Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 03.23.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, March 23, 2009 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the March 23, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Lisa Whitman; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the March 9, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 7, second bullet under `Applicant rebuttal by Alex Mortazavi",- change "20-years" to "10-years" Page 16, Item 7, first bullet under "Commission Comments" replace "windows" with "doors". Motion passed 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted a correction to an entry on the Agenda; under Item 4, fourth line following "Whitman" delete "owners; and John Maniscalco, architect". There were no other changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: Noted construction project across street from her home; the property owner placed the dumpster on his property to prevent neighborhood impacts. Whenever possible, require the placement of the dumpster for projects on the property rather than on the street to reduce neighborhood impacts and prevent street damage. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1212 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAND PARKING VARIANCE FORA FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (FRANK KIM, APPLICANT; DAY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., PROPERTY OWNER: AND BRIAN MILFORD. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 Associate Planner Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 23, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Why is the Variance not for 8 spaces, rather than 4 spaces (Whitman — a Variance was granted in 1999 for the first 4 spaces, now requesting 4 additional spaces for the intensification of use. Meeker — noted that the approach is similar to providing a credit for parking for a non -conforming use, but requiring a Variance for an incremental increase). ■ A bit uncomfortable about the inconsistency in the collection of in -lieu fees; is there a way to differentiate businesses required to pay the fee, based upon revenue, or make the payment of an in - lieu fee payable over a number of years (Meeker — will discuss this with the City Attorney. Perhaps look at the "pedestrian character" of the business). ■ The need for the additional 4 spaces seems to be generated by the number of seats; can this be adjusted? ■ What would be required as a food establishment versus as a retail use; and how would a distinction be made by the Health Department? ■ The applicant is correct; much of the business will come from shoppers already in the area and will not result in increased traffic to the area; the Variance is appropriate for this reason. ■ Has the applicant considered that the rear area could be used for team parties after events; could reach out to the community to enhance the success of the business; though this would also have to be considered a greater intensification and be included in the Variance request. ■ Can support the request. ■ A yogurt shop generates more activity than an art gallery. ■ Staff should consider developing a definition for a "destination" business. ■ Look at creating a policy distinction for waiver of the Parking In -Lieu Fee. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18.07.065 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO GRANT CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT TO CONCURRENTLY GRANT DEMOLITION PERMITS WITH BUILDING PERMITS FOR A NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 23, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Include a requirement that the applicant for a priority demolition permit provide the Burlingame Historic Society two weeks to provide a report on the property's potential significance, prior to authorizing demolition. ■ If building permit is not pulled for new project, the demolition permit fee should be forfeited. ■ Clarified that Planning entitlements would be required before consideration of the demolition permit could be considered. ■ Concerned that the Historic Society requirement could be an undue delay, given that all other entitlements have been received (Meeker— clarified that, pursuant to CEQA, where applicable, the historic assessment would have been conducted prior to entitlements. CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects). 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 ■ Regarding "under penalty of perjury"; what is meant, what are the ramifications (Guinan — a greater penalty; can lead to prosecution by the City; could be a maximum fine levied). ■ Obtaining a building permit within 60-days may be "tight"; perhaps more time is required, particularly for larger projects. • Disconnect between item c4 and the later language requiring the site to be cleaned, secured and landscaped; look at the language and modify as necessary for consistency. ■ Are there instances where something could fall through the cracks (Meeker — explained that he could not immediately think of an example; CEQA is applicable to discretionary projects; compliance with any permitting processes required by the Zoning Ordinance is required in advance of making a request for the demolition permit). The Commission's comments will be forwarded to the City Council for the April 6, 2009 public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed amendment. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. 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 Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would abstain from voting on Item 4b, since he lives within 500- feet of the subject property Chair Cauchi asked for individual motions on each of the Consent Calendar items. 4a. 1350 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCES FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND HOLLY ROGERS AND RICHARD SCHOUSTRA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of Item 4a, 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 Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. 4b. 1531 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND KONRAD AND CHRISTINA HABELT, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Terrones moved approval of Item 4b, 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 Lindstrom. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg abstaining). 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5. 3008 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND FRIEDA RADZYMINSKI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 23, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. John and Frieda Radzyminski, 3008 Rivera Drive; and Una Kinsella, 1033 Paloma Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Commended applicants on the design and the increase in permeable surfaces. ■ Concern regarding the Variance; what will be seen at the most prominent location is cars in the driveway; will be a visual impact on the neighborhood; garage could be located on the other side of the lot; would work fine as a plan (Kinsella — position of garage is ideal for the setting of the house; prevents having to re -build a garage; the garage is located further back from the curb than other similarly designed properties in the area; location makes facade more interesting. Three distinct garden areas are created by the design, decreasing impervious surfaces. Encourages off-street parking. Design promotes more privacy for the bedrooms and better light and ventilation. F. Radzyminski — there is a lot of traffic on the street; cars don't see them when they are backing out of the current driveway; the redesign, as shown, will be more visible). ■ Proposed garage location works well; is shielded from corner by new landscaping. ■ Like the garage location; is a better use of the site. ■ Likes the comparison of pervious versus impervious surfaces; can this be a requirement for new projects. ■ The fact that a Variance is required shows that the garage is too close to the street. ■ Seems that it might be more helpful to look at the setback in relation to the setback across the street because of the curve. Public comments: None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Likes the application; should be a Special Permit, not a Variance. There is a better place to site the garage. Thinks that the manner of placement of the garage and driveway is typical for the neighborhood, compelled by the applicant's argument. Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 Concerned about having a garage located remotely from the front door; having the garage off to the other side would promote more parking on the street. Unique conditions exist for the property; in addition to the existing pattern of the neighborhood. There is also a financial hardship to relocating the entire garage; the current design is fairly easy to implement. Commissioner Lindstrom 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 Department date stamped February 25, 2009, sheets CS and A-1 through A-4, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 12, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's September 15, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 16, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 15, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Hillside Area Construction Permit and Front Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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 8. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 6. 3202 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (FARIBA MOKHHTARI KARCHGANI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND NGHI THANH LE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 23, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Raymond Babaoghli; represented the applicant. Brought a sample of the cultured stone installed on the property; the design approved by the Commission was too busy. Change of stone is the only major change proposed. Felt that the window grids were making the house too "congested" and not pleasing. Felt that matching the column treatment would be more pleasing and would prevent the wood columns from rotting. Commission comments: ■ Will the finished grade be brought up to the level of the bottom of the cultured stone (Babaoghli — the stone meets the ground now, and the area has been landscaped). ■ Is the stone installation finished (Babaoghli — thought that they could choose from a selection in a catalog; the approved design showed grout lines that would show the underlayment). • Indicated that the stone to be installed on the lower level has not been installed (Babaoghli — will be installed). ■ The design eliminates the capital and base on the columns; liked the detail of the original design. As built, the columns don't have a start and a stop; taper design of the previously approved columns looked better. ■ The elimination of the mullions from the windows is acceptable. ■ Disappointed by the changes proposed; the rear elevation really suffers. ■ The shift in the type of stone is acceptable; however, the water table has been brought up to the window sill, not as shown on the plans; this appears too heavy. The water table has become a wainscot. ■ Must acknowledge on the proposed plans the change in the stone work, and also the change in the location of the window near the garage that is now tucked up under the eave. ■ Asked if the front door has also changed (Babaoghli — yes, changed from single door to double door. Installed what was approved but it made the front hall very dark). ■ On the original approved plans, there was wood trim over the windows (he thought it was suggested to use stucco foam). Public comments: None. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: • Recalled that the project has always been a struggle; we directed applicant away from stucco foam trim on the windows; no problem with elimination of muntins on the windows; but concerned with the timing of the changes that have been made. ■ Not offended by the cultured stone that has been presented. ■ It likely the best that the project will get. ■ There is no reason that bases and capitals could not be provided on columns. ■ The water table should be lowered and embellished with a top piece. ■ The entry doors are glass, not wood as shown. ■ The location of the window near the garage has been changed. ■ Need drawings that accurately reflect what has been done, and showing additional changes that are requested. ■ Concerned about the applicant making changes, then asking for forgiveness; the applicant has a contract with the City to build what has been approved. ■ Cultured stone sills should remain. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to make changes to the plans as indicated during the Commission's discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m. 7. 1150 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INCREASE TO SEATING AREA, HOURS OF OPERATION AND EMPLOYEES FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (DICKSON CONSULTING GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND KJ NICKMEG LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 23, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ What are the hours of operation of other restaurants in the area? ■ Why was the item brought forward without study (Meeker— is considered to be an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit). ■ How will garbage pickup be accomplished? ■ Will deliveries come through the front or rear? 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 ■ Where will employees take breaks; this has been a problem in the past? ■ There is a lot of storage in the alley; if this is a fire exit, could be a problem. ■ How is fire exiting handled; review this with the Fire Department. ■ What type of leverage does the City have to require the property to be clean, and to maintain alley access? ■ Concerned about 350 people per day at the location given the limited parking in the area. ■ Is there any way to see if there have been complaints regarding noise from the prior restaurant; the restaurant is placed further into the residential neighborhood; could be a problem. ■ Concerned about proposed hours of operation because of location in a more residential area. ■ Observed that much of the prior restaurant's customers were brought in by tour buses; this impacted the neighborhood. John Lau, 5616 Geary Boulevard, San Francisco and Jim Ma; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: Where will employees take their breaks (Lau — in employee locker room)? Concerned about placing employee breaks at the rear of the property. Public comments: Richard Graham, 1137 Paloma Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: ■ He (Graham) is the president of the local home owners' association; he is concerned about the hours of operation. ■ Is a unique property because it is surrounded by housing. ■ Concerned about the restaurant being open until 11 p.m.; residential uses exist on three sides and could be impacted by the business. ■ Concerned about the impact of tour buses upon the neighborhood; can anything be done to prevent them; they block the street while loading and unloading; also causes noise issue as cars honk in effort to pass. • Patrons associated with tours visiting the prior restaurant would enter private properties and smoke and litter; had to call the police on numerous occasions. ■ Parking is also a significant problem; people constantly double-park and block driveways (Lau — don't intend to allow tour buses; want to appeal to local residents; tour buses be prohibited as a condition of approval. Can re -consider hours of operation. Can work with the homeowners' association). ■ Regarding breaks and break rooms; generally, there are no breaks during busy times; breaks are whenever they can be accommodated; staff will step outside of the restaurant, not in a break room. ■ Staff takes meals in the kitchen or in the dining room; floor space is set aside for business, not for employees. ■ Will not get a break room, unless demanded; but will create a hardship for the business owner. ■ Questioned having 350 persons after 5 p.m. The floor space is extraordinarily large; and will accommodate a large amount of people. ■ Look closely at the business plan for the new restaurant. Further Commission comments: Are owners willing to consider more restrictive hours on weekdays and Sundays? Are they willing to prohibit tour buses (Ma — yes). 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 Where will employees take breaks (Ma — in the locker room). On Sheet A1.3, in the middle of the VIP room, it looks like there is a steel column in the middle of the room; shouldn't there be a more aesthetic solution to the design of the room; concerned about lack of detail on the application. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. More Commission comments: ■ Restrict or prohibit tour buses. ■ Modify the hours of operation; have applicant consider changes, in light of the comments of the neighbor and proximity to residential properties. • Look at a means of addressing employee breaks. ■ How will deliveries be handled? ■ Look at fire exiting through the gate to the alley; the area is also used as a seating area for II Piccolo, though it is a public property. ■ How will garbage removal be handled? ■ The applicant needs to be certain that the alley is weed and vegetation free on his property; Code Enforcement and the Fire Department need to review this. ■ There should be some sort of area for the employees to smoke (and to discard waste) and provide something at the front of the building as well. ■ The applicant has pulled the rear exit away from the alley, consider placing receptacles in that area. ■ Consider kitchen odors and impact on the neighbors; look at the general quality of the area around and within the restaurant; consider venting. ■ Suggested that the applicant reach out to the neighborhood prior to returning to the Commission. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to make changes to the plans as indicated during the Commission's discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: Appreciated the work that has been put into the application; the new business will likely be a better neighbor than the prior restaurant. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Brownrigg provided an overview of the selection process regarding public art for the Mills - Peninsula Hospital project; including an overview of concepts presented by artists identified as finalists in the selection process. Public comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue, spoke: E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 23, 2009 Likes the Camozzi trees, but also likes the Hatcher landscape sculpture; also likes the Douwe seagulls. Use the Library display and e-newsletter to elicit public input. Asked about the public involvement process; what opportunities will the public have to provide commentary (Brownrigg — still working on the best way to engage the public). Commission comments: ■ Commissioners noted a preference for the designs by Douwe and Camozzi; with some support for the Powell and Hatcher designs. ■ Expressed concern about ensuring that the final design is vandal -proof. ■ Be certain to provide dramatic lighting. • The preferred designs promote public interaction with the piece. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Project at 2843 Adeline Drive has been appealed; a public hearing will likely be scheduled for April 20, 2009. Thanked Commissioners for attending the March 21, 2009 annual Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 16, 2009: Amendment to the Demolition Ordinance was introduced, and a public hearing scheduled for April 6, 2009. Reviewed the draft 2009 Housing Element; and authorized its submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review in advance of City adoption. Other discussion: Discussed the Commission's and staff's workload during the upcoming year; specifically discussed the variety of long-range planning projects on the work program and how the work would be accomplished. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 10