Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.11.28C CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLIrvGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, November 28, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the November 28, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 1, "Study Items';- revise notation regarding Commissioner Vistica's recusal to read: "Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 1 (261 California Drive) since he has an unresolved business matter with the property owner. ■ Page 3, Item 4, "Commission comments"; revise second bullet to read: "Indicated that the Commissioners should pay particular attention to the project massing comparisons prior to discussing the item on the next agenda." ■ Page 8, Item 6, notation regarding the voice vote on the motion; revise to indicate that Commissioners Yie and Cauchi were absent. ■ Page 10, Item 7, notation regarding motion to continue; revise by inserting "moved"after "Terrones" ■ Page 10, Item 7, notation regarding the voice vote on the motion; revise to indicate that Commissioners Yie and Cauchi were absent. Motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Yie abstained, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for review. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 1. 819 MITTEN ROAD, ZONED IB —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION AND CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (NOEMI K. AVRAM, AIA, GUMBINGER AVRAM ARCHITECTS, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FRIEDEBERG FAMILY 2002 TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Gaul moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Cauchi and Yie abstained, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 1526 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated November 28, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Ron Cariaga, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: The design and massing looks better — doesn't feel as towering. The massing, articulation and materials are generally very good. Public comments: Carol Mink, 1541 Los Montes Drive; spoke: 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 Appreciates the changes that have been made; though the home is still massive. Still has some concerns regarding privacy impacts, but the landscaping may help to protect privacy. Appreciates the Commissioners' efforts to view the property and the project's impacts. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica 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 October 26, 2011, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1 and L.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing all tree maintenance recommendations as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated October 7, 2011; that prior to the final inspection, the City Arborist shall verify that all appropriate recommendations were implemented; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 1 and August 22, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's September 1 and August 30, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's August 9, 2011 memo, the City Arborist's September 2 and August 9, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 11, 2011 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction 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 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Commended the designer and property owner for working with the neighbor. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. Chair Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 3 (1113 Cortez Avenue) as she resides within 500-feet of the subject property. She left the City Council Chambers. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 3. 1113 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LAWRENCE NEJASMICH TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM JUNE 27, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated November 28, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin 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. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Requested a brick veneer on the fireplace and chimney — recalls that an interior designer had indicated that a brick chimney would not be consistent with the design - this was a tactical error. The changes were mostly upgrades — the project is pretty well done. The argument regarding the loss of brick on the chimney doesn't hold water —the original chimney did contain brick — is a bit disappointed by the deletion of the brick; it doesn't look as finished or as tied together as the design should be. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Greatest concern was with changes at the front of the house and the changes to the railings — have now proposed a nice wood railing. This is an improvement to the front of the house. The chimney is at the side of the house and is not that visible — is not a big issue. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 17, 2011, sheets P4 and P5 and date stamped June 20, 2011, sheets P2, P3 and 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 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 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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 10. 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; 11. 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 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 Vistica. Discussion of motion: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 Feels the changes to the windows (adding grids) have improved the appearance. The grids are not as important at the rear. On balance is a nice looking home. It is an annoyance that the applicant and builder did not seek prior approval of the changes. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Yie recused, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. Chair Yie returned to the dais. 4. 2008 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KEVIN CHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 28, 2011. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Referenced a memo in the packet that is addressed to Tony Leung — what is his involvement? (Hurin — was consulted by the applicant due to a language barrier.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place; represented the applicant. ■ The applicant and builder have no understanding of Burlingame's rules — he was attempting to match existing finishes that exist on other homes in the neighborhood. ■ The changes were not caught by any of the inspectors — if it was mentioned to the builder; he did not understand any comments. ■ Feels that the contractor did a fairly good job with the finishes. ■ Believes it was a spec -house — cannot sell it until he receives a final inspection. ■ Fears that the result will not be well executed if the applicant is forced to change the windows and finishes. Commission comments: ■ The applicant and contractor did not follow the plans as approved - they are the only ones to blame. ■ The design changes are not acceptable in the community. ■ Concerned about setting a precedent if this applicant is permitted to retain the vinyl windows. ■ The Commission tries to upgrade neighborhoods as new development occurs — the changes to this project will perpetuate the original design character of the neighborhood. ■ Is not supportive of the design changes. ■ The vinyl windows are substantial, but they are all over the house. The Commission has a preference for wood windows — there have been exceptions to allow vinyl in limited situations. The kitchen window is not acceptable. ■ Feels the house will be torn apart in order to return to the original design. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 ■ Concerned about using language as an excuse for the errors — the applicant and contractor reached out late in the process to seek clarity — this could have been done earlier. ■ Feels that there should be some form of deterrent to submitting requests for "as -built" changes; perhaps a fine. • Suggested that the architect return to the Commission with revisions that can show the Commission that design can be improved to preserve the original intent of the approved design. ■ Would be willing to look at a compromise that includes revisions to the window trim. ■ Feels that the Commission has been conned — the approved design reflected the Commission's desire — needs a lot of revisions for it to be considered. ■ The project, as built, could impact property values in the neighborhood. Have an opportunity for revisions that can come closer to reflecting the community's design values. Public comments: Tony Leung, 1325 Cabrillo Avenue; spoke: Was just attempting to assist the owner and contractor. Contractor has more experience building in San Francisco; the City of San Francisco does not impose the same standards that apply in Burlingame. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: What are the Commission's options? (Meeker/Guinan — can deny; then the project would need to be built in accordance with approved plans; could deny without prejudice, providing the opportunity for the applicant to return with revisions, or could continue the matter with direction to the applicant.) Commissioner Cauchi moved to deny the project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion of Agenda Item 5 (261 California Drive) as he has an unresolved business relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers. 5. 261 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED HMU — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A YOGA AND PILATES STUDIO WITH RETAIL SALES (COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE) IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DEANA LLOYD, APPLICANT; HERA LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND SAMONSKY + POMETTA ARCHITECTS, LLP, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 28, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Why isn't the conversion of the use considered to be intensification? (Hurin — a determination of intensification is based upon parking ratio calculations — does the new use require more parking than the prior use — it doesn't take into account changes to the hours of operation of the uses. For example, a restaurant use with day -time hours of operation could have replaced the prior bar and would not have been considered an intensification of the use.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Deana Lloyd, 265 Lake Drive, San Bruno; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ How will most people arrive at the business? (Lloyd — many are locals. Some take the train or public transportation.) ■ Suggested installing a bicycle rack at the front of the business. (Lloyd — willing to consider doing so.) ■ Requested clarification regarding staffing — staffing estimates seemed a bit low (Lloyd — business will have part time instructors, one staff person at front desk, part time administrative staff and business owner at site). ■ Noted that there are some long-term parking lots within the Downtown area — could encourage employees to park in these lots. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Should add a condition requiring a bicycle rack. (Meeker— can include such a condition subject to staff approval.) Views the use favorably — is complementary to the area. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the yoga and pilates studio shall be limited to 5,273 SF (2,704 SF on the ground level and 2,569 SF on the second floor) of the existing commercial building at 261 California Drive, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped October 14, 2011, sheets A0.1 through A5.1; 2. that if deemed feasible following consultation with the Fire Marshal and the Chief Building Official, a bicycle rack shall be installed within the front of the business, subject to staff approval; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 3. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to a yoga and pilates studio and shall become void if the yoga and pilates studio ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 4. that all activities associated with the yoga and pilates studio shall occur indoor only; no portion of the exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the yoga and pilates studio; 5. that the yoga and pilates studio may only be open for business Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; 6. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 40 persons, including the employees and customers; 7. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and City Arborist's October 17, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's October 24, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's October 18, 2011 memo shall be met; 9. that interior demolition within the existing structure 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; 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; and 11. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica recused, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Vistica returned to the dais. 6. 1200 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 106, ZONED HMU —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DAVID J. ELLIOTT, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ICHINYOSHA INTERNATIONAL USA INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 Reference staff report dated November 28, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Is the easement a recorded easement? (Hurin — is an easement to provide vehicle access to the subject property and to the property next door.) How often does the City typically collect parking in -lieu fees? (Hurin/Meeker — have done so for what was to have been Wachovia Bank on Lorton Avenue and for Walgreen's on El Camino Real.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. David Elliott, 17800 Cunha Lane, Salinas and Sardool Samra, 1200 Howard Avenue, Suite 106; represented the applicant. ■ Feels the business will primarily serve the business community within the Downtown area — most people will come from surrounding businesses. ■ Doesn't feel that parking needs are as great as for a more formal restaurant. ■ Are willing to encourage employees to park in long-term lots. ■ Willing to contribute to the installation of a trash container to ensure that trash is controlled in the area. Commission comments: ■ Where will signage be provided? (Elliott — haven't dealt with it yet. Would like to place a sign on Lorton Avenue on the side of the business, subject to City approval.) ■ Concerned that Howard is not heavily used by pedestrians. (Samra — intends to propose a sign that is visible form Burlingame Avenue.) ■ Concerned about this location for the business — doesn't feel that the visibility of this location lends itself to such a business. ■ Feels that students from Burlingame High School will frequent the business — agrees that the customer base will come from the surrounding area. ■ Believes that there should be a condition that there is no parking within the easement. ■ Adding the trash receptacle is also a desirable condition. ■ Doesn't feel that the students will walk to the business — will drive. ■ Feels that students will visit the business during the lunch period. ■ Could a portion of the area in front of the business be revised to provide an area for outdoor seating that is visible from outside of the property and that will draw people to the business? (Meeker — if such a condition is proposed, its feasibility should be explored first — the terms of the easement are not known, and owner consent is unknown.) ■ Concerned that changes within the easement may not be feasible. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 Feels that more information is needed regarding the terms of the easement and who has control before proceeding — should be continued for this reason. There are still some visibility issues that the business owner can be worked out. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue matter, with direction as provided in the Commission's discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:28 p.m. 7. 1616 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO PARKING IN THE DRAINAGE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 1616 ROLLINS ROAD DUE TO A CHANGE FROM AN OVERFLOW PARKING LOT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP TO AN OVERFLOW PARKING LOT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE RENTAL BUSINESS (GENESIS CHEN, PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, APPLICANT; DAVIS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated November 28, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Noted that the conditions of approval begin with "condition 12". (Meeker — are referencing the original conditions of approval for Peter Pan BMW service center.) Have now included an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow work on the fencing within the easement — if additional work to the fence is requested by the Commission, is this possible? (Meeker — yes.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Genesis Chen, 1409 Rollins Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Concerned that based upon the proposal there could be some conflicts between the BMW use and the Payless operation — BMW is only to access its site from Adrian Road. Neighbors have observed that BMW has accessed its area through the easement — this could create problems for Payless. The only purpose for the gate is for access by the BMW property to the easement. Would like to see the gate removed and replaced with permanent fencing — it cannot be guaranteed that the gate will remain locked. (Meeker — recalled a condition of the BMW approval that restricted its access to be from only Adrian Road. Could be violating the terms of the conditional use permit.) 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 Perhaps the gate was required as a means of allowing quick access for vehicle removal in case of a flood. Look back at the application for BMW and determine if the gate was included on the approved plan — if not, it should be removed. If allowed, then BMW may be operating in violation of the original conditional use permit. Not a reason for delaying consideration of the current request. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Recalls prior concerns regarding parking in the drainage easement that there be a means of permitting rapid evacuation of the easement in the event of flooding. Referenced a condition placing liability for any flood damage to vehicles upon the property owner. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: Conditions of Approval for Parking in the Drainage Right -of -Way: 12. that parking within the drainage right-of-way shall be exclusively used for storage of vehicles associated with the automotive service center located at 1625 Adrian Road (approximately 217 spaces), for overflow parking for an automobile rental business (approximately 80 spaces), and for parking for the building at 1616 Rollins Road (approximately 15 spaces); vehicles stored by the automotive service center shall only be brought to the site by using the road crossing at the rear of 1625 Adrian Road. The City staff shall determine if the gate providing access to the BMW Service Center property from 1616 Rollins Road was initially shown on the approved plans for the BMW Service Center, or otherwise required by the City; if not shown on the plans, nor required by the City; the gate shall be removed and replaced with permanent fencing to ensure that access to the BMW Service Center site is only from Adrian Road; 13. that vehicles associated with the automobile rental business shall not be moved during the peak traffic hours, and shall only be moved during off-peak traffic hours from 9:30a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the weekdays, with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday and Sunday; 14. that all the vehicles in the drainage right-of-way shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility and liability of the property owner; and it is the responsibility of the business to make tow trucks available to move any vehicles stored on the site that are not in operable condition; 15. Applicant shall provide a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney that provides as follows: A. Owner agrees and understands that some of the parking proposed in the application is to be located in a drainage area that is subject to periodic flooding. The Owner has obtained professional analysis of the effects and impacts of the drainage area. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 B. Owners agrees and affirms that Owner is relying solely on Owner's own knowledge and the representations of Owner's own experts and consultants in designing, constructing, and using the project and in no way relying on any representations or analyses of the City or any of its officers or employees in proceeding with the construction and uses. C. Owner agrees that Owner shall defend and indemnify the City, its officers and employees against, and will hold them and each of them harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or properties, penalties, obligations, and liabilities, including any attorneys fees or associated costs, that may be asserted by any person arising from the approval, design, location, methods, installation, operation, and existence of the parking within the drainage area approved by the City. D. This agreement shall be recorded by the City in the Official Records of the Recorder of San Mateo County. 16. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 17. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on - site; 18. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 — April 1); 19. the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance with the drainage easement. The City of Burlingame shall be held harmless for any property damage which might occur as a result of flooding within the drainage easement adjacent spur track right-of-way; 20. the improvements over the drainage channel shall not compromise the surface drainage flow to the drainage ditch at the rear of 1616 Rollins Road and shall not compromise the holding capacity of the basin during flooding; all the vehicles shall be relocated during flood situations; 21. that if required for any improvements, the applicant shall amend the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for any operational or physical changes made for these uses in this drainage area, and if those permits are not issued and maintained these uses shall cease; The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 3032 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRENDAN O'BRIEN, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 28, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Noted that the variance application is not included with the staff report report. (Hurin — will ensure that the application is provided when returned for action.) Is a continuation of an existing side -yard setback — there should be some side -note confirming that this is a continuation of an existing condition. Requested clarification regarding the right -side setback. (Hurin — the proposed addition complies with the right -side setback.) Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Una Kinsella, 1033 Paloma Avenue and Brendan O'Brien, 3032 Rivera Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ If the applicant had wanted the increased plate height without the variance, would the matter have needed to have come to the Planning Commission? (Hurin — the plate height difference causes the matter to come to the Commission — the Hillside Area Construction Permit and setback deviation wouldn't normally require Commission consideration.) • In the master bathroom - will grids be installed and will privacy glass be installed? (Kinsella — have discussed. There is a mixture of homes with and without grids in the neighborhood. Decided to keep the design as clean as possible. Doesn't feel that the window will be visible from the street.) ■ Not certain how the roof will resolve given the plate height difference — wants to be confident about the roof resolution. (Kinsella — has been resolved, will provide the information when returned for action.) ■ On Sheet A-4 — is there a partial third door shown. (Kinsella — on the elevation, the door is somewhat cut-off by the family room wall. Confirmed that there is an inconsistency between the floor plan and the elevation; will provide revised elevation with correction.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 28, 2011 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. 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 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:58 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Vistica noted that when the City Council acknowledged his service to the community and as a Planning Commissioner at its meeting of November 21, 2011, he forgot to thank his wife (Lisa Happich) and the other members of the Planning Commission. He wished to acknowledge them at this time. Commissioner Vistica suggested that the Planning Commission may wish to consider discussing the elimination of the restriction upon the number of restaurants in the Downtown area in the future. (Meeker— indicated that he would make note of this for inclusion on the agenda for the annual joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of November 21, 2011: Noted that the City Council adopted a resolution correcting an error in the zoning map that revises the boundary between the Howard Avenue Mixed -Use (HMU) zone and the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zone — this change results in the availability of one additional food service location within the BAC zone. Staff is moving forward with providing notice of availability of this space — potential applicants will be required to have a "true" tenant in hand that can provide a business plan for the food -service establishment. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 16