proposed? Are lights proposed in the doors? (Long — two doors are proposed.) ■ Could a different material be used to break up the stucco of the deck? ■ Consider using a lower rise and longer tread for the stairs leading to the deck. ■ Not necessarily appreciative of the modern design; soften the appearance of the stucco at the deck. ■ Feels the design is very pure, but not certain the design is appropriate for the neighborhood; there are ways to achieve the program and sustainability effects while still developing a design that fits with the neighborhood. ■ The garage has been pushed back, but made more prominent; this not desirable. ■ The design could work well in other neighborhoods; Prairie -style designs tend to work better in this neighborhood (referenced 1452 Drake Avenue). ■ Likes the project, but it needs some work. ■ Needs more articulation; more attention to massing. ■ Feels the rear of the structure is more attractive than the front; should be attractive from all angles; the front appears to be a bit plain. ■ The horizontal rooflines appear very massive; perhaps break them down in scale. ■ The large vertical plane on the west elevation appears massive. ■ Why wasn't a wooden garage door chosen? (Long — is a wood -clad metal door.) 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Public comments: Ed Arroyo, 1422 Paloma Avenue; spoke: The applicant cut the grass after it got to be three -feet high. The design does not fit with the neighborhood that was developed in 1912. Will be the largest house on the block. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: October 25, 2010 Has reservations regarding whether or not this style home belongs in the neighborhood. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Will be interested to see how the design comes back. Acting 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 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:07 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais. Commissioner Lindstrom indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 6 (1511 Drake Avenue), as he may enter into a business relationship with the applicant for the project. He left the Council Chambers. 6. 1511 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND COVERED PARKING SPACE WIDTH FOR CONVERSION OF LOWER LEVEL CRAWL SPACE TO HABITABLE SPACE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN MATTHEWS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JON AND KATE HERSTEIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 25, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. John Herstein, 1511 Drake Avenue and John Matthews, 335A East Fourth Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. The applicant's family has grown and they need more space. With the conversion of the crawl space, the home becomes a two-story structure and is subject to design review. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 ■ Are attempting to make the space more livable with access to the rear yard. ■ Whether using the space for storage or living space, doesn't change the appearance of the structure, in fact improves the space. ■ Only a portion of the garage falls below the minimum size requirement. ■ Was concerned that the prior history of the property would be a factor in the request. ■ Have had other issues relative to the house that need to be addressed; want to now do everything right. ■ Believed the prior owner had applied for a variance, but withdrew the application. ■ The vision is to make the exterior more appealing to the neighbors; feel they have support of the neighbors. Commission comments: ■ Appears that the applicant purchased the property and was not apprised of the situation with respect to the crawl -space area; is having difficulty with the variance request, given the history. ■ Need to provide better justification for the variance request; why should it be approved in this instance when others cannot receive the same approval. (Matthews — the applicant shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of the prior owner. The prior owner was encouraged to apply for Commission approval, but he chose to convert the area to crawl space. Are looking at a three - percent difference between what is allowed by code versus the request; they are simply wishing to use the space; it has already been improved, but would like to increase its livability by increasing the ceiling height.) ■ Approval of the variance now would be capricious given the history of the case; the prior owner did bring a variance application before the Commission, but it was denied; how could it be approved now? What is the justification? (Hurin — previously appeared at design review study, but was withdrawn prior to action.) ■ There is hardship for the garage variance, it is an existing condition. ■ Feels that the prior owner dug out the rear yard area and created a situation where the area must now be considered as a story; but could have originally be considered as a basement area. (Meeker — can do additional research to determine if this is true. Matthews — does have additional records regarding the history of the property and the grade in the rear yard.) ■ Doesn't add any mass and bulk to the structure. Public comments: None. 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 Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Acting 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 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent, Commissioner Lindstrom recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:26 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom returned to the dais. 7. 3 BELVEDERE COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TODD B. LOWPENSKY. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Tim Raduenz, 3841 241" Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Referenced photos from the neighbor's property that shows that his views are not impacted. Attempting to play off of the original details of the existing living room. Commission comments: ■ Are required to consider view issues; story poles will be required to assist in understanding the application. ■ What is the height difference between the roof of the addition and the existing roof? Provide more detail. (Raduenz — 12-14 inches.) ■ What is the detail below the casement windows? (Raduenz — a wooden panel.) ■ Clarify the water table detail at the top of the stucco. ■ Clarify what the finish material will be on the planter boxes along the stairs on the rear elevation. ■ With respect to the landscape plan, a 36-inch high steel -paneled screen fence is shown; provide details of the fencing so the impacts of the downhill neighbor can be evaluated. ■ Story poles will be critical to determine neighbor impacts. ■ Provide contact information for the property owner at 2600 Summit Drive so that the Commissioners may visit that property to determine potential view impacts. ■ Provide details regarding the metal siding material. ■ Provide details on the existing siding that is to be matched. ■ With respect to the guard rail for the second floor; how is it finished at the top? (Raduenz — an inset screen.) ■ Need to be certain that all materials are spelled out and used through project completion. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: How will view impacts evaluated from the neighboring property given that the addition on that property hasn't been built yet? (Meeker— will confer with the City Attorney, but feels must consider only the existing conditions.) 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 Require story poles. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete and story poles have been erected. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Acting Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 8. 1325 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (IAN F. REAM, IFR DESIGN STUDIO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KEVIN F. AND ALISON V. LEMIRE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Ian Ream, 1234 Russell Street, Berkeley; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Beautiful job. ■ Clarified the window material. ■ Requested clarification regarding the flue near the new second story window. ■ Addition is well thought out; massing is done well. ■ Appear to be matching the existing architecture. (Ream —will replace the wood siding with stucco, but retain the water table.) ■ Clarify the trim materials. ■ Glad not pushing the FAR limit. ■ Sad to see the horizontal siding being removed; consider another type of siding that is easier to maintain. ■ Consider replacing all of the windows in the home with the new window style. (Ream —the existing home has a mix of windows; however, the majority of the existing windows, particularly on the front, are the original windows.) ■ Commended the applicant for retaining the original home. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 25, 2010 Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Acting 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 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9: 50 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 October 18, 2010: ■ Adopted the City's Green Building Ordinance, as well as the 2010 Building and Fire Codes. FYI: 1510 Drake Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Lindstrom, Secretary 15