Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.23.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 23, 2007 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the April 23, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Terrones and Vistica, Osterling (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: none Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Lisa Whitman; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 9, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended to correct page 6, item 5) 1560 Columbus Avenue, paragraph 3, line 1, Chair Brownrigg Vice-Chair Deal and page 7 paragraph 2, line 1, Chair Brownrigg Vice-Chair Deal. The minutes were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. C. Osterling arrived at 7:05 p.m. Chair Brownrigg asked if all the Commissioners had visited all the sites of projects on tonight’s agenda. All Commissioners indicated that they had. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1249 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING WOOD DECK WITH A NEW CONCRETE DECK OVER A CREEK BED (JOHN & GAIL DISERENS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted that he would recuse himself from this item since he had a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. C. Cauchi noted that on his site visit he had spoken with the applicant. Asked staff to clarify the Fish and Game permit process for this project. CA noted that the agency’s reviews are not always consistent, in terms of the timing of their comments. CP noted that there are some changes occurring regarding permit reviews at the Department of Fish and Game. Commissioner who works frequently with Fish and Game noted that to avoid wasting time the Fish and Game sometimes waits to comment until the local agency has completed their review. In this case there will be a letter by May 4, or the project will be considered approved as it stands. Commissioners asked:  A condition should be added to address possible Department of Fish and Game comments City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 23, 2007 2  Where will the planter and deck drain, at what location will the water enter the creek?  Who will restore and maintain the flow in the creek and the integrity of the wall?  Is there a deed restriction so that future owners of the property know what they are responsible for?  Is review by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board involved; need to know who is responsible for water quality in this reach of creek.  What CEQA compliance is required for this project?  Will the project be inspected during construction? Will that include NPDES compliance? Department of Fish and Game inspection? City inspection?  Need more detail on the submittal, including location of the construction equipment and information about the patio garden, including groundcover, amount of hard and soft scape, finished landscaping?  Need a revised engineering study, Kavanaugh’s work indicates that the new slab will be 4 feet above the existing deck, that is not true; want to be sure capacity and flow are not restricted by new concrete covering;  No new concrete should be added in the creek. Chair Brownrigg moved that this item be placed on the consent calendar when all the comments have been addressed and there is room on an agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when all the questions have been answered and checked by staff. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 2. 1412 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR PORCH ADDITION (MARK AND MAGALI LEIALOHA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; BLAISE DESCOLLONGES, RSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN ZT Whitman presented the staff report. Commissioners’ comments:  Note on plans that the property line is shown to be the same as the inner edge of the sidewalk, believe that this is an error, applicant should check with the planning department for the location of the edge of the city’s right of way, and correct the plans.  Concerned about the size of some of the members to be used in construction of the porch, the weight/size of some of the construction components will result in a heavier appearance of the porch than the architectural style of the house can support, revise materials so visual weights match;  Existing picket fence needs to be repaired, if it is to remain, show on plans;  Plans should be corrected to show that the Cyprus tree is gone;  A condition should be added that this variance is only for a porch to extend to the minimum 15’ front setback, and that the area should never be enclosed for habitable space, and should the house ever be demolished the front setback variance should become void.  Applicant’s letter addresses variance findings well, should also include in findings that 1924 house is being preserved, that there are a variety of front setbacks in this older neighborhood, that the 15 foot setback proposed is consistent with the city’s minimum setback, that when the house was built City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 23, 2007 3 there probably was no established front setback or it was 15 feet; it is a goal of the design guidelines to encourage front porches on single family houses throughout the city. C. Osterling made a motion to bring this project back on the consent calendar when the revisions have been made to the plans and the plans checked. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this project on the consent calendar when the revisions have been made to the plans and checked. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on 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 Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. A citizen asked that the project at 329 Occidental Avenue be placed on the action calendar for a public hearing. Chair Brownrigg noted that the project at 329 Occidental Avenue would be moved to be the first action item on the regular action calendar. 3a. 160 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND BRIAN AND JENNIFER BESWICK, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN C. Cauchi moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3b. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOE AND JULIA MCVEIGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report April 23, 2007, with attachments. ZT Whitman presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg noted that included in the packet was a letter of agreement between the two neighbors regarding the landscaping on the driveway side of the lot and on the driveway layout. Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Robert Bodreau, 333 Occidental Avenue spoke. Concerned about the mature hedge between his property and the applicant’s. CP noted that there was a note on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 23, 2007 4 plans regarding the hedge but not a condition, one could be added to require submittal of an arborist’s report establishing the status of the hedge and construction protection measures, and approval of the report by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit which would require installation of the protection measures and their maintenance during construction. New hedge to be planted inside old hedge should be removed from the plan since plans show old hedge to be retained. C. Auran moved approval of the project by resolution with the amended condition that an arborist report including protection measures during construction, be provided for the existing side property line hedge on the right side of the project, that the report be approved by the city Arborist before issuance of a building permit for the project and the landscape plan be amended to remove the proposed hedge inside of the existing property line hedge, and that the protection measures for the hedge be installed and maintained throughout the construction of the project, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 14, 2007, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, and April 11, 2007, sheet L1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that an arborist report including protection measures during construction, be provided for the existing property line hedge on the right side of the property, that the report be approved by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit for the project and the landscape plan be amended to remove the proposed hedge inside of the existing property line hedge, and that the protection measures for the hedge be installed and maintained throughout the construction of the project; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 15, 2006 memo and January 25 2007 memo, the City Engineer's December 15, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 18, 2006 memo, the City Arborist's January 31, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 18, 2006 memo shall be met; 4. that the magnolia tree in the front yard shall be replaced with a 36" box size tree, the replacement species shall be chosen from the Planning Department's Tree List and only from the medium- and large-sized trees, and the replacement tree shall be planted in the front yard within a reasonable proximity to the tree being removed; 5. that the pool equipment shall be located on the property and enclosed in a sound attenuating structure so that noise levels at property line shall meet city standards; 6. 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; 7. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 8. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 9. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 23, 2007 5 structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 10. 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. 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 15. 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; 16. 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; 17. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 18. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with an amended condition requiring evaluation and protection of the hedge existing along the side property line during construction. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 23, 2007 6 . IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1452 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAN STRAMBI, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, 55 West 43rd Avenue, and Dan Strambi, property owner, 1436 Drake Avenue, represented the project. Issues noted: elevation and location of garage, water drainage and location of sump pump equipment, impact to neighboring properties, landscaping, electric gate, architectural detailing. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:  Proposed grade at the garage will increase 2' to 7'. Based on that, is a conditional use permit required for a garage 15' or more above natural grade? Staff to confirm and notify applicant;  Work to reduce amount of fill and lower the elevation of proposed garage; modify the design of the garage rather than the slope that it sits on;  Install pump so that water drains to street;  Was an attached garage towards the front of the property considered so that less fill would be required?  Add a condition requiring the sump pump(s) to be contained in the garage or other noise attenuating enclosure so that there will be no noise impact to neighboring properties;  Due to relatively large size of house, more tall plant material is needed in the front and in the rear; improve the landscape plan to provide more screening of the house;  Require, in the conditions of approval, that the house have an electric gate across the driveway;  Note on the plans the material of the downspouts and gutters, and show them properly on the plans;  Change the guardrail on the rear stairs to match the deck rail;  Planning staff to confirm with City Engineer the volume of fill that will be required in the rear yard to achieve proposed elevations;  Construct story poles at garage location to represent finished height at four corners and ridgeline; survey;  There is a predominance of attached garages in this particular neighborhood because of the steep lot slopes. For now, explore lowering the garage height by reducing fill as opposed to moving the garage forward on the lot and attaching it to the proposed house;  On plans, include finished floor elevation of garage;  Include more fish tail shingles on the house to provide more texture to the side elevations;  Consult the Chief Building Official to confirm that exposed rafter tails can be located at firewall as shown;  City Arborist and Public Works to check health and status of large Acacia tree in easement adjacent to rear lot line. The CA noted this tree may be diseased, may be removed by the city, and may not be there to provide visual screen of structure. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 23, 2007 7 C. Vistica made a motion place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 5. 1116 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ANGIE HU & NEIL HSU, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND CHI-WING WONG, ARCHITECT) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Chi-Wing Wong, architect, 98 La Prenta Avenue, and Angie Hu, property owner, 3401 Pacific Boulevard, represented the project. Issues noted: existing house has two different architectural styles that are inconsistent with one another, difficult situation with existing contrasting designs, proposed design of addition does not integrate well with house, consistency of plans, building and window materials, demolition plan, scale issues, and garage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:  Pick a single and preferred style for the house and reflect that in the proposed addition;  Revise the design so that a bad situation (with the prior addition) does not become worse;  Take advantage of this opportunity to make the addition and the house more appealing;  Consider pitching portions of roof that are flat or mansard; flat roof on this house does not integrate well with the original design;  Propose an improved window pattern that pulls the design together and appears more organized;  Reconsider high balcony on second floor and the impact that may have on neighbors. Planning Commission considers encroachment on neighbor's privacy when reviewing proposals for second story balconies;  The attempt to capture the timbering detail of Tudor in the rear could be better articulated;  Improve accuracy of plans and consistency among sheets; for example, the number of risers on staircase in not consistent among sheets, there is no basement but the plans show a stairway leading to a basement, etc; review all plans for consistency and accuracy and revise accordingly;  Proposed 2x8 floor joists that span 17' will create bouncy floor and will require the floor be constructed at a higher elevation than it is represented, which can affect structure height; review and revise accordingly;  If pursuing a Tudor style house, use simulated true divided lite or true divided light wood windows as are now located in the original house throughout (all windows);  The proposed project requires removal of entire roof; maximize that opportunity by constructing a new pitched roof that matches the character of the front of the house;  On Sheet A3.3 (north elevation), replace proposed metal rail with one that coordinates with the style of the house;  On Sheet A3.4, there is a problem of scale; overhangs on rafters are shown as 2x2, which is not possible; review all plans for issues of scale and revise plans accordingly; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 23, 2007 8  On left side of garage, cannot have the overhang proposed because of the location of the property line;  To facilitate access, add a "man door" to garage;  Consider adding steeper gables and Tudor elements to the first and proposed additions, especially the prominent west elevation, to improve the view of the house from the street. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: provide design reviewer with a copy of the tape of the meeting, this project will benefit from the input of a design review consultant, should help expedite the process. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The item will be placed on the action calendar when plans have been revised. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 6. 2561 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL (SAM AND MARIE FAILLACE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. There was no representative for the project present. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:  Revise the driveway design; because of the steep slope and tight curve, as proposed the driveway does not appear to be usable; need to add transitions to top and bottom of drive so that vehicles do not hit the garage door header or bottom out; provide a cross section of the driveway; Public Works and Planning need to review driveway profile and maneuverings;  Clarify whether all windows will be true divided lites or simulated true divided lites and make notation on the plans;  Provide complete demolition plan; there will be more going on than what is shown on the plans; for example, with the number of interior walls being removed it will be very difficult to save the roof (especially since it is tile);  Because of their orientation on the various sheets of the plans, the plans are difficult to read; revise the floor plans so that they are all oriented in the same direction;  Note elevation of finished floor on all the floor plans; it is unclear where duct work will go; especially on the lower floor; is the space between the floors adequate; show furnace and water heater on the plans;  Confirm all new walls are proposed on lower level; as proposed, the project does not appear to be buildable and there are functional questions; major revisions are required;  Unable to comment further without the applicant present to respond to questions;  Primary issue is buildability; cannot refer project to design review without applicant responding first to issues of buildability. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes April 23, 2007 9 Chair Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the identified revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed with the additional comment that because of buildability issues further disposition of the project to a design reviewer may be made at the action meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of April 16, 2007 CP Monroe gave a brief summary of the April 16, 2007, council actions. Commissioners were reminded about the Special Study Meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, in the Council Chambers; all Commissioners noted that they had received the study packet materials. - FYI: 1353 Vancouver Avenue – changes as requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved design review project Commission noted an error in the title block of the landscape plans, the ownership of this property has changed. There were no comments on the request. - FYI: 110 Stanley Road – changes to a previously approved design review project There were no comments on the log. - FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log – March 2007 There was no comment on the request. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary V:\MINUTES\Minutes unapproved 04.23.07.doc