Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06.27.11 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 6URLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, June 27, 2011- 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the June 27, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None. Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Gaul moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 5, Item 5 (1113 Cortez Avenue); replace "Chair Yie" with "Vice -Chair Gaul". ■ Page 6, sixth bullet down from the top of page; replace "where it encroached into the" with "from the". ■ Page 12, first bullet under "Further Commission comments'; second line; replace "addition" with "add'. Motion passed 7-0-0-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Noticing a lot more bicycles around town. ■ More stores are making improvements on the side streets; suggested that if a new business is opening up on the side streets that a condition of approval be included to install at least one bicycle parking space at the tenant space. ■ Also as changes occur in the Rollins Road area, consider providing additional bicycle parking there as well. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 270 EAST LANE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AUTO REPAIR SPACE TO OFFICE SPACE (GARY COHN, CA DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BR COMMERCIAL, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated June 27, 2011. Commission comments: ■ Asked if tandem parking is allowed? (Strohmeier — tandem parking is not allowed.) ■ Observed that a lot of empty parking spaces exist on the property; how many spaces are actually used on a daily and weekly basis? Are the spaces vacant due to the proximity to the train station? ■ Seems that there is enough room for tandem parking to work; wondered what would be required to allow tandem parking? Bringing jobs to Burlingame is positive; likes the proposed use better than the former use. (Meeker — could work with the applicant to provide a tandem parking plan; the Commission could consider it as part of the variance application.) ■ If tandem parking is provided, should be for tenants only, likely for employee parking. ■ In favor of the project. ■ Is a good transitional use from the adjacent residential neighborhood. ■ The proximity of the building to CalTrain and other transit opportunities supports the change of use. ■ An argument could be made that there are unique conditions present on the property that include an overhang area that could provide opportunities for additional parking reconfiguration that could include tandem parking spaces. How much of a drive -aisle would remain? ■ There are air-conditioning units that impact the configuration of parking spaces; could the equipment be moved to accommodate parking? ■ Could also consider moving to an 8-foot, 6-inch parking stall to provide additional spaces. ■ Noted that there appears to be plenty of room to accommodate an adequate drive -aisle with tandem parking. • There are a lot of apartment buildings that have inadequate parking in the area. ■ Noted that there doesn't appear to be any means for tenant space six to get to the parking area. ■ Could have off-street parking at each of the spaces, at the front on Myrtle Road. The roll -up door areas could be used for additional parking. ■ More study needs to be done regarding parking configurations that can be accommodated on the property. ■ Could add parking spaces where the roll -up doors are currently located. ■ Encouraged the applicant to work with the displaced tenants to look to the Rollins Road area. ■ Consider notifying tenants of the application. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted 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. There were no Consent Calendar Items. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Chair Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (1113 Cortez Avenue), since she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers. 2. 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) (62 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (Item continued from June 13, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting) Reference staff report dated June 27, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 100 El Camino Real; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the original approval was for wood stairs with wood rails on the front elevation; there is no attempt to change back to the original design. Cannot support the project without this revision. (Meyer — On the original design that was approved, the rear and side railings were proposed to be identical; the railing on the front entry stair was a bit different and a bit more ornate. The owner and the contractor made changes to the front porch and railing design to use stone and wrought -iron. The applicant requested that they be allowed to keep this modification to the plans — they feel it looks better in their opinion.) ■ Why are there no grids on the rear doors of the house? The transom lites have also been removed. (Meyer — could add grids to the doors as well; since the doors were full -glass doors, thought that having no grids would be acceptable.) ■ There are no grids on the garage door on the side either. (Meyer — could also add grids at that location as well.) ■ Wants to be certain that the grids will be applied as they would have been installed by the manufacturer. (Meyer —Andersen windows representatives have indicated that they will trade -out the upper sashes for sashes with grids.) ■ With respect to the rear steps, it hasn't been noted that the rail will match the side railing. (Meyer — will ensure that it does match.) ■ Clarified that the Commission is actually considering deletion of the window from the stairwell. • Glad that the changes have been incorporated, but can't disagree with comments made regarding the design of the front porch steps and rail. What is currently installed is handsome and substantial — has considered whether or not he would have objected to the current design if it was submitted initially. Would not necessarily have objected. (Meyer — noted that historically, the design of the home would have included a slightly different design at the front entry.) ■ Can accept the project with the changes as submitted. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 Appreciates the architect's involvement in attempting to resolve the concerns regarding the changes in the design. Can support the request. Disagrees with the other Commissioners regarding the design of the front porch; is missing the warmth of the original design. There are so many different elements that don't match the style of the house. Should be rebuilt as designed originally. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ As -built changes are an affront to the Commission's approval. • The Commission is finally taking the stance of requesting that changes to projects be made to reflect the original approved design. ■ Even though the front porch doesn't match the side deck; it is a matter of aesthetics as to whether the change to the porch is an improvement or a detriment. ■ The brick on the chimney is a judgment call for the Commission to make. ■ Adding grids to the windows is an easy fix. ■ Supports approval with the additional suggestions made by the Commission. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Feels the changes were made willfully. ■ The Commission has significant discussions regarding porch designs. ■ If the current porch design were submitted originally, not certain if the design would have been accepted. ■ Can approve the request as it is currently submitted. ■ There have been enough changes to the project that it is bothersome that the applicant didn't approach the Commission earlier. ■ Leaning more toward denial, based upon concerns regarding the front porch design. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 20, 2011, sheets P2 through P6; 2. that simulated true divided lite wood windows shall be installed throughout the house; any change to the window material shall be subject to Planning Commission review (amendment to Design Review); 3. that mullions shall be added to the French doors on the side and rear elevations, and on the garage door and window; brick shall also be applied to the chimney; 4. 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); E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. 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; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 ■ Go through great lengths to ensure that designs are acceptable, and then it is changed dramatically. The original design was handsome and contained nice detailing. ■ Disappointing that the changes have been made. • Not all contractors are qualified to be designers; they shouldn't attempt to redesign approved projects. The contractor needs to understand that the approved plans represent a contract with the City that cannot be changed without prior approval by the City. ■ The current design is drastically different from the design that was approved; not certain he can approve the request. ■ Need to take the application at face value; shouldn't be punitive. ■ Approved a plan that wasn't built; the front elevation was the most important and was dramatically changed. Should install the front porch as initially approved. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 3-3-0-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom, Gaul and Auran dissenting, Commissioner We recused). Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 20, 2011, sheets P2 through P6; 2. that simulated true divided lite wood windows shall be installed throughout the house; any change to the window material shall be subject to Planning Commission review (amendment to Design Review); 3. that mullions shall be added to the French doors on the side and rear elevations, and on the garage door and window; brick shall also be applied to the chimney; and that the stairs and railings on the front porch shall be installed as approved on the original construction plans, except that the configuration of the porch may remain as built; 4. 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); 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. 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; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ Remembers cautioning the architect to ensure that the front is consistent with the side and rear elevations. ■ Has no confidence in the contractor following through with Planning Commission direction; wants to see what is being approved, including materials and revised drawings. ■ Wanted the architect to design the porch in a manner that is true to the period. ■ Could install railings that match the side and rear. The motion was withdrawn by Commissioner Terrones. Commissioner Auran moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to make the changes to the plans that have been suggested by the Planning Commission. Those changes include: wood railings on the front porch that match the railings on the rear and on the side of the house and that compliment the house; removal of the stone from the steps at the porch and replacement with wood; the addition of brick on the chimney; the addition of grids on the side and rear French doors, and on the garage side door and window of the garage; and the addition of a gable vent along the Northwest Elevation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-1-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones dissenting, Commissioner Yie recused). This item concluded at 7:56 p.m. Chair Yie returned to the dais. Commissioner Cauchi indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Item 3 (704 Concord Way) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 3. 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) (72 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 27, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road and Adrienne Leigh, 704 Concord Way; represented the applicant. ■ Eliminated the side -yard setback variance. ■ Noted that the neighbor raised concerns regarding the two detached garages being too close together, so the design has been reversed. ■ The other neighbor has now expressed a desire to keep the existing fence in place — the plan is to construct a "blind" wall and keep the existing fence in place. ■ Noted that moving the garage 18-inches as requested by the neighbor is not workable as it would prevent the garage from being used. Commission comments: ■ Noted that a trellis could be installed on the side of the garage. (Grange — the neighbor wants to keep the fence as it has always been. Leigh — has met with the neighbor, but she is adamant that her fence remain. The neighbor also wants the Wisteria removed from the fence, but the applicant is concerned that the fence will not withstand this change.) • Shouldn't condition the project with moving the garage further away from the property line. Encouraged continuing discussions with the neighbor during the construction — show her some new material for the fence that could be a replacement. (Leigh — glad to continue to work with her.) ■ Noted a concern about the impervious surfaces shown on the landscape plan. (Leigh — more comfortable with using the materials selected as she has problems with her knees.) ■ There will be nothing absorbing the water— is there another option? (Grange— pervious concrete is not attractive and the applicant has knee problems that cause the desire for the design.) ■ Could consider approving the project with direction to the applicant to work with the landscape plan to ensure that runoff goes to the planting areas — may need to redesign the landscape areas accordingly. (Grange — could consider a driveway with a turf strip in the center.) M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 Doesn't feel that there is enough water runoff to worry about. Feels the acid -stained paving is workable, but could consider a center planting strip. Encouraged more discussion with the neighbor to show the opportunity for more flowering plant opportunities. Would like to approve the project. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Jeff Schubiner, 704 Concord Way; spoke: ■ Glad that the setback variance was eliminated. ■ Hasn't been proven that pervious pavers are truly effective. Concrete is a better surface — pavers deteriorate over time and can become tripping hazards. ■ If the garage can't be moved over — keep it on the property line so that there is not only a six-inch area available to paint the side of the garage; will only cause problems down the line. ■ Don't want to have a grass strip down the center — will try to slope the driveway so that it slopes to the planting areas. Additional Commission comments: Noted that on the driveway side there appears to be plantings that can absorb runoff; looks like on the other side it will drain to the wall or the fence — will this be problematic? (Grange — will evaluate this for a solution. Leigh — this is the only wheelbarrow path.) Could install decomposed granite at this location that will compact and be useable as intended while still permitting absorption. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 17, 2011, sheets Al. 1 through A5.1, L1.0 and L2.0; 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 changes to the paving and drainage shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to building permit issuance; 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 18, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's April 28, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 18, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's April 19, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 19, 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; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 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 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; 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1. (Commissioner Cauchi recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would recuse himself form participating in the discussion regarding Item 4 (1395 Burlingame Avenue) due to a business relationship with the property owner. He left the City Council Chambers. 4. 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; TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, DESIGNER) (46 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 27, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ Concerned that the Commission is considering a potential food establishment without an identified operator; doesn't feel that the request is consistent with the code. (Meeker — noted that a similar approval was granted at another location on Burlingame Avenue in the recent past. Feels that it is too late to change the interpretation of the application of the restrictions.) ■ Could restrictions be placed on the term for approval? (Meeker — any approval is granted for 36- months, cannot limit it further.) ■ The first person submitting an application can preclude others from receiving approval given the limitations on the number of restaurants that are allowed, though they may not have an actual tenant. There is no application for a restaurant in this instance — it doesn't comply with the code. ■ This applicant wishes to reserve a restaurant option for his property, though there is no actual tenant. How can this be handled equitably? ■ Expressed similar concerns when the item appeared as a study item. Can the Commission determine that this isn't a legitimate application? (Guinan — traditionally, the operator of the business is at least listed as a co -applicant in this type of request. If a more definitive answer is desired, would need to review the matter in greater detail. The applicant for the conditional use permit is the property owner; there is nothing that would prohibit the property owner from operating a restaurant.) 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 ■ If the request is approved for a conditional use permit, could it continue to be used as a retail space? If the use is changed, would a new approval be required? (Gus — would require a new conditional use permit if a different conditional use is proposed. An approval would allow the applicant to submit full building plans to convert the space to a restaurant use.) ■ If a tenant is not found within the approval period for the restaurant, could another use still operate within the space until a restaurant tenant is found? (Meeker — noted that there would be nothing to prevent the space from being used for retail purposes until a tenant is secured for the food establishment use.) The final restaurant opportunity on Burlingame Avenue would be held until the approval expires. ■ There is a lot of research that needs to be done to determine if the landlord can hold an approval for a restaurant absent a tenant and preclude other bona fide restaurant operators from securing approval during the time frame that the conditional use permit remains valid — three years. (Strohmeier — would have three years to pull a building permit. A two-year extension of the conditional use permit could also be considered.) ■ Are there design changes that will trigger design review? (Meeker— Understands that there are no proposed changes in this case. If the entire fagade were left untouched, then design review would not be required. Signage is not subject to design review.) ■ Noted that the plans seem to show a revised door entry off of Primrose Road — could this be subject to design review? Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Riyad Salma, 1105 Burlingame Avenue; represented the application. ■ The tenant space is currently vacant. If another retail use were to go in, then the conditional use permit for a restaurant would be revoked — Aida Opera Candies is currently still in operation. ■ Weren't expecting to sit on the approval for a number of years. ■ Operators are uncomfortable seeking funding unless an approved site can be identified. ■ The process that was followed was as described by staff. ■ Understands concerns regarding not having a restaurant operator in hand. The reality is that most applicants would be the "committed" tenant — the landlord is the "co -applicant" and could substitute another proposed applicant if an identified tenant doesn't use the space. ■ The space will not remain vacant for three years in the event a restaurant operator is not identified. Commission comments: Clarified that another retail tenant could go into the space causing the restaurant space to be unavailable to other operators. There is no way that a condition for earlier termination could be imposed? (Meeker — there is no way to impose a condition for an earlier termination of the approval. Salma — if another retail use is installed, that would bar re -tenanting — a retail tenant will not commit to less than a five-year lease term. Not going to find any applicant that will commit to leasing the space without the approval in place. Would be willing to give up the approval if this were to occur.) Could the Commission impose a condition requiring relinquishment of the conditional use permit if a retail tenant is substituted? (Guinan — can't condition the approval it this manner; though an applicant could willingly relinquish the approval if they so choose. Noted that the time frame for permit approvals was extended to three -years in light of the economic downturn. Salma — a tenant will not make an enormous financial commitment to the space unless there is certainty in the ability to have the use.) 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 ■ If someone wishes to install a restaurant, they could make the request contingent upon receiving City approval. The landlord needs to take a risk. (Salma — could conceivably have an applicant that decides that they cannot move forward, leaving the landlord with an approved conditional use permit.) ■ Is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. ■ Clarified that the property owner would still have a right to use the conditional use permit in the event that an identified tenant pulls out after approval. (Salma — would a decision be made based upon a known applicant, or based upon the additional vitality that the use would bring to the area?) Not a personal decision based on characteristics of the operator. Would believe that a restaurant operator would want to make the space their own and would create a theme for the space. Encouraged bringing in a specific applicant. ■ Would think that any restaurant that would move into the area would want to create a design identity for the space —would tie an approval to a specific tenant. (Meeker— no, the conditional use permit runs with the property, not the tenancy. Salma — the space is part of a larger building with a cohesive design. An identified tenant would not be a firm commitment. Having an identified tenant at this point would not be a firm commitment to that tenant.) ■ There is a huge benefit for the property owner receiving approval of the conditional use permit; would provide more bargaining power to the owner. Isn't in the best interest of the City to approve the request for the last available restaurant space without an identified tenant. (Salma — have moved forward based upon the direction of staff and the Commission's prior conduct. Feels unfair to change the rules at this stage, given the past history of considering similar requests.) ■ Noted that the time periods for approval of permits were extended given the poor economic climate — it begins to seem arbitrary if the City now withholds approval given the absence of an identified tenant. ■ Need to look at the request from the standpoint of whether this is an appropriate location for a restaurant use. ■ Would like to see the use be viable and tied to a specific operator. ■ Is there any way for the landlord to sign a letter agreeing to relinquishing the conditional use permit if a retail tenant is placed within the space? (Meeker— cannot impose such a condition. Guinan — confirmed this response. Meeker— highlighted that the question at hand is whether or not this is an appropriate location for a restaurant?) ■ Could consider adding more opportunities for restaurants in the future, if this approval is granted. (Meeker — the restrictions on Burlingame Avenue are not the issue at hand. As a separate matter, the City could consider increasing restaurant opportunities downtown. Salma — the applicant is heavily invested on Burlingame Avenue and wants to see success. Has no interest in sitting on a restaurant approval unnecessarily.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Referenced prior approval for Perry's on Howard Avenue. ■ Is unclear if the applicant intends to improve the space as a restaurant space prior to identifying a tenant. If the space is built -out for a restaurant, then it couldn't be used as a retail space. ■ This project may never be built in the proposed configuration. Whatever is eventually brought in could create more problems. An operator would want to have input on the layout of the interior of the space. ■ Has a problem with someone seeking approval without an identified tenant. ■ Can't support committing the space to something that may never come to fruition. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 Additional Commission comments: There are supposed to be two exits — doesn't believe exiting can move out into the common area or through the kitchen. Believes that the Primrose exit may be necessary. (Salma — the exiting plan was allowed pursuant to discussions with staff, but dependent upon the actual occupancy, which could require an exit onto Primrose Road.) How will trash be handled — it appears that it would need to be at the rear of the site. Feels that the rear portion of the building should be more of an entry and less utilitarian — something more than a trash area; also concerned about space limitations given the location of the electrical panel. (Salma — feels the trash area will need to be reconfigured. Noted that improvements to the space will be anywhere from $1.5-2.0 million.) Final design of the trash area would be subject to final approval — it will change the rear of the building. Is there to be a manager's area? The hostess area seems to be in the inner courtyard area. The application is ambiguous. (Salma — San Francisco Soup Company completely revised the original Nectar plan — once one applicant is approved, there may be changes by a subsequent tenant that will require additional consideration.) If the request were approved, it is highly likely, if not probable, that a completely new plan could be submitted by a tenant — changes to the exterior of the building would require design review. Could condition an approval upon receiving an FYI submittal for any changes to the interior that are not reflective of the approved plan, and also require the final design of the trash area to be viewed by the Commission prior to issuance of any building permits. (Salma — any operator is going to have specific needs. Any changes are likely to come under the Commission's review.) Confirmed that the application is just to consider whether or not a restaurant is appropriate for the location. Additional public comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Noted that restaurants will require venting and other equipment for the conversion of the space; how will it affect the exterior of the building — is this property a good location for a restaurant? There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Agrees with the applicant that a restaurant could move in and fail and be replaced with another restaurant, but feels awkward since a specific user is not be considered for approval. ■ Restaurant approvals are a commodity on the Avenue. ■ Feels that the location is great for a restaurant, but not considering a specific tenant — the interior layout could be revised in the future. ■ Feels that the restaurant should be approved with a drawing that reflects the actual improvements to be made. ■ Could be a good location for a venue with live music that could bring revenue into the City. ■ Asked if it is appropriate to continue the matter to allow the City Attorney to review the intent of the restrictions upon consideration of conditional use permits. (Guinan — could review the intent of the City's regulations in this area — typically, there is a concrete proposal that can be reacted to. Is difficult to consider the findings for a conditional use permit without specifics regarding the intent of the ordinance. Could continue with direction to conduct the research; could grant as submitted; or could be denied with or without prejudice with specific grounds.) 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application with direction to the City Attorney to conduct research regarding the intent of the ordinance limiting the number of restaurants within Sub -Area A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial district. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Concerned that would be approving the conditional use permit which would allow the property owner to use the approval as a "commodity" to market the space. ■ Concerned that the project plans could change, the interior layout is dependent upon the operator. ■ Venting of the kitchen for a restaurant space will be up to the landlord and tenant to resolve. ■ Is a good location for a restaurant given its corner location — could be made to work. ■ Asked the City Attorney to look at the conditions that caused the extension of the time periods for approvals to determine how these applications can be approved. ■ Could be granted but then additional locations could be considered with a code amendment. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica recused. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9: 20 p.m. Commissioner Vistica returned to the dais. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1629 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUB -STANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (BRIAN PRICE, DESIGNER; DAN PRICE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 27, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee is considering relief regarding non- conforming parking spaces — something to keep in mind. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Brian Price, 925 Church Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Feels the design looks top-heavy — there is some square footage to work with. There is little articulation at the front; consider revising the playroom and the accent trim on the top to provide more relief from the stucco. Incorporate some of the other design elements from the house to make it look less like an addition. (Price — the band that runs horizontally is intended to ground the design and anchor the edges of the gabled roof, but could be moved.) 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 ■ Could install an attic vent or a window, or a higher ceiling in the playroom to allow more light to enter the space. (Price — the hope is to have all of the main rooms contain vaulted ceilings that could provide the opportunity for another window.) ■ Asked if the architect has reviewed the design review guidelines? (Price — yes.) ■ Looking at the east elevation, the gable is out of scale with the rest of the house. Is unique how the mass has been broken down on the rear of the house. There are other good examples of second - floor additions in the neighborhood that could be referenced as a means of breaking down the mass. ■ Could break down mass with gable vents, dormers, bays; however, the mass of the gable needs to be broken down more. ■ The side elevations are a bit awkward; could include bays or dormers of some sort to articulate the large gables that are being added. ■ The spiral staircase is a nice element. Could be a nice space with the open roof. ■ The mass of the front and side elevations needs to be broken down and articulated a bit more. ■ The two windows in the front are only 2-feet tall and the playroom windows are only 2 1/2-feet tall — they are not helping in the massing — the windows appear too small. ■ Not opposed to a second -story addition — has been done elsewhere in the neighborhood in more graceful ways. ■ If the bedrooms and bathrooms are flipped upstairs it would provide the opportunity for adding more generous windows in the front. (Price — wouldn't be difficult to add larger windows in front. The location of the bedrooms is designed to provide a central terrace for the rooms.) ■ Could vault the ceiling in the playroom to add some interest and opportunities for larger windows. ■ Could rearrange the front bathroom to provide more window space. ■ Could drop the two side windows down. ■ Could consider removing the hip roof elements and converting into a gable approach even over the entry. ■ Feels that the entry disappears into the shadows due to the gable placement. ■ Commented that the new windows should have simulated true divided light windows. (Price — noted that the original windows do not have divided lites. Windows in the home that included divided lights are replacements that will be removed.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to refer the matter to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Noted that the design review process is streamlined and efficient. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:38 p.m. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 27, 2011 X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 20, 2011: ■ The City Council authorized the execution of the property transfer between the City and St. Catherine of Siena Church that will affect Parking Lot G and Parking Lot N. FYI: 203 Primrose Road — review of changes required by the Planning Commission for a new food establishment (Five Guys Burgers and Fries): ■ Accepted - appreciated the applicant's efforts. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 17