Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 08.24.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, August 24, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the August 24, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Terrones, Yie, and Lindstrom Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 9, "Discussion of Motion'; revised statement to read: "Supports concern expressed regarding the negative environmental effects of installing vinyl windows" Page 9, last paragraph (record of vote); record Commissioner Lindstrom as absent. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: Suggested that the Planning Commission and Building Division require dumpsters to be placed upon properties during construction, unless extenuating circumstances prevent this approach, or request that Public Works increase the permit fee for dumpster placement to cover the cost of damaged pavement. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) TO INCREASE THE TIME LIMIT FOR EXERCISING APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, TO AMEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR EXTENSIONS AND TO CLARIFY THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR DESIGN REVIEW. STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 24, 2009 Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated August 24, 2009. The proposed changes would extend the initial approval term for development entitlements from one-year to three -years. Project proponents would be permitted to request one, two-year extension of the initial term for a combined term of five -years. Current policy is to grant one, one-year extension; though a literal reading of the code implies that more than one extension is possible. The proposed amendments also include language that would create consistency between the appeal periods applicable to design review permits and other entitlements; creating a uniform ten-day appeal period; the appeal period for a design review permit is presently seven -days. Commission comments: ■ How did staff arrive at the 3-year time frame? (Meeker — reviewed other cities' approaches, also considered the timeframe applied to projects that involve a subdivision map.) ■ Is there a sense for the number of approvals that are actually used; how many approvals are never used? (Brooks - We haven't kept records of the number of applications that are not pursued, the number of outstanding permits represents about 25% of the number approved in a year.) ■ Does the department intend to notify applicants of the change in the time frame for extensions? (Meeker — parties that currently hold valid approvals granted prior to the effective date of the ordinance change will be notified that their permits will be automatically extended; by two years if they are in the initial term, and by one year if the permit is in an extension period.) ■ Could it be tailored based upon project type; residential versus commercial; multi -family versus single-family? (Meeker — discouraged such a differentiation, would be hard to keep track, and all types are impacted by the economic downturn.) ■ How will the City ensure ongoing maintenance of properties prior to construction? (Meeker — the City's Code Enforcement Officer has the ability to work with property owners to ensure that properties are maintained in a clean and safe condition, many of the delayed projects are single family homes where someone still resides on the property.) ■ Would building code changes apply to project where the approvals were granted in advance of the changes? (Meeker— unless the project included approval of a vesting subdivision map, the codes in place at the time of issuance of a building permit would apply.) ■ Would fees be frozen at the time of project approval? (Meeker — Building Permit fees would be collected at the rate in place at the time of building permit issuance. If a project included approval of a vesting subdivision map, development impact fees would be those in place at the time the project was approved.) No changes to the proposed amendments were requested, and the item was scheduled for the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. This item concluded at 7:22 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 Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; requested that Item 2a (1613 Easton Drive) be pulled from the Consent Calendar. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 24, 2009 2b. 1428 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RAY BRAYER, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND JILL THOMAS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2c. 808 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FORA FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CONNIE KNIVETON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOHN MATTHEWS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Brownrigg 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 Cauchi. Chair 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 7:25 p.m. Commissioner A uran indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Item 2a (1613 Easton Drive), since he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the Council Chambers. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 1613 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND BOB AND CINDY GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 24, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Street, San Mateo; and Bob Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court, Hillsborough; represented the applicant: Indicated that the survey for the property does not show the presence of a sewer lateral serving the property lying to the rear of the site on Cortez Avenue. Commission comments: None. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: She noted a property on Balboa Avenue that was constructed a few years ago did have a sewer lateral from the adjacent property that connected to the line on the property. Became a City matter 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 24, 2009 with that project, not a civil matter. Asked the City Attorney to clarify that it would be a civil matter, or a City matter. (Guinan - If the lateral is totally on private property, on the property side of the clean -out; the responsibility would lie with the private property owners. Has seen connected laterals on private properties, but these problems must be resolved by the private property owners. Does not see it as a City issue, based upon the current understanding of the situation.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 12, 2009, sheets A.1 through A.6, Landscape Plan and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the proposed street tree located in the City's planter strip shall be a Eucalyptus Citriodora; and that the applicant shall apply for a tree planting permit through the Parks Department before planting the proposed tree; 5. that all proposed debris boxes shall be stored on the site during demolition and construction; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 21, 2009 and June 19, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's June 22, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 22, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's June 26, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 19, 2009 memo shall be met; 7. that demolition for 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; E1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 24, 2009 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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. 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 FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. 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; 15. 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 Department; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-1. (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioner A uran recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. 3. 1701 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MRS. JING LING LAU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND LI-SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 24, 2009 Reference staff report dated August 24, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Julia (last name unknown, representing the architect Li-Sheng Fu), 180 Martingale Drive, Fremont; and Russell Lau, 1701 Albemarle; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ On the rear elevation; will all of the windows be "short"? (Julia — all will be short.) ■ Like the improvements to the design that have been made; is the porch being raised, there appear to be more steps shown on the plans than exist currently? (Julia — drawing is incorrect) ■ On left side of front elevation (Albemarle), will siding only run to bottom of window? (Julia — this portion is not changing). • The grade line on the plans appears to be drawn incorrectly. ■ What type of material is being used for the porch railing? (Julia — wood.) ■ No gutters or downspouts shown on the plans; will they be installed? Painted? (Julia — will be installed and painted.) ■ Design reviewer suggested that the brick water table be taken around the entire building, but it is not shown in that manner. Should at least be extended along the Davis Drive side. Continue the brick cap along the top of the water table in other areas where it is run. ■ On the rear elevation, suggested carrying the brick line straight across, rather than dropping it to line up with the staircase. ■ Any consideration to wood windows, rather than vinyl clad? (Julia — wood windows would be more expensive; is a money issue.) ■ The Commission has almost always insisted on wood windows; the difference in cost is usually worth the investment. ■ Doesn't understand how the trellis structure works on the front; how does it connect? Is it sitting on the roof? (Julia — yes.) ■ Consider adding knee braces to the other gables at the front of the house to add more character to the gable ends. ■ Trellis appears skimpy; maybe a larger cross member would provide more presence; consider placing a column on the other side. Consider supporting it with knee braces from the gable ends. ■ There are no elevations shown on the left side of the garage (Julia — currently no brick veneer, but can add it). Don't need a brick water table on the garage. Public comments: Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive; spoke: Indicated that she is happy with the changes that the neighbor has made; and appreciates their cooperation. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: All five of the rear windows on the second floor shall be short. The railing on the porch shall be wood. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 24, 2009 ■ Brick veneer continued onto Davis Drive elevation; continue the height on the rear. ■ Metal painted gutters and downspouts shall be shown on the plans. ■ Show knee braces on the other gables on the front, also show them supporting the trellis. ■ Brick veneer shall also continue on the alley side of the house (across from garage); all with a brick cap to match the front. ■ Correct the grade shown on the plans. • Omit the brick veneer from the garage. ■ Correct the height of the porch as shown on the plans to match the existing condition. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the item to the Consent Calendar with direction to the applicant to reflect all requested changes on revised project plans before placing the item back on the agenda for consideration. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue to the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The action continuing the item is not subject to appeal. This item concluded at 7:58 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study items. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of August 17, 2009: ■ None. FYI: 1595 Columbus Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1531 Columbus Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 24, 2009 Miscellaneous: Chair Terrones noted that the Community Development Director will be putting together an outline of subcommittee items for discussion by the full Commission. A subcommittee representative will be assigned responsibility for preparation of a brief report to elicit discussion by the full Commission, prior sending the back to the subcommittee for further work. These discussions will be placed on light Commission agendas. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary