Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.07.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, July 11, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the July 11, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioners Vistica, Cauchi and Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 7, bottom of page, vote on motion to continue; delete "Appeal procedures were advised". Page 14, top of page, second bullet; insert "to the interior" after the word "changes". Motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica 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 1400 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (WHICH WICH? SUPERIOR SANDWICHES) (STEVE RYLKO, RYLKO BUILDERS, INC., APPLICANT; CURTIS ARCHITECTURE, INC., ARCHITECT; AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated July 11, 2011. Questions of staff: Asked if this is the only tenant space that would be impacted by the distance from the common restroom? (Meeker - would need to check with the Building Official.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 Commission comments: Feels the use is a good place for the business; however, concerned about the restroom location. There is already a portion of the wall along Howard Avenue that could be the location for the restroom to free -up the windows. There are other options for the restroom location; believes a solution is possible. 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 7:13 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 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 July 11, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Thinks the changes that have been made are a nice touch. ■ Likes the addition of the porch. ■ Appreciates the attempt to pay homage to the existing house. ■ On the left elevation; was the trellis removed due to lot coverage issues; can it be placed back on the plan? (Chu — can add it back to the design.) ■ Feels the arches on the porch could make it seem too closed off from the street and cause it not be used — could a single arch be provided? (Chu — could make one larger arch.) ■ Feels the arch on the original design was better; would also like to see the design carried over to the windows. ■ Would like to see more brick carried around onto the front porch to dress up the arches. ■ Complemented the architect on the provision of a porch — the house has a better flow now. ■ Asked if the applicant has spoken to the neighbor on the left — sometimes neighbors have concerns regarding large windows. (Chu — clarified that the setback is more than six feet; the staircase is the only element that impacts the declining height envelope.) Public comments: Alan Skoken, 1041 Balboa Avenue; Anna Marianella, daughter of former owner of 1037 Balboa Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 ■ Owns the home to the right of the project. ■ A lot of sunlight is available to his home; concerned that allowing a two-story home that is not setback from the street will block a lot of sunlight to his home. Consider bringing bedroom two closer into the home, or eliminate it all together to reduce the impact. (Commissioner — has complied with all development standards; can't disallow the project if it complies with standards.) ■ Concerned that the variety of housing and the character of the neighborhood is being changed. (Commissioner — homes that are small, but not too dilapidated are now being redeveloped. Not much that can be done if standards are being met. There is no historic register that could further protect the existing home. Comments could cause the applicant to consider making revisions to address the neighbor's concern. Chu — noted that the driveway is on the right-hand side, the combined setback between the homes is approximately 18-feet, 6-inches.) ■ Feels that the design is little changed; the home appears like a castle. ■ The added brick looks like brick veneer. ■ The porch looks like dead space. ■ Not every home needs to be supersized. ■ The roofline is busy; looks somewhat tacky. ■ Need a definition of what a porch element actually is; what is proposed looks more like a patio at ground level. ■ The area will receive full sun all day long; it will not be a comfortable place to be; how deep is it — is it at least six -feet in depth? ■ The neighbor will never be able to look out the side window again and see a moon rise due to the size of the new home. ■ Concerned about the "economics" of the situation — the homes are maximized in order to maximize profits for the developer. ■ This is the same house that was presented previously. ■ Noted that the shutters have been removed from the windows. ■ The Commission can begin to be more sensitive about the homes beginning to look the same in Easton Addition. ■ Questioned what style of home is actually proposed. Additional applicant comments (by James Chu): Noted that he has spent a lot of time to revise the plans and doesn't appreciate Ms. Giorni's comments. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Complimented the architect's design. ■ Expected more of a difference in the design. ■ Encouraged the applicant to in the future develop more variety in his designs. ■ Was surprised to see the shutters removed; wanted to see beefier shutters. ■ The porch is covered and is 5'/2 feet deep and can function as a porch if it is opened up more and made more inviting. ■ Feels there are still some design items that can be addressed by the applicant; wants to see a further refined design before approval. ■ Look a providing more brick elements, provide porch columns that are more consistent with the design, open the porch up a bit more (design of the arch), provide shutters, and a trellis along the side of the home. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to address changes requested by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:42 p.m. 3. 1821 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHANG JIE AND JASON LU, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; AND FENG XUE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 11, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Jason Liu, 46778 Crawford Street, Fremont; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Has struggled with the application; there is a lot of house proposed. Understands that several generations may be living together in the home. ■ With two-story homes, there are often bathrooms associated with every bedroom. ■ Even the design reviewer notes that the design could be better - not entirely sure how to improve the design. ■ Because so much is being added to the house, there is a flat area at the middle of the roof. What roofing is proposed for the flat area in the center of the roof? Need more detail regarding this portion of the roof. Need to determine how this area will be finished. ■ On the garage doors it is noted that they will be multiple panel design with optional hand -carved windows — want a commitment to the type of windows. Will need to select the actual window design that is to be installed. ■ Over the garage doors, a keystone is shown — what is this element? (Liu — is a wood trim element.) Normally would see this type of detail over both doors. ■ A trellis could also be considered above the garage doors. ■ Noted the addition of flood lights over the garage doors that were not present previously — this is a problem as they will be impacting the neighbors. Need to reconsider how the exterior lighting will be handled. ■ With respect to the greenhouse; it looks like a 1970s addition — would design a greenhouse that is more reflective of the design of the house. ■ Could add a two-way chimney. ■ Still a ways to go to reach a design that is approvable. Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 ■ Asked about the purpose of the sunroom —it is of a size that would be difficult to furnish. (Liu —was included to provide more interest to the rear of the home.) Doesn't feel that this is the correct design solution. There are other ways to articulate the rear elevation. ■ Could actually include a sunroom within the footprint of the home, can be integrated into the rest of the house. ■ Is having a hard time getting away from a square, plain design. Articulation is what is needed, break up the massing. ■ There is a lot of potential with the amount of floor area available. ■ The front elevation has begun to show some life. ■ Could consider creating an indoor atrium rather than the roof over the central portion of the home. ■ The roof planes on the sides are much too long. ■ Doesn't appear that one can get to the rear -yard from the family room. (Liu —there is a sliding door from the sunroom, plus a door from the family room.) ■ On the bay window in the living room, does the window go all the way to the ceiling? (Liu — yes.) Doesn't look like it will work; it is out of scale with the other windows. ■ Need to see what is actually being approved; the plans reference elements that will be selected by the owner — this is not acceptable. ■ Vinyl windows are not acceptable. ■ The window trim, building trim and other elements are unidentified — needs to be clarified. ■ There is nothing that can be approved. ■ Poorly done design. ■ Encouraged looking at the front design for inspiration for the garage door design. ■ Does the home have a crawl space? (Liu — yes.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Feels that with a sloping lot, then the FAR should be based upon a buildable lot area. ■ A lot could be done by building the home back into the hillside; this would assist with the design. ■ It is possible to build a home on a lot of any grade. ■ The maximum FAR for the lot is acceptable; however, this design has a long way to go. Commissioner Gaul moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Designer has not appeared to take the comments of Design review consultant and the Commission to heart, need to address the issues raised. Chair We called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 4. 2300 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRAD AND SUZANNE CRAIG, PROPERTY OWNERSR) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 11, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Is there a reason why there isn't a second floor plan? (Strohmeier — no work is being done on that level.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. ■ Applicant wishes to have the exterior stairs allowed to allow easier movement of items in and out of the space. ■ Doesn't seem much different from allowing an access to a room that is at grade. ■ Is safer to have a stairway from the room. ■ Is not even a full basement -depth below grade. Commission comments: ■ Disallowed the stairway so it wouldn't become a second dwelling unit. (Grange — have been approved on other projects. A conversion would be done illegally.) ■ Appears much like a second unit, particularly if a second entrance is allowed. ■ Clarified that the lower -level is not a basement. (Strohmeier — does not meet the definition for a basement level.) ■ Noted that the project already exceeds the FAR, though some changes were made to reduce square footage. Beginning to look like an apartment building — there is the potential for the area to be illegally converted. (Grange — the FAR is exceeded because of the existence of the lower level.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ No problem with the stair proposal — is practical for furniture movement. ■ The lower level should be accessible from the main house; is greatly over the FAR. ■ Is compelled by the fact that the lower level doesn't qualify as a basement; if it were a basement, then the access could be restricted. Could be somewhat restricted in terms of an access. ■ How different is this situation from allowing a second dwelling unit on a lot? (Meeker— based upon the provisions for second units that are currently being drafted, the property would not qualify for a second unit.) W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 ■ Concerned that a denial could be capricious. ■ Have been very consistent in disallowing second stairways — to be consistent, need to deny the application. ■ If the area is to be used as living space, there needs be better access — though the area has the same access as the main floor. ■ Noted that at 1208 Bernal Avenue a project was approved with the exterior stairway to a basement level. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 29, 2011, sheets Al. 1 through A2.2, sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.4, and date stamped April 15, 2010, sheets A2.3, A3.3 and A3.5; 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 February 23, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's March 3, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2010 memo, the City Arborist's February 24, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 26, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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, 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 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; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed (no action) 2-2-3-0 (Commissioners Gaul and Auran dissenting, Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the matter until more Planning Commissioners are present to consider the request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion carried 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 5. 235 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA NEW FULL -SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (PIZZA MY HEART) (MICHAEL GEORGE, APPLICANT, APPLICANT; JEFFERY FINSAND, ARCHITECT; PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (protect previously denied without prejudice on May 23, 2011) Reference staff report dated July 11, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Michael George, 16222 Shannon Road, Los Gatos and Fred Ponce, 5918 Stoneridge Mall Road, Pleasanton; represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 Commission comments: ■ Feels the interior layout works much better as proposed. ■ Appreciate the work that has been done. ■ With the glass going floor to ceiling, how will the window be treated at the rear of the booth? (George — with a vinyl application to the window.) ■ Asked about demising wall between the tenant spaces; it terminates at a window but is outside the scope of this project. Could ask staff to provide this detail back as an FYI. (Ponce - provided clarification regarding the demising wall between the tenant spaces — noted that on floor plan the demising wall is intended to angle over to the window mullion near the walk-in cooler. Noted the challenge of reconciling a tenant's space needs with the placement of demising wall. Will work with the tenant to ensure that this detail is addressed.) ■ Noted that the applicant has done a good job of redirecting the activity to Primrose Road. Though there is still some obscured glazing, there is glazing on three sides, so some compromise is required. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 28, 2011, sheets T-1 through A-9; 2. that this business location to be occupied by a full -service food establishment, with 850 SF of seating area, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment, and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 3. that the 850 SF area of on -site seating of the full -service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 9. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 10. that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 17, 2011 and August 6, 2010 memos, the Chief Building Official's April 21, 2011, March 15, 2011 and July 23, 2010 memos, the Parks Supervisor's March 15, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 16, 2011 and July 26, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 26, 2010 memo shall be met; and 11. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m. 6. 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 Reference staff report dated July 11, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-eight (28) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Asked about the hours for the sale of alcohol at the service station located at Broadway and El Camino Real? (Meeker — does not recall the restrictions.) Asked if the Commission could recommend restrictions on the amount of alcohol that is sold. (Meeker — no, the sale of alcohol is regulated by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board — ABC.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Gus and Gladys Greco, 1147 Rollins Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Why did the City Council not approve the alcohol sales previously? (Gus/Gladys Greco — the Council expressed concern about the location being so close to the freeway. They have demonstrated that the business can operate soundly. After midnight sales are through a small window. There are cameras monitoring activities on the site. If alcohol sales are approved, they 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 will comply with suggested conditions by the Police Department. They wish to increase revenue for the business.) Asked if the hours of alcohol sales could be limited by the Commission? (Meeker/Guinan — hours of alcohol sales is the jurisdiction of the ABC.) Asked about the patrons who use the location? (Gus Greco — a lot of business from the nearby apartments. Have another location with alcohol sales with no incidents. Noted that there is no relationship between alcohol sales and service stations. Greco (son) — also serving people going on recreational trips. Other businesses that have the approval to sell alcohol have affected the ability of this business to survive. Willing to abide by any conditions recommended by the Police Department. Only beer and wine are to be sold.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Referenced the list provided by the Police Department of other businesses that sell alcohol. ■ Noted that on -sale and off -sale alcohol permits are quite different. ■ Have some physical barriers for this location; people in the area will use the business — it is truly a convenience store. ■ Compelled by the fact that existing customers are asking for the addition of alcohol sales. ■ The Broadway interchange will dramatically change the area and will affect the business. ■ There is not necessarily an abundance of such uses in this vicinity. ■ Asked if the permit is granted, could it ever be revoked? (Meeker — the ABC has the authority to revoke its license. Guinan — the City could also revoke the conditional use permit.) Commissioner Gaul moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and adoption of a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity, subject to the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 1, 2001, site plan, floor plan, and elevations with a mini-mart/sales area of 1,695 SF including the gas station cashier, an 80 SF office and an 84 SF public restroom; 2. that any changes in operation, type of product sold or floor area, shall be brought to the Burlingame Planning Commission for approval; 3. that no beverages shall be 69-1 ' fr9mthe Mim-mT 4 RE)F ; hot food (except hot beverages) be prepared on or sold from the site; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official's January 16, 2001 memos shall be met; 5. that any customer seating at tables and chairs shall be prohibited in the sales area or on the premises; 6. that there shall be only one free-standing ATM on -site, to be installed within the mini -mart, and to be limited to cash dispensing only with no deposit capabilities; 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 7. that the applicant shall purchase and maintain daily, more often if necessary, trash receptacles on - site one of which will be placed by the door to the mini -mart sales area; 8. that the applicant shall police for trash daily, on -site and adjacent street frontages for 50 feet in either direction and keep them clean and free of debris and litter associated with the mini -mart; 9. that the mini -mart and gas station operator shall install security cameras as required by the Burlingame Police Department with film of a type approved by the Police Department; 10. that the mini -mart and gas station operator shall install a hold-up alarm of the type approved by the Burlingame Police Department; placed at a location approved by the Police Department; 11. that the mini -mart and gas station operator shall provide on -site a safe in which to store cash of a type and at a location site approved by the Burlingame Police Department; and 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUGGESTED BY THE BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT 13. that sales of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. daily; 14. that no more than 5% of the square footage of the premises will be used for the display of alcoholic beverages; 15. that the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control; 16. that graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under the control of the licensee within seventy-two (72) hours of application. If the graffiti occurs on a Friday or weekend day, or on a holiday, the licensee shall remove the graffiti within seventy-two (72) hours following the beginning of the next weekday; 17. that the exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the premises. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences; 18. that loitering (loitering is defined as "to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful business") is prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee as depicted on the ABC-257, dated 3/1/11; 19. that all ice shall be sold at or above prevailing prices in the area and in quantities of not less than one (1) pounds per sale and shall not be given away free.; 20. that no person under the age of 21 shall sell or deliver alcoholic beverages; 21. that no malt beverage shall be sold with an alcoholic content great than 5.7% by volume; 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 22. that the sales of beer or malt beverages in quantities of 16 oz., 22 oz., 32 oz., 40 oz., or similar size containers is prohibited; 23. that no beer or malt beverages shall be sold in quantities of less than manufacturer pre -packaged six packs per sale with the exception of wine -coolers, beer coolers which must be sold in manufacturer pre -packaged multi -unit quantities of four (4) or more; 24. that no wine shall be sold with an alcoholic content of great than 15% by volume except for "Dinner Wines" which have been aged two years or more and maintained in corded bottles; 25. that wine shall not be sold in bottles or containers smaller than 750 ml; 26. that all alcohol beverages shall be inaccessible between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. (either in locked cases within the sales area or in a storage room inaccessible to the public); 27. that a copy of the ABC license and applicable operating conditions shall be available during operating hours for viewing by the general public and Law Enforcement; and 28. that electronic surveillance shall be maintained in the area where alcoholic beverages are on display. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:59 p.m. 7. 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 Reference staff report dated July 11, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Asked why revised plans were not provided? (Strohmeier— noted that tandem spaces could not be fit that would meet code standards for drive aisles.) Didn't appear to take advantage of the striping option for additional parking. Asked if staff could work with the applicant to develop a tandem parking plan to maximize parking on the site. (Meeker — could direct the applicant to work with staff to develop a tandem parking plan that maximizes the amount of parking on the site and bring it back as an FYI.) Should consider that the auto repair businesses generally provide more parking than the code requires and take this into account — conversion to office use would likely decrease the intensity of the use. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Gary Cohn, 1408 Chapin Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ Expressed a willingness to stripe parking spaces as tandem. ■ Noted that the building was built in 1990. ■ There will be minimal, if any, impact upon the area due to the change of use. ■ The roof deck can accommodate at least 83 tandem parking spaces. ■ One-third of the current employees use transit to get to work. Commission comments: ■ Excited about the conversion of the space. ■ Noted the proximity to the train station is a benefit. ■ Asked if there is also a space for a bike -rack? (Cohn — yes, there is room; they intended to install bike racks.) ■ Great conversion; it'll convert the use to something that is more to the neighbors' liking. ■ Would be prepared to approve with submission of a tandem parking plan that can maximize the parking on the site. Is critical as a mitigation measure. (Cohn — noted that the City doesn't permit tandem parking.) ■ Understand that the tandem parking doesn't need to fully comply with standards, but is a means of mitigating the reduced parking based upon the unique circumstances applicable to the property. (Cohn — noted that some parking spaces will be replaced on the street due to the removal of curb - cuts.) Public comments: None. 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 13, 2011, Site Plan, Building Elevations, Floor Plan and Parking Plan, and that any changes to the floor area, use or parking which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Parking Variance; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 9, 2011 and June 15, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's May 26, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's May 10, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshall's May 9, 2011 and June 15, 2011 memos and the NPDES Coordinators May 9, 2011 memo shall be met; 3. that a bike rack shall be provided on the property; 4. that the applicant shall prepare a tandem parking plan for the property, including a narrative description of how tandem parking will operate, for submission to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to final inspection of the premises prior to occupancy; 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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 any construction on the building, 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; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Noted that residents want to live in the area due to the transit opportunities. The conversion of this space is ideal, it will benefit the neighborhood. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1361 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHELSEA MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 11, 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. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road and Otto Miller, 600 Eucalyptus Drive, Hillsborough; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Is there a reason why the porch cannot be extended to be wider? (Grange — can review this element.) The upper floor window could be smaller. Likes the design. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 ■ Feels the roof plan looks a bit disjointed, particularly near the flat area between the two gables. There will be a lot of water sent through a small area and could be a problem. Needs to be reviewed more closely. ■ The roof design contributes to the mass of the house being too much; there could be another solution that could reduce the appearance of mass. There is not necessarily a need for approval of greater height, could develop a design that falls within the height limits. ■ Consider the site conditions when developing the design; something that could include a less sloped roof. Design based upon the upslope of the lot. ■ A lot of houses in the area are of the same design. There are different styles that could be used that have a lesser sloped roof and would not require a special permit. ■ Likes the sunroom area. ■ Need to identify the material on the left side chimney. ■ The simple metal rail should be dressed up. ■ A large porch should be provided to soften the front of the house. ■ House has too much mass; don't need to build to the maximum. The area under the roof is all attic. (Grange — only the tip of the front gable moves beyond the height limit; other portions of the roof are lower than the height limit. Has done other roofs that appear more complicated on plan, but are fine in reality. The building height only exceeds 30-feet because of the manner in which height is measured in Burlingame.) ■ Asked if the triangle next to the chimney is roofing material? (Grange — is flashing. Clarified that the chimney is brick.) ■ Feels the design is impressive, but has a concern about a special permit for height for a new house. Working with a sloping lot on an existing house can be more of a challenge; this is not the case with a new structure. (Grange — noted that in the past the special permit allowed for flexibility for certain architectural styles.) ■ Noted that the presence of the flat roof portion causes concern that there may be a better means of resolving the roofline that can fall within the height limit. ■ Really need to make a case for a variance and/or special permit for new construction — there is no reason why standards can't be met under the circumstances. The Commission is making a conscious effort to ensure that projects comply with the design guidelines. ■ Agreed that the special permit procedure was intended to allow for variation in design. ■ Noted that the lot coverage falls below the maximum. ■ Consider breaking up the paved areas between the garage and the home to reduce the potential for parking in the area. ■ Is there any way to preserve the Japanese maple tree — could it be moved? (Grange — wouldn't want to reverse the floor plan to save the tree.) Public comments: Michelle Taylor, 1365 Drake Avenue; spoke: ■ Feels it is a beautiful design. ■ Feels that the roof height could be brought down. ■ There is already a natural variation in roof heights in the area. ■ The rear balcony may have privacy impacts upon her yard. ■ The two columns on the front porch look out of balance. Additional applicant comments (by Randy Grange and Otto Miller): 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 ■ Noted that someone could look out a bedroom window into the neighbor's yard, not just from the balcony. ■ Shifting the location of the balcony would result in a redesign of the entire house. (Commissioner - noted that a balcony off of a master bedroom is not a space where there is a high likelihood of privacy impacts; however, the discussion revolves around proposed revisions. Can't protect privacy due to the size of lots.) ■ With respect to the roofline, people moving into the City like more traditional designed homes — some homes reach heights of 40-feet with high-pitched roofs. (Commissioner — could lower the plate height; a steep pitch roof is not required.) ■ Could provide additional landscaping to preserve privacy. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Summarized that direction was provided to expand the front porch, reducing paving between the home and garage and to attempt to eliminate the request for a special permit for height. Noted that the architect is skilled enough to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:43 p.m. 9. 1360 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR ANEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHELSEA MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TRG ARCHITECTS. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 11, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Noted that reversing the floor plan creates a better balance for the street and also preserves the large Oak tree at the rear of the property. Four -Square style homes cannot comply with the City's declining height envelope restrictions. Commission comments: 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 ■ Why not use brick on the chimney? (Grange — could use brick.) ■ Do the chimneys need to be so high; the fireplaces are gas -fired? (Grange — could be reduced in height.) ■ Thinks the Four -Square design is beautiful. Providing a foursquare design is difficult within declining height envelope on a 50-foot wide lot. ■ Can see justification for a special permit in this instance due to the architectural style selected. ■ Has a different finish other than shingles been considered for the lower level? An all shingle finish could make the structure look massive. (Grange — doesn't want to make it appear as a layer -cake; want to keep subtlety in the differences between the top and bottom of the structure. Could do a subtle difference in stain between the upper and lower portions of the structure.) ■ Asked if the shingles will be stained or painted? (Grange — will be semi -opaque stain.) ■ Concerned that the design doesn't fit on a 50-foot wide lot given the encroachment into the declining height envelope. (Grange — have approved Colonial designs in many locations.) • The design allows more yard to be retained; the lot coverage is below the maximum permitted. (Grange — encloses the greatest amount of floor area with the least amount of material.) ■ Noted that the shutters are not consistent with the window size. ■ Asked why the bottom of the structure wasn't flared? (Grange — because the ground is not flat.) Public comments: Michael Murray, 1367 Columbus Avenue; spoke: ■ There is no movement to the architecture; it is just a 30-foot high wall of shingles. ■ The entrance is not very impressive nor interesting. ■ The Commission asked earlier applicants about materials that are being used; why isn't more detail being requested in this instance? ■ Feels the roof compresses the design into the ground. ■ Concerned about the all shingle exterior finish - wood shingles have a tendency to warp, etc. will eventually bleach out due water from irrigation hitting them. ■ Provided photos showing examples of architectural vocabulary of the area. ■ Design needs more personality. ■ Referenced some of the homes he finds more attractive on Adeline Drive. ■ Noted that the Commission allowed the house at Columbus Avenue and Hillside Drive that is a monstrosity. Additional comments from applicant (Randy Grange): Shingles last a long time; they can last over 100-years if they are maintained. The design is a traditional, historic look. The proposed design helps to balance the streetscape. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Understands the traditional design; this application differs from the prior application since the design resolves itself. The impact of the special permit for encroachment into the declining height envelope is less of an impact in this instance. There is a certain grace to the simplicity of the design. EN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 Believes the shutters are a nice detail and can be sized to look purposeful — will leave this element up to the architect to decide. Should provide brick on the chimneys and lower the height of these elements. Noted that the impact of the eaves is not clearly represented on the two-dimensional plans. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ None. 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 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:09 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of July 5, 2011: None. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — June, 2011 No complaints received. Miscellaneous: Commissioner Yie polled the members present regarding attendance at the next meeting; she noted that she would be absent; others noted that they would be present. City Attorney Guinan noted that the next agenda will include a discussion regarding policies and procedures related to telecommunications installations and the appeal procedures that could cause items to appear before the Planning Commission. He noted that the item will likely be on the next City Council agenda for discussion. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 11, 2011 Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 20