Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.06.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, June 11, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the June 11, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Vistica. Absent: Commissioner Yie Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the May 29, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 3; Item 3 (1102 Balboa Avenue); third bullet under "Commission comments insert "on the front elevation" at the end of the sentence. ■ Page 10; Item 5 (2841 Frontera Way); first bullet under "Further Commission comments"- replace "is" with "appears to be" ■ Page 17, Item 10 (1009 Capuchino Avenue); first bullet under "Questions of staff'- add "(Strohmeier - noted that the restriction doesn't apply to secondary dwelling units.)" Motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioners Vistica and Cauchi abstained) IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for review. 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 Gaul asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 calendar. There were no requests. 1a. 1423 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES EXISTING ON SITE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED ONE -CAR GARAGE (STEPHANIE AND MINESH SHAH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARTINKOVIC MILFORD ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 1b. 1132 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW BASEMENT AND A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARK SILVA & DARCI FLETCHALL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 1C. 1009 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW TO ADD A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT THE REAR OF AN R-2 LOT (MATT TRAGOUTSIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; THOMAS MCCARVILLE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Terrones 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 Auran. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and itpassed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioners Gaul and Cauchi abstained) for Item 1a (1423 Laguna Avenue); 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner Cauchi abstained) for item 1b (1132 Oxford Road); and 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioners Terrones and Cauchi abstained) for item I (1009 Capuchino Avenue). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 2012 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (LISA STREIBING, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: EMILY BROWN. HOROLOGII. DESIGNER) (STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 11, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Lisa Streibing, 2012 Davis Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Will the existing French doors to the master bedroom be replaced? Would prefer a wood door. (Streibing — yes, will replace.) Encouraged replacing all windows with wood windows. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 ■ What was the extent of the 2002 addition? Was this applicant involved in the prior variance request? (Streibing — was for a breakfast nook addition. She was the applicant then as well.) ■ Most of the floor area is under the existing roof, but unclear what is the hardship. (Streibing — the addition will allow a covered access to the garage as well.) ■ The lot is a bit under -sized when compared to a typical 6,000 square foot lot in the neighborhood; this could support the variance request. ■ Will the covered walkway be under the existing roofline? (Streibing — yes.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional commission comments: Noted that the requests is supportable, also noted that the applicant would need to complywith code requirements if the home is ever demolished in the future. Commissioner Auran 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 May 25, 2012 sheets A0.1 through A4.0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Building Official's May 29 and April 20, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's May 2, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 16, 2012 memo, the Parks Division's April 20, 2012 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 16, 2012 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage 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 the project shall complywith 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 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Support is based upon the notion that the lot is under sized when compared to other lots in the neighborhood. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 3. 2525 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MOMENTUM BUILDERS, APPLICANT; BRITT ROWE, ARCHITECT; PETER AND CHERYL JAUNICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 11, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jamie Pantuso, 2762 Filbert Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Believes there may be more cross -support necessary, but as presented is an acceptable solution. Was the outdoor shower removed? (Pantuso — owner asked for the walls and the roof to be removed to make it more streamlined. There will be no walls.) Can stipulate that the outdoor shower will not be walled -in. Expressed concern regarding privacy of the outdoor shower. (Pantuso — the privacy is protected by the heavy vegetation.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 4, 2012, sheets A3.1, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1 and A5.2, and date stamped May 2, 2012, sheets A0.1 through A2.6, A3.3, A3.4, Boundary Survey and Topographic Map, GPR and L1; 2. that the outdoor shower shown on the approved plans shall not be enclosed by walls; 3. 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); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement level, lower level, main level an second level, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 15 and February 24, 2012 memos, the City E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 Engineer's February 29, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 13, 2012 memo, the City Arborist's February22, 2012, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 14, 2012 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. 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; 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; 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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 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 12. 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; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: Will changes to the structural bracing need to come back? (Meeker — no.) Accepts the justification for the variance. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 4. 2841 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL, SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND AN UNCOVERED DECK FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PAK LEE, SEDES ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EILEEN OUYANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (Item continued from the May 29, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting) Reference staff report dated June 11, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Pak Lee, 4695 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. Public comments: Michael Gross, 2845 Frontera Way and Benson Chow, 2841 Frontera Way spoke: ■ Thanked the applicant for the efforts to move the trees. ■ Continues to object to the uncovered deck on top of the rear, lower -level addition. Once people and personal effects are in place on the deck, there will be view impacts. ■ Asked the applicant to consider removing, or moving the uncovered deck. ■ Are there enforceable conditions of use that can be placed on the use of the deck to prohibit anything from being placed above the top of the rail that may begin to enclose the deck? (Commissioner - asked what would trigger the need for a building permit? Meeker — indicated that awnings, furniture and other pre -manufactured items would not require permits; anything structural would require a permit.) ■ Could condition that the deck shall not be further enclosed by any enclosed, permitted or non - permitted construction. (Meeker — noted that future changes would require an amendment to the Hillside Construction Permit as well. Commissioner - Feels that the addition will have minimal impact upon the neighbors. Commissioner — based upon the size of the deck, it will be more of a walkway than a seating area; the rail will block the view of the neighbor's roof below and not the distant view — doesn't see a true view blockage from the standpoint of the City's ordinance.) ■ Noted that the prior owner of his home and the neighbor got into a significant conflict with the neighbors previously —doesn't wish to encounter the same situation in the future. If there isn't a way to enforce the restrictions on the placement of items on the deck, then he requests that the deck be removed. (Commissioner — suggested that the property owner open a line of communication with the neighbor to ensure no future conflicts.) ■ Though the planned structure doesn't block distant views, the use of the area will potentially block views — feels the spirit of the City's ordinance has to do with blocking views at any point. • Understands the neighbor's concern regarding the deck — is not planning to place umbrellas, furniture or awnings on this portion of the deck. • Wants to build a good relationship with the neighbors. Go CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: There is no view blockage proposed. In favor of request; there is no way of regulating how the deck is used. Commissioner Auran 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 June 4, 2012, sheets A0.1 and Topographic Map and date stamped April 9, 2012, sheets A0.2 through A4.1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that one 15-gallon Purple Leaf Plum tree (Prunus cerisfera) shall be planted in the right-of-way and one 24-inch box Crape Myrtle tree (Lagerstromia Indica) shall be planted in the left rear corner of the lot, as shown on the Site Plan, sheet A0.1, date stamped June 4, 2012; any changes to the species of these trees shall be reviewed by the City Arborist and the Planning Commission as an FYI item; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 9 and March 9, 2012 memos, the Parks Supervisor's March 8, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's March 21, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 5, 2012 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2012 memo shall be met; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 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 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; and 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 Division. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ Spoke with the other neighbor regarding the addition — the plans were being misunderstood, they now have no objection to the project. ■ Sees no obstruction, can support the project. ■ Encouraged communication between the neighbors. ■ Clarified that any modifications would require a Hillside Construction Permit amendment. Chair Gaul called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (CommissionerYie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:42 p.m. 5. 1505 SHERMAN WAY, ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A PRESCHOOL USE OPERATED ON -SITE BY TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH (MARK SEEVERS, APPLICANT; DAN IONESCU, ARCHITECT; AND TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (Item continued from the May 14, 2012 Planning Commission Meetina) Reference staff report dated June 11, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Dan lonescu, 1611 Borel Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. Public comments: Susan Kelly, 321 Occidental Avenue; Nance McGee, 1520 Sherman Avenue; Jeff Schufreider, Trinity Lutheran Church Pastor; spoke: Opened a pre-school in Burlingame previously; have never had a traffic problem with the facility; the facility continues to serve children. Asked for consideration to provide this service for children. There is a need for a full day preschool in a home setting. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 ■ A speaker at a recent seminar commented on the need to spend funding on children's education. ■ The Commission previously requested a traffic study and today only has a memorandum prepared by a traffic consultant. ■ The traffic memo did not include analysis of residential traffic on the streets. ■ Referenced her letter that included photographs that were taken during the traffic counts — the traffic counter couldn't see any of the traffic. • Observed counters in the morning, but didn't observe any counters in the evening — this is a bad sample of traffic. ■ The study referenced a traffic reduction at a facility in San Francisco. ■ The time period for the traffic analysis (pre -Memorial Day) likely led to a reduced count. ■ The traffic study notes that the neighbors will observe some increased traffic but that the street will support the traffic — the 40% increase in traffic will be noticeable to the neighbors. ■ Asked why traffic at the entrance to the property at Balboa Avenue was not studied? ■ Has submitted multiple photographs showing how close people park to the driveway on the property. ■ Nothing has changed within the past two -years, but has simply reversed the traffic. ■ There will still be a lot of activity through a very small space; people will not wish to follow the traffic circulation plan at all times. ■ The school population is too large. ■ Understands the argument that Burlingame needs schools, but this will impact traffic — the neighbors need relief from the traffic. ■ Frustrated that time and time again the request for a proper traffic study has been ignored — this does not bode well for an improvement in neighbor relations. ■ Vote no on the project. (Commissioner — noted that the study notes that there will be 20 vehicles in an hour, one car every three minutes.) ■ Want to have what all other churches in the area currently have. ■ Had a conversation with Augustine Chou requesting a stop sign at the intersection — doesn't meet warrants. Also requested traffic -calming measures (speed bump) — awaiting a response from the City's traffic engineer. ■ The Church should have the ability to park in the spaces near its property, much like the neighbors have the opportunity to park in spaces near their properties. (Commissioner — could other spaces on the churches property be made available to staff?) Yes. ■ The Church is simply seeking to have similar programs available at other churches in the City. ■ The Presbyterian Church has given permission for use of its parking lot. ■ At times parking on Balboa Avenue limits traffic to one-way at a time. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Seemed like the main sticking point was the desire for a traffic study. Not prepared to question the methodology put forth by the professional consultant. ■ The methodology has been confirmed as sound by the City's traffic engineer. ■ Is a slippery slide to analyze traffic speed in all of the streets in the area, but may be warranted. Perhaps speed bumps could be considered. ■ There may be many vehicles that may enter the property from El Camino Real. ■ If parents cannot find a drop-off or pick-up near Baden Hall, they will likely park elsewhere on the private property— parking within the neighborhood will likely be the last resort. ■ There could be 10 or 11 vehicles arriving on the property at any time; likely that they could fit on the property. ■ Can support the application, based upon the analysis that has been completed. ■ Concurs with the prior comments. ■ Lives near a school — traffic slows down due to the additional vehicles. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 A lot of the traffic in the neighborhood going to the schools is attempting to go to the public schools in the area; the pre-school will not have a hard start time like the public schools. There should be some review of the application within a year's time. (Meeker— confirmed that this is possible.) Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the preschool shall be limited to the Baden Hall building and the adjacent fenced play yard of Trinity Lutheran Church at 1505 Sherman Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 27, 2012, including the pick-up and drop-off plan, site plan and floor plans; 2. that the applicant's compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission one-year following the date of approval; 3. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to a preschool and shall become void if the preschool is replaced by a permitted use, is expanded into other buildings or play areas, or is demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster; 4. that the preschool may be open Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with a maximum of 24 students and 5 staff persons on site at one time; 5. that a preschool staff member will escort all children to and from their vehicles to the building during the drop-off hours designated in the parking plan between 7:00 a.m.- 9:00 a.m. and between 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.; 6. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, number of employees, or the number of students which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 7. that drop off and pick up of children for the preschool shall occur on -site in the driveway space located at the rear of the Baden Hall building and that vehicles shall access the site only through the entry points on Balboa Avenue and on El Camino Real, and that vehicles shall exit the site only through the driveway on Sherman Avenue; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 28, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's April 6, 2012 memo, the Parks Supervisor's July 18, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 20 and April 2, 2012 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 11, 2011 memo shall be met; 9. that any interior demolition or removal of the existing structures on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 10. that the project shall complywith 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 11. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 Discussion of motion: ■ Familiar with the traffic situation related to school -age children and pre-school age children. ■ Not just making idle recommendations; are based upon experience. ■ Agrees with one-year review, or by complaint. ■ Encouraged the neighbors to communicate with the Pastor and the pre-school staff with any concerns in advance of lodging a complaint. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 6. 1400-1402 BURLINGAME AVENUE AND 303 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED BAC — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (DAVIDS TEA) (DAVID SEGAL, DAVIDS TEA, APPLICANT; SARGENTI ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; 1400 BURLINGAME LP, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 11, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty (20) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Asked for clarification regarding how awning signs are factored into the signage for the business. (Meeker — clarified that signage is not subject to Commission review; all illustrations are just that; they are not intended to reflect an approved sign plan.) Feels that the signage may be overdone. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Roy Hassan, David's Teas Corporate; represented the applicant. Noted that the teal color and the signage design is the company's marketing approach. Will approach the business owner and work on that issue. Commission comments: ■ Feels that there may be a bit too much signage shown. Feels that not as much signage is needed as is shown on the plans. Encouraged to consider limiting the amount of signage on the property. ■ The other examples provided for corporate logos appear to be a bit more elegant. ■ Feels that the signage at the top of the building may be a bit over -done. ■ Run the risk of creating animosity with residents with too much signage. ■ Believes the signage is trying too hard, is perhaps a bit too boisterous - consider toning down the signage a bit. ■ Will be great to have a tea -house in town. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 23, 2012, sheets A0.1, D1.0 and A1.0 through A3.0; 2. that prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall install irrigation and tree grates (design approved by the City) for two street trees along Primrose Road; if it is determined that the installation of street trees is not feasible due to the location of existing underground utilities, the location and number of street trees shall be subject to review by the Planning and Parks Divisions; the irrigation and street tree grates shall be shown on the plans submitted for a building permit and shall be reviewed by the City Arborist; 3. that this business location to be occupied by a limited food service food establishment, with 121 SF of seating area, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service food establishment or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment, and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 4. that the 121 SF area of on -site seating of the limited food service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved bythe city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 6. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 7. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 8. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 9. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 10. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 11. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 16 and April 5, 2012 memos, the City Arborist's April 3, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's April 5, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 2, 2012 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 2, 2012 memo shall be met; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2010 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 13. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 14. 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); 15. 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; 16. 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; 17. 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 orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 18. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 19. 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. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and 20. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1401 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (THE MELT) (TWIG GALLEMORE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOE CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 Reference staff report dated June 11, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Twig Gallemore, 1921 University Avenue, Berkeley; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Likes the approach to the building design and taking it back to its original design. ■ Have they really looked at the removal of the retractable awning — if removed, Public Works may not allow it to be re -installed. ■ On keynote 11; points to a brick at the same location; is the intent that there will be a graphic painted on the brick above the transom windows? (Gallemore — yes; they are graphics of soup, a sandwich and a drink.) ■ Will the tile be subway tile? (Gallemore — is a locally sourced brick that has a high recycled content.) ■ Encouraged sidewalk dining. ■ Encouraged blade signage of high -quality materials (not plastic). ■ Applauds the attempt to bring back the building's original character. ■ Feels like the umbrella approach may be more suitable than the awning. ■ Likes the painted wall signs. ■ Likes the project — it is a beautiful building. ■ Noted that the original Burger Joint plans would have taken the building back to a more contemporary appearance, were encouraged to retain some elements of the Towles design elements. Appreciates that this design reverts back to the initial building design. Public comments: James Ryan, resident of Burlingame; and David Jackson, Burlingame Smoke Shop; spoke: Excited to open the restaurant in Burlingame. Was exciting to take the building back in time. Supports the proposal. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Would prefer if it were on Consent Calendar; there were no objections from the public. Supported the motion since this is a prominent location within the Downtown Commercial Area. Chair Gaul 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 4, 2012: ■ The ordinance increasing the number of food establishments in Downtown Burlingame was introduced — a public hearing to consider adoption is scheduled for June 18, 2012. ■ Ordinances related to the Burlingame Point project (300 Airport Boulevard) were introduced — the public hearing regarding certification of the EIR and all project entitlements, including proposed plan and zoning amendments is scheduled for June 18, 2012. FYI: 1102 Balboa Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 725 Crossway Road — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Lot — May, 2012: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 15