Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.11.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, November 26, 2012 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the November 26, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Davis, Gaul, Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioner Sargent Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 1; Minutes; correct vote to be "5-0-1-1 "showing that Commissioner Terrones was absent and Commissioner Davis abstained. ■ Page 2; Commission comments; last bullet, after "primary distinction;" add "an under -counter refrigerator and microwave does not define a kitchen and may be allowed within an accessory living space. " ■ Page 10; last paragraph; change "form" to "from" Motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Sargent absent, Commissioner Terrones 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 discussion. 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. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 There were no Consent Calendar items. VII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 2723 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AND VARIANCE FOR NO INTERIOR ACCESS BETWEEN THE FIRST FLOORAND LOWER LEVEL (MARKAND SANDY MOORE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; HEIDI RICHARDSON, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 26, 2012 Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria suggested for consideration. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Questions of staff: , with attachments. Community Development Director and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were ■ Did someone within the City require the height of the ceiling to be raised? (Meeker— suspects that the change was made during the revisions, but was not required by a City department.) ■ Noted condition that required the applicant to seek an amendment for any changes — was the onus placed upon the applicant? (Meeker — technically, the onus is upon the applicant; perhaps the applicant can clarify why this prior approval was not sought, though it is clear that there was a degree of staff oversight.) ■ Noted a difference in the floor plans between the two sets of plans before the Commission. (Meeker — should seek clarification from the applicant.) ■ Is it true that the ceiling height change triggers the request? (Meeker— yes, the space now become habitable.) ■ Noted that the CBC requires 7-feet of clearance for habitable space. (Hurin — clarified that the zoning ordinance states that anything over 6-feet in height will be considered habitable and counted towards FAR.) Heidi Richardson, Mill Valley; represented the applicant. ■ Staff did not require that the ceiling height be changed. Once the designer got into the details of the structural design, it was necessary to dig deeper into the basement in order to strengthen the sheer wall; that is why the request for a change in the size of the basement was submitted with the plan check review comments. ■ The applicant thought that they had submitted a request for an amendment to the Planning Division with the letter accompanying the re -submittal. ■ When the plan check was submitted, the letter accompanying the plan check responses clearly indicated that all plan check comments should be re -submitted to the Building Division. ■ The project had been inspected multiple times during the construction process. ■ The sheer wall aligns with the wall of the family room/living room. Commission comments: Requested clarification of what was actually built — showed part of the ceiling as being 5' 8"; is that how it was built? (Richardson — noted that the storage room is 6' 11" and the adjacent room is stepped to 5' 8"). 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 ■ Was there a wall added to enclose the utility area? (Richardson — clarified the floor plan of the area with the three doors and the division of the space.) ■ Requested clarification of the sheer wall locations. (Richardson — clarified the location of new walls and the sheer walls within the space.) ■ Why wasn't it realistic to place a door between the space and the garage? (Richardson — there is a concrete block wall that separates the garage from the subject area; there is also a sheer panel as part of the new storage room, adjacent to the garage. It was not feasible to place a door at this area.) There was also a change in the floor height. ■ Clarified that the space is not heated and does not include plumbing. (Richardson — there is no intent to convert the space to living space.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Would this have been approvable before? Its unconditioned space and will be used for storage; this is common in older homes. Is in favor of the application. ■ The change does not impact the neighbors from a massing standpoint. ■ Is also a down sloping lot; creates greater difficulties with sheer wall. ■ Since the space is not 7-feet in height, the building code doesn't consider it to be a habitable space. ■ Believes the applicant acted in good faith. Commissioner Yie 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 November 2, 2012, sheets A2.0 and A3.0; and date stamped April 8, 2011, sheets A0.0 through A1.2, A2.1 through A2.3, Front Building Elevation, Rear Building Elevation, Left Side Building Elevation, Survey and Landscape Plan; 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Variance for no interior access between the first floor and lower level, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 8, 2011 and March 7, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's March 15, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 9, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's April 4 and April 12, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 7, 2011 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; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 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 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; 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 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; 13. 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 14. 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 Sargent absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. 121 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 2. 120 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED BMU - APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, PARKING VARIANCE AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 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 November 26, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Community Development Director Meeker described the request for a Public Facility Fee waiver and indicated that there is a rationale for a waiver of all fees based upon the specific characteristics of the facility (i.e. no increase in student population, operational characteristics, parking and circulation characteristics to remain the same, etc. Utility systems have been upgraded by the City. Landscaping will reduce impervious surfaces and provide for on -site treatment and retention of storm water.) Thirty-five (35) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Brad Gunkel, San Francisco and Father John Ryan, St. Catherine's of Sienna Church, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Requested clarification of the window profiles. ■ There are indications in the staff report that the courts within the facility will not be large enough for adult play. Will the facility be used by other organizations during off periods? (Father Ryan — there is no intention to use this as a commercial enterprise; no rental. There may be a willingness to share the facility with the City at some time in the future. Hurin — noted condition of approval that limits usage of the facility only by St. Catherine's. Would require an amendment to the conditional use permit if this changes.) ■ Doesn't believe usage should be limited by other church organizations that may play at events involving St. Catherine's. (Meeker — clarified that games between St. Catherine's and other organizations would not be limited. The facility is intended to be an enhancement of the school facilities — it is appropriate to impose this type of condition.) ■ A limitation on users is appropriate considering that Public Facility Impact Fees are being waived based upon the characteristics of the use as represented by the applicant. If the profile of the use changes, then the fee waiver would need to be re-evaluated. (Meeker — agreed.) ■ If the use were to change, then would the fee waiver discussion be re -opened? (Meeker— believes it could again be discussed.) 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 amended conditions: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 28, 2012, sheets T0.1, T0.2, A1.0 through A3.0 and 1-1.0, including the Details for aluminum storefront window sills, window jamb and window head; 2. that the gymnasium and parish center at 120 Primrose Road shall be used only in connection with St. Catherine of Siena Church and School located at 1300/1310 Bayswater Avenue; any changes to the operator of the gymnasium or uses within the gymnasium shall require an amendment to the conditional use permits and parking variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here; 3. that events at the gymnasium and St. Catherine of Siena church and school shall not be scheduled so that they overlap to prevent conflicts in parking and circulation; 4. that the off-street parking for the gymnasium shall be provided on the playground area and parking lot on the adjacent St. Catherine's church and school site located at 1300/1310 Bayswater Avenue; any reduction in the parking area shall require an amendment to the conditional use permits and parking variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here; 5. that all Public Facility Impact Fees for the project are waived, based upon the discussion and recommendation made in the Community Development Director's November 26, 2012 memorandum to the Planning Commission recommending a waiver of all such fees, and based upon the operational characteristics represented in this application; that the Public Facility Impact Fees could be re-evaluated by the Planning Commission for any change or intensification of use within the gymnasium; 6. 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; 7. 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); 8. that the conditions of the Building Division's October 2 and August 16, 2012 memos, the Fire Division's August 13, 2012 memo, the Engineering Division's November 19, October 26 and August 29, 2012 memos, the Parks Division's August 16, 2012 memo, and the Storm water Division's August 16, 2012 memo shall be met; 9. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the conditional use permits and parking variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 10. 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; 11. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 12. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 13. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet with the Public Works Division to determine appropriate traffic flow fencing and devices to be installed on Parking Lot G during construction; the applicant shall prepare a traffic management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division prior to issuance of a building permit; 14. 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; 15. that exterior lighting for the project would be designed to meet the requirements of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas); 16. 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; 17. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 18. 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 three (3) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 19. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 20. 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; 21. 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; 22. 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; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Air Quality: 23. During construction, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement the following measures required as part of BAAQMD's basic and enhanced dust control procedures required for all construction sites. These include: a. Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). C. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. f. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Biological Resources: 24. The project sponsor shall take the following steps to avoid direct losses of nests, eggs, and nestlings and indirect impacts to avian breeding success: a. During the breeding bird season (March 15 through August 31) a qualified biologist will survey the project site and large trees within 250 feet and line of sight for nesting raptors and passerine birds not more than 14 days prior to any demolition, construction, or vegetation removal. b. If demolition or construction activities occur only during the non -breeding season between August 31 and March 15, no surveys will be required. C. Results of positive surveys will be forwarded to CDFG (as appropriate) and avoidance procedures will be adopted, if necessary, on a case -by -case basis. These may include construction buffer areas (up to several hundred feet in the case of raptors) or seasonal avoidance. Cultural Resources: 25. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out; 26. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame; 27. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground -disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered; Geology and Soils: 28. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site -specific soil investigations performed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from the engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction; Hydrology and Water Quality: 29. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: a. A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 b. Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydro seeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; C. Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; d. Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and e. The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. 30. The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post -construction treatment and control of storm water runoff from the site. Post -construction treatment measures must be designed, installed and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post -construction storm water treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection; Noise: 31. The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically -attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). b. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. Transportation/Traffic: 32. A shared parking agreement for the parking, access and circulation on the adjacent parcel shall be recorded on Lot B at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office; a copy of the recorded documents shall be sent to the City Engineer; 33. St. Catherine of Siena School shall compile a set of guidelines to distribute to all parents with clear and detailed instruction as to the drop-off and pick-up procedures. The following criteria shall be included as part of the guidelines: a. that during the drop-off period all vehicles shall enter the school from the southern gate along Primrose Road and shall exit onto Primrose Road using the northern gate, as shown on the Pick -Up and Drop -Off Configuration Plan, with all vehicles making a right turn onto Primrose Road heading northbound; 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 b. that during the pick-up period all vehicles shall enter the school from the southern gate along Primrose Road; the first vehicles that enter the site shall circle around and park along the fence at the north end of the site; the subsequent vehicles shall form four different rows while waiting for students to be dismissed and shall exit onto Primrose Road using the northern gate, as shown on the Pick -Up and Drop -Off Configuration Plan, with all vehicles making a right turn onto Primrose Road heading northbound; and C. that each parent shall be required to stay with his/her vehicle during the drop-off and pick-up process and shall not leave their vehicle unattended in the playground area. 34. St. Catherine of Siena School shall provide teachers, staff and/or volunteers to monitor the morning drop-off and escort the children to the appropriate vehicles for pick-up in the afternoons to ensure that children are safely making their way to and from the vehicles and to keep the flow of traffic going through this area; and 35. During Construction of the gymnasium, all vehicles during the drop-off and pick-up period shall enter the school from the gate along Bayswater Avenue and shall exit onto Primrose Road using the southern gate, as shown on the Construction Fencing and Traffic Plan, with all vehicles making a right turn onto Primrose Road heading northbound; St. Catherine of Siena School shall compile a set of guidelines to distribute to all parents with clear and detailed instruction as to the drop-off and pick-up procedures during construction of the gymnasium. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:41 p.m. 3. 1625 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VARY FROM THE CRITERIA TO ADD AUTOMOBILE SALES TO AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILITY (PETER PAN BMW, APPLICANT; WILLIAM D. AND CLAIRE A. SPENCER TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 26, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin 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. Jim Cyr, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Have received approval for sale of only pre -owned vehicles. Intend to sell loaner cars (95 are present on the site) that are already present at the facility when they are de -commissioned. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 Commission comments: Do people test drive the vehicles? (Cyr— the vehicles are driven by customers every day; the vast majority are loaned out daily.) Are the pre -owned vehicles currently sold at the San Mateo location? (Cyr —yes. This will allow the loaner vehicles to be sold from this site, rather than moved to the San Mateo location.) 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 conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped October 30, 2012; 2. that this Conditional Use Permit at 1625 Adrian Road shall be for automobiles sales in an existing automotive service facility with indoor and outdoor display of vehicles; 3. that the City of Burlingame shall be listed as the point of sale for all transactions occurring from the vehicle sales operation located at 1625 Adrian Road, Burlingame; 4. that vehicles for sale may not be displayed in any required on -site parking spaces, driveways, drive aisles or fire lanes; 5. that no vehicles shall be loaded or off-loaded from vehicle carriers on Adrian Road or any other public right-of-way; vehicles shall be loaded and off-loaded on -site; 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 Gaul. Discussion of motion: Noted that the applicant was encouraged previously to have sales at the location when the service center was approved. (Cyr— were limited by the DMV licensing requirements.) Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:49 p.m. 4. 1801 MURCHISON DRIVE, ZONED TIN — APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT TO ADD A NEW MICROWAVE DISH ANTENNA ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON THE ROOFTOP OF AN EXISTING BUILDING (CHRISTY BELTRAN ROBERTS, THE CBR GROUP INC., APPLICANT; OMNI DESIGN GROUP, ARCHITECT; CALIFORNIA PAC PROPERTIES INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 26, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-two (22) conditions were suggested for consideration. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 Questions of staff: Is the letter from the appellant the request for a public hearing? (Hurin/Meeker —must consider that an appeal and a request for a public hearing. Attempted to get more clarity from the appellant, but received no response.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Christy Beltran Roberts, Napa; represented the applicant. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Commission comments: None. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to deny the appeal and approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the Administrative Use Permit to add a new microwave dish antenna adjacent to an existing wireless communication facility on the rooftop of an existing building at 1801 Murchison Drive shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development Director; 2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 19, 2012, sheets T-1 and A-1 through A-3; 3. 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; 4. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply; 5. 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 for the Administrative Use Permit; 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 an amendment to the Administrative Use Permit; 6. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner's expense, revocation of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty; 7. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti -resistant materials and shall be painted a non - reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the building; 8. that any exterior lighting on the facility should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on -site; 9. that signage in, on or near the facility should be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact; 10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall provide verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of the facility complies with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations; 11. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility's compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility's compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility; 12. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact; 13. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated; 14. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment; 15. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department; 16. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from the time of notification by any person or entity; 17. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 18. that noise originating from any equipment shall be mitigated to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with applicable noise limitations under the Burlingame Municipal Code; 19. that backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages or for testing during a set period; 20. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation; 21. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Administrative Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. 22. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. 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 Sargent absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1612 MONTE CORVINO WAY, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE - STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JADE LUM, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ALICE NEEDHAM, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report dated November 26, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Why are there no existing building elevations and landscape plans? (Hurin — given the location of the addition, this type of information is not always required.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 Jade Lum, Los Altos; represented the applicant. ■ Intention is to stay within the design context of the neighborhood. ■ Would like to see as more open and spacious design for the space. ■ The addition is neatly tucked into the rear; there is minimal impact upon massing, and it is roughly the same height as the neighbors' property. ■ Want to enhance the front porch to encourage neighborhood interaction (referenced letterattached to staff report.) Commission comments: ■ Commended the applicant on reaching out to the neighbors. ■ Noted that shingles are being added on the upper half of the structure; Will there be shingles on the side elevation? (Lum — have limited funding, so are only providing shingles on the front and the rear to be consistent with the neighborhood.) ■ Would prefer not to have shingles if not provided on all elevations; no indication how they will terminate; will look paper -thin. There is nothing shown regarding the termination. Not certain the shingles are actually helping the design; the neighborhood is more ranch -style homes, not Craftsman. The details provided are not really effective in moving towards a Craftsman design. ■ Feels the planter boxes may extend out too far. ■ Massing is handled ok, but the details are not done well. ■ Appear to be moving towards a Craftsman -style, but are not completing the transition due to the limited budget. ■ Noted that a new garage door is being provided, but what is proposed has no detail to it. Typically require a bit more character for a new door. ■ Noted the presence of wood siding and brick on a portion of the front elevation; drawing makes it appear like a stucco wall; perhaps shingles should not be provided. ■ Not certain about how successful the porch design will be; more detail is needed. If Craftsman, may have exposed rafter tails, etc. (Lum —there are columns and beams that support the porch roof, but are not drawn in on the plans.) ■ The window boxes seem too far out and unsupported; may not be useable. ■ Requested clarification of the separation between the wood shingles and the stucco on the garage face. ■ What types of windows are being provided? (Lum — aluminum -clad wood.) ■ The garage door needs to have windows. ■ Interesting having an elevator in the home; is there an ADA bathroom? (Lum — preparing for the future by including the elevator.) ■ Requested clarification of the railing on the stairs; doesn't appear to be wrought -iron, but a flat panel. (Lum — will be of the same railing material that is on the porch.) ■ Design needs more detail. ■ Encouraged expanding the use of the shingle siding. ■ Have window boxes like these been done before? Wonders how it looks when they're installed. (Lum — not married to the window boxes.) ■ Perhaps there is an opportunity for a trellis on the front of the garage, extending from the porch. ■ Would be fine to unify the house finishes. ■ Encouraged consistency within the design of the house. ■ Clarified that all windows are casement -style. Public comments: None. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called fora vote on the motion to refer the project to a designer reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:18 p.m. 6. 1217 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (SCOTT AND ANA GIESE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LI-SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 26, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Li-Sheng Fu, Fremont; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Understands what is being done with the entry, but feels that the front door should be facing Paloma Avenue; the massing needs to be integrated a bit better — the house looks a bit lop -sided. If the current configuration is to be retained, then the door should be moved to where the sliding (French) doors are located. Makes sense for the house to face Paloma; looks awkward otherwise — Mills is also a more heavily traveled street. ■ Will also help with the placement of the chimney. ■ Would the address be affected? (Hurin — would need to apply for a Paloma Avenue address.) ■ There appears to be a lack of detail regarding materials and windows. ■ Does not believe that the arches work well with the square windows; looks out of place with the rest of the house. ■ The design lacks identity — there is no clear architectural style. Provide more details to enhance the design. ■ There is not enough detail regarding the design of the windows or their construction. ■ Is there a reason why the door on the garage is not centered in the wall on the Paloma Avenue elevation? (Fu — the garage is existing; are using the existing wall and columns. Can review this element. The owner prefers the entry from the Paloma Avenue side. An entry lobby is located on the side to create a separation from the street. Have kept most of the existing building in -tact. Clarified that the existing one-story building is being retained; it is only a second -floor addition. The ceiling height is only being raised in the living room area.) 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 ■ Likes the floor plan and where the entry is currently located; will work nicely. ■ Need to work on the detail of the design a bit more. Size of materials is not noted; provide more detail. Design elements should be of a scale that is appropriate to their purpose. ■ Provide more clarity on the existing floor plan; particularly where demolition is to occur. ■ Would be nice to pull back the fence from the property line to provide a bit of a landscaped area to enhance the pedestrian experience. Appears to need to be re -built. (Fu — is an existing fence.) ■ Feels that the arches seem out of place with the design of the house; could be simplified and be better integrated with the design. ■ Considering that the first floor is remaining, then stepping back the second -story works better with the existing homes on the street. ■ Since a portion of the existing garage is being retained; indicate the specific details of the garage door — consider providing doors with a bit more character since they will be so prominent. ■ Questioned whether the curb -cut (three -wide) will need to be altered to be a two -car. (Hurin — may need to be reduced in width.) 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 Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:39 p. M. 7. 1444 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA NEW FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (PIZZERIA DELFINA) AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CRAIG & ANNE STOLL, DELFINA RESTAURANT GROUP, APPLICANT; DOUGLAS BURNHAM, ENVELOPE A + D, ARCHITECT; DOROTHY WURLITZER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 26, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Thought that the ordinance was changed regarding the number of restaurants Downtown. (Meeker — explained that this application was submitted prior to the "lifting" of the quota on full -service food establishments that will become effective on December 5th. Hurin — noted that a conditional use permit will still be required.) Eft CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 Will there be an issue with the new awnings that extend over the public right-of-way? (Bell — doesn't believe there will be any problems.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Craig Stoll, San Francisco and Patrick Flynn, Oakland; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Appreciates that information that was added to the application; the information provides the character of the improvements and the design. Will be a great addition. ■ Is there a sample of the concrete tile? (Flynn — Provided a sample, but doesn't appear to be at the meeting. Will be a grey matte finish and will be 6" x 6". Meeker— will be certain that the tile sample is provided at the action hearing.) ■ The changes to the storefront will enhance the pedestrian experience. ■ The addition of more restaurant opportunities in the 1400 block of Burlingame Avenue will help enhance that block of the street. ■ Where will the fountain be relocated? (Flynn/Meeker— in the plaza behind the Sam Malouf tenant space.) ■ When will the business open? (Flynn - May/June. Bell — informed the applicant that Public Works will need to be informed of all of the different contractors that will work at the location.) ■ Asked about the prior requirement for hose -bibs to be installed on renovated storefronts. (Meeker — this issue is being addressed as part of the streetscape improvement project, so it is not required as a condition.) ■ Suggested coordination of water connections, particularly for fire services with the streetscape project. (Flynn — have been having discussions with the involved departments.) 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar as proposed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:51 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 26, 2012 XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of November 19, 2012: ■ None. FYI: 2305 Hale Drive — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 2208 Hillside Drive — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 20