Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06.13.11 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California June 13, 2011- 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the June 13, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker and Senior Planner Ruben Hurin III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the May 23, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 13, Item 9, second bullet under discussion of motion; replace "to assume that there will always be eight -feet between homes" with "that the intent of the setbacks is to distinctly provide for Fire Department access". ■ Commissioner Auran wanted it noted that he did not attend the May 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, but listened to the meeting audio which enabled him to vote on certain items. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1147 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO A MINI -MART AT AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION (GUS GRECO, APPLICANT; GUS AND GLADYS GRECO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated June 13, 2011. Commission comments: 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 ■ Not necessarily opposed to the request. ■ Burlingame Foods no longer has a license; a minimal amount of alcohol is sold at Earthbeam; the list of restaurants and other establishments selling alcohol are not heavy sellers of alcohol. ■ Doesn't see that the use is problematic. • Concerned about selling until 2 a.m. ■ Would there be any difficulty in terms of law enforcement with allowing alcohol sales so close to the freeway entrance; would it be more difficult for crime prevention. ■ Sees a great distance between the Broadway establishments and the proposed location. ■ Check to determine what types of alcohol would be permitted; restricted to beer and wine? ■ Opposed; cars and alcohol do not mix; not good as a matter of principle. ■ Specifically restricted the ability to sell alcohol with the initial permit; why allow it now. ■ Need to pay heed to the Police Department's comments and concerns. ■ Allowing the off -sale licenses in a blighted area can create problems; not appropriate. ■ A strong message was sent originally not to permit the sale of alcohol. ■ Is it common to allow alcohol sales in conjunction with a service station? This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Vistica recused himself from participating due to a pending business relationship with the applicant. 2. 1395 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (KARIM SALMA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: FORM + ONE. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated June 13, 2011. Commission comments: ■ Questioned that the applicant doesn't identify a specific tenant. ■ How will garbage and other restaurant -related items be handled. ■ Noted that a discussion had occurred regarding a potential bank at the location. ■ Indicated that a change to the facade would require commercial design review. ■ Could make more sense to have the primary entry to the restaurant from Primrose Avenue. ■ Clarify where the main entrance will be located. ■ How long will the Planning approval be valid? (Hurin — for three years; however, if a retail tenant moves into the space, the Conditional Use Permit would be voided.) This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 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 Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 3a. 1433 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FERNANDO AND UMA VELAYOS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 3b. 198 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (PUTNAM CHEVROLET CADILLAC, INC., APPLICANT; PROTO ARCHITECTURE, LLP, ARCHITECT; 100- 198 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 2208 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER: KINSON WONG. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 13, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Flannan Lum for Kinson Wong, 2208 Hillside Drive; represented the applicant. Clarified that the skylight above the second floor hallway will remain. Commission comments: Why remove the existing building rather than remodel and add on? (Wong — to address the needs of the applicant, a new design was necessary.) Asked if the applicant was going to live in the house? (Lum — yes.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1441 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Was an attractive home; is interesting that the home can be scraped and it is more cost effective. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 3, 2011, sheets A-1 through GP-1 and Topographic Map; 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 basement, 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 May 9, 2011 and April 7, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's April 15, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 11, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's April 11, 2011 and May 9, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 11, 2011 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 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 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: Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: Understands removal of the house; no reason to deny at this point. The structure has serious structural problems, particularly at the garage. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:31 p.m. Chair Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Item 5 (1113 Cortez Avenue), as she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers. 5. 1113 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT: LAWRENCE NEJASMICH TR. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 13, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 100 El Camino Real and Bo Mc Nally (contractor) represented the applicant. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 ■ Noted that the owner and contractor made some changes to the design during construction; there were various reasons for making the changes. ■ The window grids were removed on the two sides and rear of the house because there was a feeling that the view to the outside was much better without the grids. ■ The change to the front entry was cause by the discovery of dry -rot at the projection at the base of the building; going back into this area, the two windows flanking the entry were eliminated to provide greater privacy. ■ The stairway and handrail were changed from wood to stone and wrought -iron; the cost was much greater for this revision than including wood elements. Since the porch is at the front setback, it was felt that the new materials would be better for maintenance purposes. ■ The chimney on the driveway side of the house was necessitated by dry -rot and seismic issues that were discovered; rather than facing it with brick, stucco was used to provide more clearance for the driveway. ■ The roof over the side deck was eliminated to allow more light into the dining room; it was replaced with a trellis and a rail that relates to the trellis design. ■ The width of the side deck was reduced to provide more clearance for the driveway. ■ On the rear, the stairways were relocated to one location to provide easier access from the driveway side of the property, and to provide more yard space. ■ On the right side of the building, the window was deleted from the stairwell; it was eliminated due to privacy concerns with the neighbors. A skylight was added it its place. ■ The garage door was revised to provide a four -panel door with taller windows within the top panel. ■ A window was also added to the man door on the garage. ■ Vents were added as well that were not shown on the original design. Commission comments: ■ When did the architect hear of the changes? Was he consulted? (Meyer — 95% of the changes were made without discussion with the architect. There was a discussion that occurred with respect to the front entry; it was then changed without his knowledge.) ■ Asked the contractor why the changes were made without consultation with the commission? (Mc Nally — apologized for not following proper channels.) ■ Asked if all of the removed details can be added back? (Mc Nally — yes, it is possible. Feels that the final design is better.) ■ The finishing elements on the porch are not appropriate for the style of the porch. ■ Why were the transoms eliminated above the doors at the rear of the house? (Mc Nally— Needed a specific clearance for the opening. Would have needed to readjust other details.) This is a substantial change to the rear of the house. ■ Now there are three different railing types on the home; doesn't help with the cohesiveness of the design. ■ May be able to live with the window grids; for other items there appears to be no reason to make the changes, particularly the ornamental items. ■ Explain why the chimney couldn't be rebuilt in brick? (Mc Nally — installed a gas fireplace to save space on the driveway.) ■ Concern primarily with the chimney and the window changes. ■ Handsome house with nice detailing — construction quality is very good. ■ The contractor's opinions worked their way into the construction process and conflicted with the approved plans. Public comments: W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 Larry and Mary Jo Nejasmich, 1740 Crockett Lane, Hillsborough; spoke: ■ Wanted to retain the charm of the home. ■ Everything that they have done is in with consultation with the architect. ■ Decorator and other professionals provided guidance. ■ Made the changes to make the project the best it could be. ■ The color was changed to satisfy a neighbor. ■ Are very happy with the architect and contractor. ■ Would be unhappy if the changes need to be made. ■ Renters are due to move in (coming from Ireland) soon. ■ Changes were not made maliciously. ■ Made the decision to keep the original architecture; could have probably built a new home more cheaply. ■ Fell in love with the house and intend to move into it eventually. ■ The designer felt that the brick chimney would not work with the selected color. ■ Everything has been done in good taste at a very expensive cost. ■ Probably should have come earlier to request approval of the modifications; but will be disappointed if more changes are requested at this point. ■ Shouldn't be penalized for the changes. Additional Commission comments: ■ Noted that the Commission exists to review projects in light of the design interests of the community; however, the applicant is noting that a decorator is driving the design changes — subverts the purpose of the Planning Commission's process; can't help but think that removing the window grids were removed for cost reasons; has a hard time with some of the changes that have been made. • Doesn't know where the differing opinions regarding the design can end; the Commission exists for a reason, have put in a substantial amount of time reviewing projects. ■ Some changes are acceptable, but others are not. ■ The house design was "dumbed -down". ■ Unfortunate that the changes are being viewed now rather than several months ago. ■ Can't approve the changes as submitted. ■ Disagrees to the changes to the chimney. ■ Public hearings are held to open the door to consider differing opinions regarding the design. ■ Concerned about window grids. ■ Elimination of the window at the stairwell is problematic. ■ The trellis on the side is nicely done. ■ The wood rail on the rear is not acceptable. ■ The chimney, the railing designs (go back to the original design), the window grids (acceptable on only the upper sash window), the window in the stairwell. ■ Would have had concerns with the varied railing designs, and the inconsistency in treatment of the gables. ■ May not have had concerns regarding elimination of the grids on the rear windows. ■ Would like to see another attic vent in the northwest gable. ■ Likes the rail detail on the side deck; would like to see if that detail could be matched on the front and rear deck. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to make the following changes to the project: ■ Change chimney material from plaster to brick. ■ Inconsistent and varied railing design at front, side and rear of house needs to be addressed; should be changed back to reflect original approval or propose a consistent design; ■ Add grids to windows (acceptable on only the upper sash of window). ■ Add window in the stairwell. ■ Add attic vent in the northwest gable. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Chair Yie recused, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. Chair Yie returned to the dais. 6. 1416 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (LINDA AND LARRY DUGONI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 13, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Are solar panels considered mechanical equipment? (Hurin — no, are only subject to height restrictions, not an issue since they would be flush -mounted to roof.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, 3841 24th Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Addressed the Commission's comments from the previous meeting, maintained the Craftsman design. Commission comments: ■ Improved the massing considerably. ■ The balcony off of bedroom 2; looking at the side elevation, the sidewalls do not appear on the side elevation. (Raduenz — this is an error that will be corrected.) ■ Left side elevation; what is it that has a radius? (Raduenz — a trim piece that corresponds with the front details.) ■ Asked if there is a railing between the side windows on the second floor? (Raduenz — only a pony wall.) ■ Would like to suggest placing the solar panels on the flat roof. (Raduenz — would actually prefer this as well, but must still consult with the solar contractor.) M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 In bathroom 3 and the laundry room, there are no windows, but there is a window looking into attic space; what will be behind the window? (Raduenz — will blackout the windows. Would need to change the pitch to the roof to accommodate a window into the bathroom.) Having no window in the bathroom is a bit disconcerting. Discussion regarding attic space and relocation of bathroom and laundry room. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1441 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Suggested installing a sun tube to provide light into the bathroom. Additional Commission comments: Would prefer a skylight into the bathroom, or some other way of re -configuring the front and making the floor area work to provide a window for the bathroom. (Raduenz — can add a skylight to bathroom 2, revise the bedroom accordingly.) Can make revisions and bring them back as an FYI. 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: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 2, sheets T1.0, GN, GP, SP, AB2, A1.0 through A4.0, L1.0 and L2.0; 2. that any changes to windows, skylights or sun tubes in bathrooms 2 and 3 shall be brought back for review as an FYI; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 15 and March 14, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's March 15, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 15, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's April 19 and March 21, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 14, 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; 7. 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; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that 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: 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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; 16. 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 17. 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. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m. 7. 203 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES) (JOSE GARZONA, APPLICANT; PSM ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 13, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Asked how the configuration of doors and windows can be changed without design review. (Hurin — clarified that the property is within Subarea B and that replacing a door with glazing to match the building does not require design review as long as a primary entrance in maintained on Primrose Road.) Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Jose Garzona, Kehoe Avenue, San Mateo and Fred Ponce, 300 Montgomery Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Clarified that only one panel will have obscured glass. Commission comments: ■ What is the area in front of the cash register? (Garzona — is a rack that will hold some of the potatoes that will ultimately be fried.) ■ Will there be something leaned up against the etched glass; could it be seen? (Garzona — no.) ■ Asked if the kitchen is to be an exhibition kitchen? (Garzona — yes.) ■ Asked about the dishwashing area? (Garzona — this area will be obscured by the brick wall.) ■ Asked where the "back of house" area is to be located? Doesn't appear to have been thought through. (Garzona — there is at least 6 or 7 feet before you get to the sinks that are situated behind the etched glass area.) ■ Referenced the Safeway side of the tenant space, there appears to be a lot of functional areas that could accumulate a can wash and other functional areas. (Ponce — this type of area is located at the common trash enclosure outside of the tenant space which contains a drain, grease trap, hot and cold water.) ■ Kitchen could be rotated slightly into triangular -shaped void area so that the wall with the double - doors into the "back of house" terminates at the solid wall and allows the window to remain unobstructed. (Garzona — would result in a significant loss of seating. Considered the option. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 There are several pieces of equipment that go into the space that cannot be modified; this results in limited options for placement while still meeting code requirements.) ■ Noted that similar proposals to obscure a window have been denied by the Planning Commission; there is an opportunity to keep this area open. (Garzona — would need to have the change approved by the corporate headquarters for the restaurant. Feels that have done a lot to address the desire to enhance the pedestrian experience on Primrose.) ■ Questioned the location of the hand sink and the necessity for the obscured glass. (Garzona — will need to relocate the hand sink.) ■ Looks like the wall with the double doors is framed into the glazing, rather than a mullion; try to revise this so that the end of the wall does not end at the glazing. ■ Questioned the final design regarding the etched glass; thought it was initially to be a sign that was hung in the window. (Garzona — the etched film would be adhered to the inside of the window and is removable.) ■ Are taking up two tenant spaces so there is a lot of window space remaining. ■ Need to clarify the location of the hand sink. ■ If the applicant hangs a sign doesn't want to set a precedent that can be used by others to obscure glass along Primrose Road. ■ Look at rotating the area where the obscured glass is located to eliminate the need for the obscured glass. (Garzona — is already a tight space, could be difficult to rotate the kitchen. Could angle the double door and provide a space for a design feature. Hurin — could install the restaurant identity at that location without counting as signage.) ■ This change would allow the Commission to ensure that the windows are not blocked; the change doesn't require a change to the kitchen layout and moves the double door slightly. ■ Asked if the double door could be a single -door? (Garzona — believes that it could be a single.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Where is the break and/or changing room for the employees? (Garzona — lockers are provided; employees come to work in their attire and can change in the restrooms. Have a rooftop patio and ample seating for persons outside.) Likes the 20-foot cook line. Additional Commission comments: Are there plans for outdoor seating? (Garzona — can look at this along Primrose, but are also working with the landlord for the outdoor patio area.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Doesn't believe the project can be approved since the wall terminating at the rear window has not been resolved (Hurin — can add condition of approval requiring that the resolution of the rear wall be brought back as an FYI.) Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application without any obscured storefront glazing, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 2, 2011, sheets SD1, PL1.0, PL1.1 and A1.1 through A4.3; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI to show no sink in front of the storefront window and resolution of the wall and door(s) into the "back of house" so that the storefront window remains unobstructed; 3. that the food establishment shall not exceed 2,043 SF including customer seating, kitchen and food preparation area; 4. that the food establishment may not be open for business except during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week; 5. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 6. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 7. that seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 8. that any changes to the floor area, use or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 15, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 18, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's April 25, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 18, 2011 memo shall be met; and 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2010 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: Makes sense viewing the plans and knowing that it is an exhibition kitchen. Keeps in line with the grander vision for Primrose Road. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Cauchi indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Item 8 (704 Concord Way) since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the dais. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 8. 704 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFF SCHUBINER AND ADRIENNE LEIGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 13, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Questions of staff: None. Adrienne Leigh, 704 Concord Way and Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant: ■ The common massing is the one-story piece at the front with the two-story element pushed back from the street. ■ Would like to keep the existing bay -window setback on the side of the house; the overall width of the house would reduced by 8'/2 feet from its current configuration. ■ Some homes are non -conforming on both sides; most have three-foot setbacks. ■ Can be penalized for having a 52-foot lot; the setback changes, resulting in a narrower home being permitted on the wider lot. ■ The neighbor to the right (on Bloomfield) noted that they have a problem with the detached garage; one possible solution would be to reverse the floor plan of the house. ■ All of the houses in the neighborhood have non -conforming setbacks at least on one side. Commission comments: ■ Plans show the existing wall along the left side of the house to remain at the lesser setback; will this wall be kept? (Grange — will not keep the wall.) ■ Usually agrees with the applicants' architect's arguments with respect to variances; cannot agree in this instance. ■ Wonderful design, fits well with the neighborhood. ■ Regarding the painted stucco molding on the front entry tower; will it be foam? (Grange — will specify that it will be a limestone material, not foam.) ■ Great design; approvable if the variance is eliminated. ■ Could consider an elevator leading to a second floor master bedroom. Public comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Agrees that the variance should be eliminated. Nice design. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called fora 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 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi recused, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:29 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. 9. 1037 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOSEPH IMBELLONI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 13, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Questions of staff: None. James Chu, represented the applicant. This is a spec home. Will be built in accordance with approved plans. Commission comments: ■ The elevations include a lot of horizontal lines that lend to a "layer -cake" look; encouraged fluctuating the plate line so that the roofline could have a different shape and perhaps extend down to the first floor in some areas; look at some of these old solutions as part of the design. • Is a leaded glass window over the entry? (Chu — yes.) ■ Regarding the shutters, on a similar project the shutters lack dimension and look faux; ensure that the shutters provided on this design are more substantial. ■ Consider a jack and jill bathroom for bedrooms 2 and 3, then could provide a laundry room. ■ Would like to see more of a departure from other plans that have been done in the neighborhood. ■ Provide more variety in the design; the existing style of the house could have been a springboard to a different design. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Anna Marianello, former resident of 1028 Cortez Avenue; Angela Valles, 1437 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Noted comments made previously regarding the detail put into project design. The project is identical to a house built at 1448 Cabrillo Avenue from the front elevation. Noted other projects that have been of identical designs in other locations. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 ■ Agrees with eliminating the duplication of designs in Easton Addition; the owner needs to respect what the community values. ■ Noted that most of the houses in the area rarely rise above a single -story; the design creates essentially a maximum height — results in a loss of the human dimension on the street. If the second -floor setback can be done in a means that it is not a straight line, can result in a more interesting design. ■ What is sustainable about having 4'/2 bathrooms? ■ The population of Burlingame has remained stable for the past 20-years. ■ This is the wrong house for the neighborhood. ■ Stop the cookie -cutter design approach. ■ The existing home has good bones, is much larger than it looks. ■ The current design is nothing like what she thought the house could evolve into. ■ Believes the home design was submitted prior to the sale of the property. ■ Design doesn't have anything to do with the existing setting. ■ The front elevation looks like cardboard. ■ The original house dates back to 1928. ■ The older homes should be maintained and the character maintained. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Disappointed about the entry of the house; would like to see a porch, some activity there. Would be easy to provide French doors to a patio at the front. ■ Perhaps the house being demolished should be honored; consider adding a brick element to the front. ■ Perhaps there is some other material that can be added to break up the stucco at the front of the house. ■ Would like to see the architect's talents come out a bit more. ■ Consider paying homage to the design of the existing home. ■ The architect has been very cooperative in assisting in development of the design guidelines. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:51 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 13, 2011 Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 6, 2011: Noted that the proposed property exchange between the City and St. Catherine's of Siena Church has been scheduled for a public hearing on June 20, 2011. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log —May, 2011: No complaints received. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 17