Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.12.120 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES 1.Monday, December 12, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the December 12, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker and Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 2, vote on Consent Calendar, note that Commissioners Cauchi and Yie "abstained" rather than "recused". ■ Page 6, Agenda Item 3 (1113 Cortez Avenue), vote on the motion to approve; replace "Chair Yie" with "Vice -Chair Gaul". ■ Page 7, Agenda Item 4 (2008 Davis Drive), ninth bullet under "Commission comments'; insert `of' between "form" and "deterrent". ■ Page 8, Agenda Item 4 (2008 Davis Drive), second bullet under "Public comments';- replace "Contract" with "Contractor". ■ Page 9, Agenda Item 5 (261 California Drive), third bullet under "Commission comments';- replace "big" with "bit". Motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and 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 Commission Cauchi indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 1 (Draft Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance), since he has had a business relationship with a wireless telecommunications provider. He left the City Council Chambers. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 1. REVIEW OF A DRAFT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE — STAFF CONTACTS: WILLIAM MEEKER AND GUS GUINAN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated December 12, 2011. Commission comments: ■ Praised the work of the working group. ■ Primary goal of the City is to have some sort of discretionary review in areas where there will be more of an impact — residential areas. ■ Some legal wrangling is continuing to occur with the attorneys involved around the purview of the City in regulating such installations. ■ The industry is seeking an understandable, navigable process with timely reviews. ■ With respect to access to third party expertise — need to have access to a third -party reviewer as we would with historic analysis and environmental review. ■ Concern about creating a noticing process for this type of project that is different than for other applications — need to be careful and align the noticing with noticing required for other types of permits — if revisions are needed overall, then do so now. ■ Can applications be presented on the web -site? (Meeker — are considering this.) ■ Noted that Extenet has been asked by the Subcommittee and Working Group to consider backing off of the lawsuit in order to provide more time for completion of the ordinance. (Meeker — noted that the timing is driven by the moratorium and the lawsuit). ■ Provide a map showing information on installations as applications come in so that the Commission is aware of all facilities in the City. (Meeker— this is still part of the discussion —as applications are submitted, the base map will be created.) ■ Concerned that all sites will require equipment cabinets for support — can we limit the number of sites within the City. (Meeker — there will be some sort of ancillary equipment required for each installation. The high water table limits the ability to place the equipment underground. Can only address time, place and manner of the installation of the facilities. Cannot prohibit a provider from installing equipment in the community.) ■ There should be someone that can provide feedback to the Commission regarding a proposed installation and whether the proposal is the best type of installation for the location. ■ Who is responsible for co -located equipment? (Meeker — each entity is responsible for maintenance of their own equipment.) ■ How much is enough; who makes the determination of the need for the community. (Meeker — attorneys are wrangling this issue.) ■ Referenced the process used when the proposed installation at a local church was under consideration — the engineer involved only has limited expertise regarding the proposed installation and how it would actually appear. Was denied because the Commission couldn't gain a clear understanding of how the installation would appear. ■ Feels the City is receiving misinformation regarding undergrounding. (Commissioner— noted that some equipment may be placed underground, but the antennae require line of site to other antennae for them to function. ■ Need to be certain that, if feasible, some equipment can be placed underground. ■ Noted that these installations need to be maintained and serviced over time — the industry representatives have continued to raise "dangerous" scenarios to support their contention that equipment should not be placed underground. No action was required for this item. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2012 — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 332 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (EXERCISE ROOM) (INDERJIT CHADHA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 12, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had reviewed the recording of the meeting at which this item (as well as the projects on Easton Drive) were considered. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Aleksey Zakharov, 332 Dwight Road and Indy Chadha, 140 Cottonwood Lane, Blackhawk; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Not enough articulation from the side to the rear. Noted that if the gutters were removed from the rear elevation, the elevation would be flat — would be better if it projected out somewhat. (Aleksey - thought that using corbels as shown would have been sufficient. Also provided a larger landing with a railing. Did not want to exceed the maximum FAR.) Likes the changes to the front elevation. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 ■ Likes the increased bump out in the front — but it doesn't show up in the plans on the right side elevation. ■ Need to work on the front roof where the skylight is shown — looks like there will be a flat spot on the left side of the bump out — may impact the size of the egress window. (Zakharov — could perhaps shift the window to the left.) Will need to work on the roof plan. ■ With respect to the skylight — is it glass? (Zakharov — yes.) ■ Noted that the windows indicated in the staff report are noted to be clad wood windows; however, the actual window selection is more of a vinyl. (Zakharov — described the construction of the windows.) Need to get back to the idea of a wood -clad window — the proposed windows will not add to the neighborhood — is a cheap looking window. (Zakharov — contradicts the feedback received at the prior meeting.) ■ Noted that the Commission would have been open to considering an alternative to a wood window, if it is a quality product. The product proposed is not necessarily a quality product. (Zakharov — are opening to making the change to wood clad if it is the only one that is permitted.) ■ Need to maintain the character of the neighborhood. ■ Likes the fact that the dormer is gone, but now the skylight looks out of place. (Zakharov — is provided to bring more light into the entry way. There is another home in the neighborhood that uses a flat skylight above the entrance.) ■ Feels grids could dress up the windows. ■ Agrees with comments regarding the flat rear elevation. ■ Feels a 2' x 4' skylight is very large — could be a less intrusive, smaller skylight. Could center the skylight with the windows and meet the applicant's needs. (Chadha — have moved the wall out, but also had to move the header.) ■ Noted that the front bump -out is not shown on the right side elevation. ■ Stone veneer — no indication of how the veneer is stopped on the side elevations. Needs to turn back on the side at least a foot or so. (Chadha — may take it back to the fence line.) ■ Stair rail on rear stoop — will need a handrail coming down the steps. Will it be a wood picket with a handrail mounted to it? (Chadha — yes.) Public comments: None. Additional applicant comments: ■ Tried to put the downspouts within the wall, but it didn't work out. Because the project's FAR is so tight, put posts/corbels at the rear to add detail. ■ Are open to eliminating the exercise room, and could use some of the FAR to address the Commission's suggestions — need guidance, feels have been mislead by the Design Reviewer. (Commissioner — like to see more articulation to provide character on the elevations. Perhaps provide a bay window in the family room to provide more articulation.) ■ Didn't feel that using a bay to articulate the rear elevation would be a good idea. Would like more specific guidelines from the Commission. Have complied with everything else. (Commissioner — feels that there are inaccuracies in the plans.) ■ Want to retain as many windows as possible — is guiding the design of the new windows. (Commissioner — noted some windows with grids are provided on the second floor.) These windows are glass block. Additional Commission comments: Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 ■ Be clear on the details on the plans (e.g. provide notation regarding the glass block ■ Not a lot of detail on the landscaping plan. ■ Bumping out the French door area would provide more articulation on the rear. ■ The project is very close to being approvable. ■ Ok with the side elevation if other details can be addressed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant as noted in the discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. 4. 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) (42 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 12, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Una Kinsella, 1033 Paloma Avenue and Brendan O'Brien, 3032 Rivera Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ None. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 30, 2011, sheets CS and A4; and date stamped November 14, 2011, sheets Al, A2, A3, C-1 and L1; 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 conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 5, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's October 11, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 13, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's October 13, 2011 and November 16, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 18, 2011 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Side Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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 or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall 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 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 W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 5. 2508 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LONESTAR HOLDINGS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 12, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker 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. Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant. ■ Removed the quoynes on the corners of the building. ■ Eliminated the balcony that did not have an access. ■ Provided an additional porch on the front of the house. ■ Provided a single -story element at the entry. ■ Agrees with reducing the second story plate height to 8'. ■ Retaining the cast sills and providing window surrounds with synthetic stone over foam. Commission comments: Confirmed that plate height will be reduced to 8'. (Stotler — provided revised exterior elevations showing this change.) Will balcony in the rear be cantilevered? (Stotler — yes. Will provide brackets.) 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 ■ Noted that the applicant requested review by a design review consultant. (Stotler — felt that there was a lack of direction provided by the Commission — would have requested referral to the consultant.) ■ Agrees with reduction in plate height. ■ On rear balcony — the deep cantilever appears somewhat artificial — will there be some form of bracket? (Stotler — Will provide brackets and can consider reducing the depth of the balcony.) ■ Could perhaps reduce the balcony to only a foot — this could provide more light at the door below. (Stotler — wanted to provide the opportunity to step out on the balcony.) ■ Feels the changes noted will take the design a long way. ■ Roof is drawn to look like clay tile rather than slate (that it is to be). ■ Front entry porch — like flair on overhang, but not represented how it turns on the side elevations. (Stotler — should be shown; usually about 12-inches wide.) ■ Believes the stone trim looks good. ■ Likes the porch. ■ Likes the substantial roof. ■ Is a much friendlier design than what was originally presented. ■ Commission needs to be conscious of the progression of plaster -covered foam. Be conscious of what is being asked of the applicant. (Stotler — no problem specifying Varistone or equal.) ■ Need to be careful of what is considered to be the criteria — e.g. thickness of plaster over the foam, etc. ■ With respect to the chimney — where is the stone veneer? (Stotler — was the only stone on the home, so it was removed.) 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 December 5, 2011, sheets T1, C.0, Al through A4, L-1, L-2 and GPC; 2. that the second floor plate shall be reduced to 8-feet in height, and the rear balcony shall be built with a maximum depth of no greater than 2-feet, the design of which shall include corbels or brackets under that element; 3. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 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; 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 26, 2011 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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 14. 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; 15. 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; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 16. 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; 17. 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 18. 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: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:29 p.m. 6. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 12, 2011 Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. , with attachments. Community Development Director and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Likes the redesign — what are the columns on the front door? (Stotler — stucco) Are the rafter tails supporting the roof and consistently spaced? (Stotler — will spaced; 24" on center and will be true rafter tails that are not "scabbed on".) What is the flashing material? On top or underneath the tile? (Stotler — will mounted on the top. Has never seen it installed in that manner.) be consistently be lead flashing 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 ■ Should look in to Bituthene for waterproofing and to conceal the lead flashing. Do not lead flashing mounted on top of tile. (Stotler — will need to consult with a roofer.) ■ Still has a problem with the declining height envelope encroachment on a new structure — could be re -worked to comply with the design guidelines. ■ Still feels that pushing the home back further on the lot could be a better approach. Perhaps a 3,900 square foot home is not appropriate given the lot configuration. ■ House doesn't necessarily need to be built to the street. ■ Has a problem with the three-story "apartment building" appearance of the rear. ■ House should be built to conform to the lot. ■ Could do a higher plate height on the front, but drop down as it moves to the rear. (Stotler — would separate the master bedroom from other bedrooms. Affects the livability of the floor plan. Is an extremely difficult lot to build a house that conforms to the lot's contours. House on the left has a detached garage in the rear that is built up on a bridge — is less desirable.) ■ Asked if there has been a soils report prepared? (Stotler — yes, it has been prepared.) ■ Could conceivably build even more of the house into the lot. (Stotler — burying the lower level into the hillside is a logistical problem to design on a narrow lot. Feels would be denied a privilege that others enjoy.) ■ Agrees that it is a tough lot — likes the detailing and the aesthetics, but is simply a rearrangement of what was proposed and presented to the Planning Commission previously. ■ Reinforced the Commission's desire to have a design that is more respectful of the terrain. Noted that design reviewer noted alternate site plan options could be explored. Noted that the bedrooms are designed as suites — there is an opportunity to provide a design that provides better use of the lot. The applicant rejected alternative approaches in favor of the design sought by the applicant. ■ Is a 2'/2 to 3 story mass working its way down the slope — there is a way to address the terrain. Still a large mass along the sides and at the rear. (Stotler — 50% of the projects he does are spec homes; doesn't feel that the client will move forward with the direction stated by the Commission. Takes a special buyer for a home with a lot of steps. Marketability is limited.) ■ Could detach the guest room and other space and create a separate cottage at the rear. (Stotler — will need to speak to client — doesn't believe it will be an option.) ■ Would have fewer stairs with a two -level house. Public comments: Paul Delora, 2505 Easton Drive; Tiffany Liu, 2517 Easton Drive; and Cathy Nicho, 2500 Easton Drive; spoke: ■ Appreciates the efforts of the Commission and the applicants. ■ Greatest concerns are the size of the house and potential impacts upon privacy —they can see into the rear of the applicant's property. ■ Will also look into the windows of the new home and vice -versa. ■ Concerned about the overall depth of the building; don't want to see the home pushed back too far and question why it is as large as proposed. ■ Would appreciate a smaller footprint. ■ Indicated that they would support the design with a smaller footprint. ■ Requested a more formal and specific landscape plan that can assist in determining privacy impacts. ■ Concerns about the similarity of design for 2508 and 2509 Easton Drive. ■ Commissioner — is 2505 Easton Drive built on two levels? Owner — somewhat split level with a deck that provides access to the rear yard. ■ The home seems too large for the neighborhood. II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 Agrees with other neighbor's comments. Concerned about similarity of homes and both of them being over -scaled. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Is a large lot; could potentially be supportable for a 3,900 square foot house; however, there are other ways to embrace the terrain of the lot — referenced the project on Adeline Drive. There is a specific market that this type of home will appeal to if designed for the lot's terrain. ■ The uniqueness of the design is that it becomes a three-story home in the rear — not the type of uniqueness that is desirable. ■ Need to look to a design that addresses the unique character of the lot. ■ The architect and applicant need to work with the terrain of the property. ■ Disagrees with the neighbors' desire to retain a view to the property. ■ Feels the height of the structure is inappropriate for the lot. ■ The Easton elevation is handsome, but the stepping down and the rear are not done well — looks like the rear of an apartment building — needs to work with the terrain. Commissioner Cauchi moved to deny the application, without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Denial "without prejudice" will allow revisions under the current application or appeal to the City Council. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 7. 1200 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 106, ZONED H M U —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) (50 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 12, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Could the City collect a fee for less than the total number of spaces involved in the variance request? (Strohmeier — could collect for none, or fewer than the total spaces.) Why doesn't the use qualify as a ready to eat food establishment? (Strohmeier — greater than 1,000 square feet for such a use. Also cannot have a commercial kitchen.) Requested clarification on what is allowed in the 1,000 square feet. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 David Elliott, 17800 Cunha Lane, Salinas and Sardool Samra, 1200 Howard Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ No commercial kitchen, but bake their own bread. ■ A restroom was added that caused the space to exceed the threshold for a ready -to -eat food establishment. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the handicapped ramp will impede traffic flow through the easement. ■ Could conceivably draft a lease that prevents the need for the conditional use permit. Public comments: Harvey Liu, Coldwell Banker Commercial (leasing agent for the property), spoke: ■ The use is desirable for the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ The use will be used by students at the nearby high school as well as employees of businesses within the Downtown area. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 21, 2011, sheets A0.1 through A3.1; 2. that the food establishment shall not exceed 1,017 SF including customer seating, kitchen and food preparation area; 3. that the food establishment may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week; 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 any changes to the floor area, use or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 7 and October 14, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's and City Arborist's October 13, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's October 18, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's October 18, 2011 memo shall be met; and 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 8. 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: Encouraged the property owner and the tenant to work with the people that will use the driveway to ensure safety — striping or signage. Encouraged a guardrail along the driveway to protect patrons. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study Items for discussion. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Chair Yie noted that she had attended the streetscape master plan session regarding the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape. Community Development Director noted that an e-mail was received from project manager Jane Gomery late this afternoon. Noted the potential loss of parking spaces with conversion from angled to parallel parking in order to increase sidewalk width. Noted that some citizens wish to create a pedestrian -only Burlingame Avenue but that is not being proposed. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of December 5, 2011: None. FYI: 704 Newhall Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 12, 2011 Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 15