Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061404PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Auran called the June 14, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Bojués (arrived 7:05 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: Osterling, Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 24, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that item number four, 1440 Capuchino Avenue, is continued to the June 28, 2004 meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1035 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY (SANDRA B. JIMENEZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARK DELEON AND RENATO MERCADO, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission asked if this proposal requires a use permit. CA Anderson noted that the state law allows a residential care facility of six or fewer people to function in an R-1 zone with the same standards as a single family dwelling. This pre-emption is only for 6 or fewer residents. Commission asked if they could place conditions on the proposed use even though they are only asking for a parking variance request. CA Anderson noted that if the applicant is willing to accept the conditions, however usually the project is looked at only as a single family dwelling parking variance. CP Monroe noted that facility will have to be licensed by the State, and must meet all of the State standards, including the distance between such residential care facilities. Commission asked if they can require that the variance be voided if the house reverts back to a single family dwelling. CA Anderson responded no, because the variance stays with the property. Commission asked if a condition could be added that would require yearly review of the variance. CA Anderson stated that a condition requiring yearly review of the variance for compliance with the conditions of approval by the Commission can be included as part of the approval. Commissioners asked: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 2 • Staff report notes that residents won’t own or drive vehicles, but can not use this as justification for a variance because house can revert back to a single family dwelling; what is the hardship on the property; • What are extraordinary circumstances to justify parking variance; • Staff report notes that lot coverage is at 39.9%, notes applicant states that two-car garage would result in less useable space, however it would require either a lot coverage variance, or require that the application reduce the size of the house to meet the parking required, these are options, so the open space comment is not a valid argument, should look at reducing house and providing parking; • Consider adding bedrooms upstairs with an elevator, that way there would be enough room for a two-car garage; • For the parking variance, what extraordinary circumstances apply to this property that don’t apply to others in the area; • Even though the residents won’t be driving, concerned with parking and the number of visitors coming to the site along with the two employees and deliveries, this is an intense use. 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. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG-TERM AIRPORT PARKING INTERIM USE (PAUL SALISBURY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, BOCA LAKE OFFICE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. There were no questions of staff . Commissioners asked: • On page 5 of the report there are recommendations that are not included in the project, but they should be included in the conditions of approval; • Plans are missing landscape detail, pedestrian shelter and median work, need to see these items on plan; • Nothing on plan shows how this parking facility will work; • Will the applicant be meeting with the City Arborist prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, need to work out landscape details; • How many days will the cars be staying; • How many cars will be stored on-site each day and what daily turn over is expected? 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 7:20 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. 3a. 344 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 3 (ELIZABETH YOST, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TRICIA HAGEY, ARCHITECT) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3b. 1409 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (JOSE DOS RAMOS, PRUDENTIAL REALTY, APPLICANT; KEVIN CULLINANE ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3c. 220 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARGARET FARNEY, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Acting Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1440 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TANDEM GARAGE (JAMES BREEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RANDY GRANGE, ARCHITECT) (79 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CONTINUED TO JUNE 28, 2004 MEETING 5. 750 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (TOM WOO, APPLICANT; ASI, ARCHITECT; FITALI RUSLI AND JAJE DU, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report June 14, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the plans submitted for this application are identical to the plans approved by the Commission in October 2002. Staff responded yes, the plans are identical. Commission requested staff in the future to add the lot size on the summary table. There were no further questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Tom Woo, project applicant, explained that the project was already approved but the property owner was doing business overseas and did not build it. When he returned he instructed Mr. Woo to get a building permit and that is when he found out that the approvals had expired. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noting that the project has not changed, she approved it originally and with the same findings moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 4 built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 10, 2004, sheets A1 - A6 and L-1, including that all windows shall be divided light wood windows with wood trim and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, 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 design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s memos dated May 17, 2004, shall be met; 4) 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 7) 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; 8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 9) 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; 10) that the owner is responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures detailed in the Arborist's Report date stamped June 13, 2002; 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 this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance 9; and that no exterior light fixture shall produce a cone of light that extends beyond the property boundaries; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: Have already reviewed this project, identical plans as before; new building code regulations will apply to this project. Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1608 MARCO POLO WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SERGIO GUTIERREZ, S & A CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT; JOSE GUADAMUZ, DESIGNER; LUIS AND MIRIAM BONILLA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff to clarify the front setback, summary table shows 15’7” as the existing first floor front setback, but the proposed is 20’2”. Staff explained that the existing front setback to the garage is 15’7”, but that the new bay window on the first City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 5 floor will change that part of the existing front setback and it will become 20’2” from the front property line. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public comment. Luis Bonilla, property owner, Joe Guardamuz, project designer, were available to answer questions. Owner stated that he has lived in the area for 10 years, and finally can do a remodel, wants to comply with all the regulations. Commission asked where the front door is located, Mr. Bonilla explained that it is currently located on the left side of the house. Commission noted that they did a great job, like the fact that the door is coming toward the front of the house now, note that the project is right at the limit for FAR, is it not farther forward because of the FAR limit, would like to see door moved forward even more. Project architect stated that yes, the FAR limited what could be done on this project. Marco Avilla, 1604 Marco Polo Way, neighbor to the proposed project. Has no objection and is in support of the proposal. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Uncovered deck off of the master bedroom is too large, concerned with neighbors privacy, especially the neighbors at the rear on Lassen Way; • Plans note shrubs at the rear property line, what will height be, note on plans; • Need to add articulation and break up the left elevation, looks like a box on the house, consider adding a window on that wall in the master bedroom, design will look better with a window on the left; • New plate heights are 9’ for both floors, would like to see second floor plate dropped to at least 8’6”; • Would like to see front porch brought forward, will be a good design improvement, may need to take that square footage off somewhere else on the house, to stay within the FAR; • All windows should be trued divided light windows; and • Look at improving floor plan for master bedroom and master bathroom. C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: if continued item and changes were made and project came back and Planning Commission didn’t like it the review would take longer than going directly to design reviewer; project will benefit from design review; nice design, is an improvement over the existing. Acting Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this project to design review. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:51 p.m. 7. 2310 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BILL WALTERS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GARY AND DEBORAH VEILBAUM, PROPERTY OWNERS) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public comment. Gary Vielbaum, property owner was available to answer questions, noted architect was not available to attend meeting. Commission asked how many cars can fit in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 6 the existing garage, the property owner stated that two cars can fit in the garage, but currently they are only parking one car in the garage. Commission asked the property owner to elaborate on the hardship for the FAR variance, why is the project over the maximum allowable size. The property owner explained that the property is unique because it is located on a corner, the footprint won’t be changing, just adding another story, in order to meet required setbacks would have to pull in second story and would not work right aesthetically. Commission asked what the plate heights are and the property owner did not know. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Concerned with FAR variance, house is over in volume; • Add supports under bay window so it ties in to the structure and isn’t jutting out at a right angle; • Show plate heights on drawings; • Why such a variety of materials; • Would like staff to look at setback requirements and the impacts on code exceptions if the frontage is considered to be Ray Drive; • Would like to see picture with two cars parked in the garage; and • Elaborate on the hardship on the property for FAR variance. C. Bojués made a motion to continue this item to the next design review study meeting. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion: could continue this item to the next design review study meeting so that the architect can be present to answer questions; could send on to a design reviewer, that may save time rather than have the applicant come back to study and then end up sending it to design review; not in favor of motion do not want to see the applicant delayed, either send to design review or take away FAR variance and come back as an action item; see hardship on this property because it is a corner lot with an attached garage, which reduces FAR; architect should listen to hearing tapes or read minutes to understand Commission direction; no justification for FAR variance, so unless it goes away, will vote no on this project, need to make changes an then come back. C. Bojués amended his motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. C. Keighran, the second on the motion, agreed to the amendment. Action Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:12 p.m. 8. 446 CUMBERLAND DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (EARLE WEISS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL DARDIA AND SARAH LUBMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public comment. Earle Weiss, project architect, noted that this building is a challenge to add onto because it is difficult to connect all of the different split levels. The existing garage is very small and there is a narrow substandard stairway into the house that makes is difficult to maneuver on especially when you are bringing in groceries, right now it is easier to park outside. Even with revising the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 7 stairs to the code minimum the garage won’t meet the required parking dimension, need a variance. Tried to articulate the roof and use true divided light wood windows to match the existing finishes. Wanted this addition to visually connect with the rest of the house. The only comments the neighbors had on this project was that they didn’t want the new trees located too close to the property line. Commission asked if the windows on the north elevation will match the rest of the house. The project architect noted that there is a tall hedge on this side and the windows are not visible from off of the property, so to save money are not proposing to change these windows, eventually they may be replaced to match, but that is not in the scope of work for this project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments: • Noted that the front elevation does not show the steps; • A lot of work being done to the front, need to put new windows on the front of the house, should match; • Need to do some work on the garage door, need to dress up. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: O.K. with narrower garage, bringing it closer to conformance; adding character to the front of the house, will look nice. Acting Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. 9. 2108 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (ERNIE AND PHYLLIS BODEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; 2 STUDIO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Acting Chair Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the property. C. Brownrigg took over as Acting Chair. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Ernie and Phyllis Boden, property owners were present to answer questions. They have lived in the house for 21 years. When they moved to the property in 1982 the Redwood tree was already leaning into the garage, which was built in the 1920’s. Now the tree is lifting up the floor of the existing garage. When they added on to the house in 1989 they got a variance and kept the garage. Now they are proposing to build a new one car attached garage away from the tree. Commission asked the applicants if they were will to remove the entire garage, do not see a hardship for having the shed and being over on floor area. The property owners noted that they did not want to remove the shed and that is was necessary for garden storage. The proposed garage is only a one car garage and does not provide storage area, even if the shed were removed the project would still be over on floor area. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 8 Commission noted concern with one foot side setback and asked the property owners if they spoke with the neighbor at 2112 Easton. The property owners noted that they did show the neighbors at 2112 Easton Drive the plans and that they signed off on the design and submitted her approval in writing to the Planning Department. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: It is a hardship to move the garage but not to keep the shed, shed should be removed, it is an amenity that is not necessary; see hardship for both, the tree affects the entire property; support the project and commend the applicant for making the site better by preserving the tree; concerned with side setback; CA Anderson noted that with the detached garage the property owners were allowed more square footage on their lot, but with an attached garage they are losing square footage, also noted that a condition can be added to the approval that the variance goes with the tree and structure, so that if the tree goes away the variance goes away and if the structure goes away the variance goes away. Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 3-1-1-2 (C. Bojués dissenting, C. Auran abstaining, Cers. Osterling and C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:37 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of June 7, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 7, 2004. She also discussed briefly the schedule for reviewing the Peninsula Hospital project and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. - Ending Planning Commission Stipend CP Monroe noted that at the end of the June, end of the budget year, the Commission’s stipend will end. XI. ADJOURNMENT Action Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\06.14.04.unapproved