Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.10.22IN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FIRIP BURL.INGAME APPROVED MINUTES w - Monday, October 22, 2012 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the October 22, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Terrones, Auran, Gaul, Sargent and Yie Absent: Commissioner Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney Gus Guinan, and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Sargent to approve the minutes ofthe October9, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted. Motion passed 4-0-1-1(Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker indicated that Agenda Item 1 (2301 Easton Drive) will be continued until the next available meeting at the request of the applicant. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2301 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE FROM STORAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (TIM RADUENZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PHILOMENA TERRY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT This item was continued to the next available meeting, at the request of the applicant. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 Calendar. There were no requests. 2. 216 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED CAR — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA NON -AUTO RELATED USE (CATERING) IN THE CAR ZONING DISTRICT (JILL DANIEL, APPLICANT; SAM SAMSON, C AND D PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1-0 (CommissionerCauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 3 (2504 Hillside Drive) as he is that applicant and will represent himself for this project. He left the dais. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 2504 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RICHARD M. SARGENT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 24 AND OCTOBER 9, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS) Reference staff report dated October 22, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Sargent, Burlingame and James Chu, San Mateo; represented the applicant. ■ Representing himself as the applicant and not in any capacity as a Planning Commissioner. ■ Doesn't feel he had good information at the last meeting; brought examples of windows and of the actual window installed in the project to show the contrasts. ■ Referenced his letter that he submitted to the Commission. ■ Solid wood window; virtually indistinguishable from the windows on the plan but for the vinyl cladding. ■ Windows like this have been approved by the Planning Commission before. ■ The window is durable — has been used in the Bay Area for greater than 35-years. As an Andersen window it has a warranty that ensures that it will last for years. ■ The stone will be added to the chimney at the rear of the property. Commission comments: Disagrees that vinyl windows have been approved before; though some may have been missed; not knowingly approved. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 ■ Believes that the Commission has been consistent in asking for wood windows with aluminum cladding. ■ Noted that vinyl windows may have been installed on remodeling projects in order to match existing. ■ Doesn't believe aluminum -clad versus vinyl -clad was the issue; felt that the windows were to be wood with simulated true divided-lite windows. • Not concerned about the cladding — concerned about the texture and dimensional characteristics of the windows. Wanted simulated true divided-lite windows in a material that would last. Was not so much a concern whether the cladding was vinyl or aluminum. ■ Have a difficult situation in this instance for two reasons: no hard and fast policy prohibiting the use of vinyl windows; believes the intent was to get to the substance and durability of the window. However, the Commission cannot specify a particular manufacturer. ■ Most vinyl windows of the past were of a style that were fully vinyl with less substantial muntins; the manufacturer was designing to a price -point. ■ Has looked closely at the substance, appearance, scale and durability of the sample of the window installed in the project, not just the vinyl cladding. ■ Previously indicated a preference for aluminum -clad windows; in the past, applicants have willingly revised their plans to this style when pushed not to install vinyl windows. ■ With respect to the applicant's windows; sees the substance, simulated true divided-lites, appearance and durability that the Commission typically has looked for on prior applications. Supports the proposal. ■ The manufacturer is guaranteeing the windows with respect to durability — they must have confidence that they are a durable product. They are wood windows with the texture and character that the Commission seeks. ■ This particular window does not appear as a wood window all around. Concerned that some of the other lesser series of manufacturers may not be of the same quality — do we start to specify manufacturers? ■ Compared this situation to using river -rock differently than simulated stone as a finishing material; it is not native to the area. ■ If this window is deemed to be acceptable, could consider approving this window, "or equal" in quality (appearance, substance, etc.) in the future. ■ Need to define characteristics of appearance, durability and details as we move forward. ■ Seems that there has been a de -facto policy against vinyl windows. Believes there should be a discussion at the subcommittee level, then take the matter to the City Council or CEC to come up with a policy. Concerned about the environmental impact of using vinyl. ■ By allowing for exceptions; it is not a hard and fast policy. ■ Can understand the issues regarding vinyl versus other types of clad windows. ■ Could start seeing more applications with this type of window — will look more closely at the actual window type with these applications. Applicants would need to prove how the product meets the criteria. ■ Do we start requiring samples and specifications for windows? ■ There could be aluminum clad windows that don't meet the criteria. (Sargent —agreed that there is a broad range of vinyl windows that can be selected.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 City Attorney Guinan noted that the Commission cannot designate specifications that narrow down to a specific manufacturer, but can clearly articulate the aspects of a particular look that is sought for a design review permit and if that particular window meets the specifications, then those applications should be called out. Can approve a vinyl clad window, but need to articulate why this product meets the specifications. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, specifically noting that the windows installed in the project meet the Commission's criteria for durability, detailing (simulated true divided-lite muntins, routed detail on sash) that is typical of historic window styles present in the neighborhood, and the fact that it is a wood window that is clad with vinyl, subject to the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 10, 2012, sheets A.3.1, A.4.1, A.4.2, A.5.1, A.5.2 and A.6.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 24 and February 7, 2012 memos, the City Arborist's February 29 and February 13, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's February 29, 2012 memo, and the Fire Marshal's and NPDS Coordinator's February 6, 2012 memos shall be met; 5. 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; 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 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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 M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 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. 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. 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: Noted that the depth that is created with the molding around the window also assists in making the installation acceptable. Would it make sense to discuss this at the subcommittee level at some point and create a policy? (Meeker— ultimately this would be appropriate, but the approach on this item is appropriate for the moment. Not specifying this particular manufacturer; will look at other examples that meet the criteria but from other manufacturers on a case -by -case basis. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 4. 2508 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FORA MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (QUALIFIES AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION) (PETER AND JOANIE SCHLAMPP, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; NATALIE HYLAND, HYLAND DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER) ( NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 22, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Natalie Hyland, San Carlos; represented the applicant. Referenced response letter and reviewed project changes as outlined in the letter. Hope to keep the existing garage at the existing setback. Commission comments: ■ Thinks the garage looks much better as it has been split up.. ■ Thinks the revision to the front looks much better. Can the post be moved to where the guest bedroom is situated — this would widen the entry a bit more and make the porch that much larger. (Hyland — doesn't know if the front door could be centered on the gable.) Would provide more of a usable porch. ■ Would a guard rail be in front of the window? (Hyland — would also have one wrapping towards the back. The owners have their hearts set on the porch design.) ■ Having the larger gable to the right has balanced the garage. ■ Could go either way with the suggestions regarding the porch design. ■ Not certain if the guard rail is necessary; could be designed to eliminate the need for the rail and could be replaced with landscaping. ■ With respect to the knee braces; the knee brace at the gable peak is supporting the barge rafter; however, on the eaves, the braces on the right are supporting the belly -band which causes the potential need for another knee -brace or other revision to show it supporting the barge -rafter. ■ Like changes to the project, particularly efforts to de-emphasize the garage. ■ Not as important to de-emphasize the garage in this neighborhood given the development pattern that exists. ■ Could bump -out the porch a bit more at the gable, but if it is bumped out a bit more there would be an opportunity for a chair to be placed in the area. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 10, 2012, sheets AO through A6„ SU1, 1-1.0, 1-2.0 and G; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first floor or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 14 and August 3, 2012 memos, the Parks Division's September 13 and August 10, 2012 memos, the Engineering Division's August 17, 2012 memo, the Fire Division's August 6, 2012 memo and the Stormwater Division's August 2, 2012 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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 11. 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; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 12. 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; 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion of Agenda Item 5 (1417 Vancouver Avenue) as he is the project applicant. He left the Council Chambers. 5. 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND A NEW SECOND STORY DECK ABOVE THE GARAGE (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARTINA SERSCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 22, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Auran opened the public comment period. Abbie Whitman, (no city of residence provided); represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Fairly restrained project. ■ Likes that the existing house is being preserved. ■ Can support the argument for the special permit for the new attached garage. ■ With respect to the carport; there is a nine -foot plate called for, this provides a high brow; however, if the plate height was brought down to 8'/2 feet or slightly less, then the roof line could be brought down and scale down the carport. ■ Lowering the plate -height may provide more light into the dining room. ■ Concerned about the detail on the drawings; trim is not shown around the front windows; match window trims to existing trim at the new French door. ■ Make sure that the rolled -tile roof elements on the home are matched at the new addition over garage face. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 ■ Concerned that the carport design is not one found in the neighborhood; what is the interior finishing? (Whitman —likely sheetrock due to code.) Is concerned how it will appear from the street. ■ Interior finishing may possibly be stucco given that it is an outdoor space — will require a one -hour rating so it will necessarily be sheet -rock or stucco; open studs would not be acceptable. ■ Were other roof forms considered —the peak appears high? (Whitman — matching the existing roof form at the front gable.) ■ Trying to add a bit more detail to the roofline rather than a flat roof. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Gual recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais. 6. 1225 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SUZANNE AND CHUICK LYMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 22, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Does the garage count toward FAR? If a two -car garage were proposed, would the home floor area need to be reduced? (Hurin —the FAR formula allows up to 400 square feet for a detached garage. Noted about 27 square feet would need to be removed from the house.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Jack McCarthy, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Well crafted design. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 ■ Massing is handled well. There are a few areas where additional windows could help the massing on the right -side elevation — a window in the gable that is furthest forward could help. ■ On the left side; the wall to the rear at the family room and master bedroom, some tall windows could break down the mass at the location as well. Could have traditional windows flanking the fireplace and higher windows on the second floor. ■ Feels shingle siding could be a good choice rather than the hardy plank siding. ■ If Hardy plank siding is used, then would like to see a sample if Cedar shingles are not chosen. ■ Choose the specific siding type and bring a sample, particularly if Hardy plank siding is selected. ■ Glad the fireplace is kept within the room. Shows venting out the side of the house; could it be vented out the top and provide a faux chimney? ■ Have a great opportunity to provide stained glass or other opaque windows flanking the fireplace. ■ Not a big fan of cement -faced siding; would prefer another material. ■ Will owners live in the house? (McCarthy— yes.) ■ Will owners consider a two -car garage to help with the parking in the area. (McCarthy— not certain that the second space would be accessible due to the configuration of the house and lot.) ■ With retreat the home is nearly a five -bedroom house; would require a two -car garage if five bedrooms. ■ With respect to the front porch; suggested expanding the dining room out a bit more. Could also keep porch columns where they are currently located and extending the landing out further since it is low enough to not be subject to lot coverage, FAR or setbacks regulations. (McCarthy — will consider.) ■ Builder will need to work closely with the right -side neighbor to trim the Oak tree next door. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. 7. 401 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MARCI PALATELLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J DEAL ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 22, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 Requested clarification of the zoning of the property and proximity to the Downtown districts. (Meeker— explained that the property lies immediately north of Downtown Burlingame and was part of the Downtown Specific Plan study area.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Marci Palatella, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Provided handouts to clarify the layout of the building. Noted that oxidized bronze anodized windows are to be installed. Commission comments: ■ Met with the applicant to discuss the project. ■ Requested clarification regarding the uses that are identified within the revised layout of the building. Requested more specifics about the use. (Palatella — are a distributor and producer of products — have only six employees. No production on site. Staff are needed for the documentation staff. The family tequila company needs its own office occupied by her husband. Half of the upper level is to be dedicated to the tequila company. The 2,000 square foot space is too small. Don't anticipate growing dramatically in the future. Have five vehicles present on the site.) ■ Likes that the existing building steps back a bit; is a gateway into the residential area. Feels the design feels heavy and massive; is there a way to mitigate this feeling? Doesn't like the two columns, not an appropriate design element. Can the square footage be provided without adding to the massing of the building. ■ Referenced buildings within the Downtown area that provides a frieze detail that provides a segmented entablature at the top. ■ Perhaps the stone doesn't need to be a two-story element. (Palatella — referenced property on Park Road and asked if this detail fits the building?) ■ Agrees that the details at the cornice makes the element too prominent; perhaps flatten it out a bit. (Palatella — are eventually hoping to install solar elements on the project, so want the parapet to hide the elements.) ■ With respect to the parking variance; clarification of the use of the space may assist with the parking variance application and justification. Look at the nature of the specific use that is proposed in light of the variance application; revise variance application form to clarify uses. ■ Asked if the variance runs with the property or the tenant? (Meeker — indicated that the variance approval runs with the property, not the tenant.) ■ Feels that perhaps the parking matter could be addressed by the Community Development Director, based upon the characteristics of the use and eliminate the need for a parking variance. ■ Helpful that there is a lot of underutilized parking across California Drive. ■ Can support the parking variance. Public comments: Kristina Endicott, 1210 Bellevue Avenue, Burlingame; speaking on behalf of tenants in adjacent building on Bellevue Avenue, spoke: ■ Concerned that parking may not be adequate for the property, and deliveries, should not impact the street parking and overflow into their property. ■ There were no problems with parking when Comcast occupied the property. ■ A change in the tenancy should trigger review again. ■ What will the lighting look like — should be no impact upon the adjacent building. II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 ■ Concern about obstruction of light into the building. ■ How long will the construction take? What are the hours? ■ Concern about signage that will not impact the residents. ■ Will the stored items be a fire hazard? ■ Concerned about solar panels atop the building from a view impact. Any height added to the building will obstruct the residents' light. ■ Cannot regulate the installation of solar panels. ■ Show the exterior lighting on the plans. (Palatella — are trying to make the project something that can enhance the neighborhood.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission discussion: ■ Address the cornices. ■ Address exterior lighting; clearly show on plans. ■ Review the particulars of the specific use and how parking is impacted. ■ Noted that signage could be a concern. (Meeker — perhaps note the signage locations on the plans.) Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. 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 5-0-1-0 (CommissionerCauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:44 p.m. 8. 120 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED BMU - APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (BRAD GUNKEL, DLM ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 22, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Is it known whether or not the Highland Avenue lot has been striped and in use? (Meeker — yes, it has been striped and is in use. The City has continued to have full use of the Primrose property until such time that it is developed by the Church.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Father John Riley, Burlingame and Brad Gunkel, San Francisco; represented the applicant. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 Commission comments: ■ Clarified that the parking lot off of Park Road supplements parking for the church? (Gunkel — yes.) ■ Is there detailing regarding how the windows will work relative to the stucco walls? Likes the references in the design to the existing church. Will the windows be deep-set? (Gunkel — the windows will be aluminum storefront windows that are set into the walls.) ■ With respect to the roof material; feels that the slate roof is a prominent part of the Church architecture and composite is proposed. (Gunkel — noted that from street level, only thickness and color variation are discernible; feels that the proposed material is a sufficient reference to the church roof. Are also referencing the school and other residences that exist in the area.) ■ What is the roofing material on the school? (Gunkel — slate.) ■ How will the existing multi -purpose use room be used? (Fr. Riley — Primarily additional classroom space, but no increase in the student population.) ■ Agrees with the logic for the parking variance. ■ The intensity of the use of the gymnasium is not nearly as intense as what would be experienced during a mass, or regular school day. The gymnasium use is secondary to the primary use. ■ Wants to see some specific discussion regarding a commitment to not overlapping the uses — e.g. will not be used during a mass, or other intense uses of the site. ■ Will the gymnasium be used only for St. Catherine's? (Fr. Riley— will not be rented out, but could be used by other groups occasionally.) ■ Noted that the large roof space could be good for solar panels. (Gunkel — there may be some donors that would donate funding for solar panels. Will also install a cool roof.) Public comments: Brian Delehanty, Burlingame; Chris Denton, Burlingame; and Edmund Joseph, Burlingame ■ Supported the request. ■ Noted the inadequacies of the current facilities. ■ Have reached out to the neighbors; have met with all interested parties to review the project plans. ■ Have agreed to a reduced exchange; agreed to delay the construction and let the City continue to use the property for parking. ■ The facility will greatly improve the school. ■ The City Council unanimously approved the property exchange. ■ Will provide a beautiful building that will complement the City. ■ Spoke on behalf of men's and women's clubs and supported the request. ■ Have been forced to rent external facilities and have paid fees for alternate sports facilities. ■ Budgets are unsustainable at current levels for athletic programs. ■ This building will allow them to keep the activities in Burlingame. ■ Owns building at 117 Park Road; concerned about impacts to his building. (Hurin —noted that his property does not lie adjacent to the proposed building.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Initial study should address temporary impacts during construction; drop-off and pick-up. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 22, 2012 Discussion of motion: ri"Trom 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 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Community Development Director Meeker suggested that the appointment of Planning Commission subcommittees be deferred until the first meeting in November in anticipation that Commissioner Vistica's replacement is appointed by that date. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of October 15, 2012: A proposed ordinance that would eliminate the quota related to full -service food establishments in the BAC zone was introduced and is scheduled for a public hearing and adoption on November 5, 2012. FYI: 310 Pepper Avenue — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: Accepted. FYI: 1395 Burlingame Avenue — review of clarification to a previously approved Design Review Project Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 14