Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.25.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION (iFOV�wq RLINGAMB APPROVED MINUTES Monday, January 25, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the January 25, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica (arrived at 7:08 p.m.) and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Ruben Hurin; Planning Manager Maureen Brooks; Assistant Public Works Director Art Morimoto; Civil Engineer Doug Bell; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the January 11, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 27, Condition No. 31, delete "the Traffic Engineer's September 24, 2009 memo". ■ Page 28, second line from bottom of page; replace "David Bellis" with "Warren Bellis". Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). This item concluded at 7:06 p.m. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA At the request of the applicant, Agenda Item 11, 1010 Cadillac Way, was moved to follow Agenda Item 4 The Planning Commission accepted the request. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT 1. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON INDOOR AND OUTDOOR WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCES STAFF CONTACT: ART MORIMOTO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS Presentation by Matt Zuca; Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes w January 25, 2010 ■ Regarding the threshold; clarified that the threshold would be reduced to 1,500 square feet of affected landscape area. (Zuca — the higher thresholds would not have been triggered very often due to the lot areas in cities such as Burlingame.) ■ How will verification of compliance be monitored? (Meeker —the City's Arborist will review plans, or the landscape architect that prepared the plan will certify compliance with the regulations.) ■ Asked if the regulations are contrary to the Commission's desire to reduce hardscape? (Zuca — actually will discourage use of high water demand landscaping materials.) ■ Asked how the City has avoided water rationing in the past? (Zuca — the Peninsula's water supply is from a different source than that provided in the East Bay.) ■ Clarified that the City has a contractual guarantee to a certain level of water supply. (Zuca — but does not guarantee a specific rate. The City will be provided with one price for an amount of usage up to a certain level, but then another rate for usage beyond that interim level to the maximum guarantee.) ■ Has heard that BAWSCA has funding available for low water usage, turf -free landscaping. (Zuca — do have some programs for education regarding low water usage landscaping. Also provide funding for rebates for equipment replacement.) ■ Will water rates increase in the future? (Zuca — SFPUC has a capital improvement program that is currently being implemented. Work is currently underway; rates will increase to help pay for bond financing.) ■ Clarified that the treshold is targeting major remodels and new construction. (Zuca — explained active versus passive conservation. Regulations are geared towards replacement of fixtures, and necessitating purchase of higher efficiency fixtures.) ■ How well is BAWSCA marketing the rebates? (Zuca — BAWSCA leaves the marketing up to the individual cities. There is some partnering with PG&E. Have also encouraged point -of -sale marketing.) ■ Is there anything that can be done to increase billing rates during peak usage periods? (Zuca — there is no current methodology, but are looking at the possibility. Benefit is fairly limited. The City currently has a water wasting ordinance; there are currently mechanisms in place that permit restriction of water useage.) No action required on the part of the Commission. The Commission comments will be forwarded to the City Council prior to adoption of the ordinance. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. ITEMS CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 11, 2010 MEETING Regular Action Items 2. 1510 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT BEAR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 Noted that the FAR increase is only requested as it relates to the excavation within the lower level. Provided additional drawings that show the massing of the project. Commission comments: ■ The roofline concerns have been addressed; there is now a much better connection between the front and rear roof sections. ■ Believe that there is too much hardscape, particularly within the front; within the back there is a lot of flagstone; proportionally, there is a lot of hardscape. Is there a way to increase planting areas in the front, or otherwise soften it? (Robertson — feels that the landscaping will fill-in; the retaining walls are low. The hardscape in the rear already exists. The courtyard is partially tiled currently.) ■ Clarified that yard space is being added in the location of the former garage. ■ The long, narrow window at the rear of the house may look better as an arched window, similar to the front window. (Robertson — that window is in front of a fairly significant tree; introducing a single -arched window in the rear will not add much architecturally.) ■ Noted that the laundry floor plan is difficult with respect to the cabinet locations and washer/dryer locations. ■ On the west elevation; the floor plan shows a certain style of window, but the windows on the elevation do not match the floor plan. (Robertson — there is a drawing error, the window should be taller, as shown on the plans presented to the Commission; windows will not match, in order to preserve neighbor's privacy; taller window needed to comply with egress requirements.) ■ Is the existing setback for the existing garage being reduced? (Robertson — the existing condition is being improved upon.) ■ On the second -floor roof, the hipped roof has a notch; what is the purpose? (Robertson — intended for photo cells.) ■ Clarified that the area that is being excavated will not be used for anything other than storage. (Robertson — the owner wishes to have a storage area that does not require stooping to access storage.) Public comments: None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran noted that the Floor Area Ratio Variance is created by the slope of the lot, if it did not have a downslope, it would not affect the floor area ratio and that the garage construction improves the existing setback condition, and 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 December 28, 2009, sheets 1 through 10, MS-1 and MS-2; 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; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 17 and October 14, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's November 12, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's October 21, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 15, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 19, 2009 memo shall be met; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 51 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: The garage that is proposed is the bare minimum that it can be. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:56 p.m. Design Review Study Items 3. 1212 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LENGTH FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CRAIG AND PAIGE HEDGES, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Declining height envelope variance is needed due to the space needs within the interior of the dormer addition; that is designed to carry through the design of the existing home. Commission comments: Is the driveway existing? (Robertson — yes.) With respect to the garage; assumes that the rear portion of the garage will be used for storage; for convenience, it could be helpful to provide a door further back on the garage to provide access to the storage area. (Hurin — noted that if there is any glazing in the door, it needs to be at least ten feet from the property line.) Noted a drafting error on the second floor regarding the directions of the stairs. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:03 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom recused from Item 4; interviewed as a potential contractor for the project. He left the Council Chambers. 4. 814 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE AND MICHELE JACKSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ With respect to the chimney shown at the center of the house; what does it vent? (Grange — is existing and vents the furnace.) ■ With respect to the front porch; are the windows to be removed from the porch? (Grange — the windows are deteriorated; will be removed and be an open porch; will lower the floor area. Will be an open porch with a door leading into a foyer.) ■ Why not enter through the new opening on the front; the path up to the front of the house encourages the homeowners to park on the street; could be better to make a connection from the driveway. (Grange — the steps going into the front of the house would require a front setback variance.) ■ With respect to the rear, what is the reason for using a brushed aluminum door? (Grange — the brushed aluminum fits with the desire to have a more contemporary feel to the rear courtyard.) Public comments: ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ If the applicant decides to alter the front steps and a Variance is required, this application will need to be scheduled as an Action Item. Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom returned to the dais. The following item (Item 11) was moved forward on the agenda at the request of the applicant, and with the Commission's concurrence. 11. 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED C-2 —APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR A NEW MONUMENT SIGN (E. JAMES HANNAY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three (3) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Richard Luchini, 1051 46th Avenue, Oakland; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Why the request for the additional height? (Luchini — this is an existing sign which was made available to Rector Motors in order to bring more business back to Burlingame. Part of the standard plan for Audi.) Public comments: ■ None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie 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 Department date stamped December 23, 2009; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 5, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's January 11, 2010 memo, the City Arborist's and Fire Marshal's January 4, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 30, 2009 memo shall be met; and 3. 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: ■ Existing sign being made available; is essentially being recycled. ■ There is very little pedestrian traffic in the vicinity; there is a need to have a more significant presence due to the high level of vehicular traffic in the area. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. VIII. STUDY ITEMS 5. 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA — APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR A NEW WALL SIGN ABOVE 24 FEET ABOVE GRADE (PAUL SAULSBURY, DWA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 25, 2010. Commission comments: ■ Verify that the below 24-feet signage does not contribute to the above 24-foot signage. ■ Appreciates that the sign is being reduced in size. ■ Important to have accurate drawings that show how much smaller it will be. ■ Provide illumination levels for the new signage, as compared to the prior signage. ■ Is it possible to have the illumination stepped down at a certain hour. ■ Significant concerns have been raised by neighbors across the freeway regarding the light levels of the prior "Sheraton" sign. 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 8:26 p.m. IX. 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 Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. There were no requests. 6. 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE — ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JANUARY 11, 2010 ACTION APPROVING A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE -STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING PHYSICAL EDUCATION BUILDING AND TO REPLACE AND ADD BLEACHER SEATING FOR THE SWIMMING POOL AT THE EXISTING MERCY HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED AT 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran 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 Vistica. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:28 p.m. X. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 7. HOUSING ELEMENT — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE 2009-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (NEWSPAPER NOTICE — SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER — PUBLISHED 1/15/10) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Introduced Julie Maloney from Metropolitan Planning Group; the consultant responsible for preparation of the Housing Element. Reviewed changes made in response to State Office of Housing and Community (HCD) Development reviews. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ How close is the City to meeting the demand if only assuming 80% absorption? (Brooks — 1,000 units could be built with this assumption.) ■ Clarified that the pending projects number (of units) is accurate. ■ Asked about the status of the Sunrise project off of Trousdale Drive. ■ Does the State reimburse the City for preparation of the Housing Element. (Meeker/Brooks—no.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion by commissioner Vistica to recommend adoption of the 2009-2014 Housing Element to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend adoption of the 2009-2014 Housing Element. The motion passed 6-0. The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m. 8. 15 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR NEW DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED IN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (WINNIE HUNG, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER: AND CHI-HUA HUNG. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Winnie Hung, 2899 South Court, Palo Alto; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Regarding landscape plan; clarified that the stepping stones will be set in gravel under the Oak tree. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 ■ Revisions are nice; good job working with the design review consultant. ■ The trim package on the windows helps a lot; concerned, however, that it is Styrofoam trim; generally discouraged; could a wood trim be used? (Hung — technology permits stucco mold to be more convincing.) Would like the trim not be to Styrofoam and also be carried through to the garage. ■ With respect to the roofing material; what is the color? (Hung — will be blue like the solar panels.) ■ Would be nice to still have the horizontal grids on the second floor windows at the front of the house as does the existing. ■ Lift up the window box along the right side of the house to correspond to the window box on the front elevation. ■ Clarified that windows be wood, or metal -clad windows; same requirement for French doors. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commended applicant on the improvements to the plans. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: carry -through trim package to the garage; require wood or metal clad windows; trim shall be wood throughout rather than foam; include horizontal muntins on the front windows at the second floor; and match the elevation of the right side window box to the front window box: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 11, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-6, G-1 and L-1; 2. that the trim package for the windows, eave molding and band/trim shall be wood and that the trim package shall be carried through to the detached garage; 3. that wood or metal clad simulated true divided light windows shall be installed on the house and detached garage; 4. that the second floor windows on the front elevation shall included horizontal muntins to match the design of the existing windows; 5. that the elevation of the window box along the right side of the house shall match the elevation of the window box at the front of the house; 6. that a certified arborist's report showing how the existing street tree and three existing protected - sized oak trees within the rear quarter of the lot (22, 23 and 25-inches in diameter) will be protected during construction, to be approved by the Parks Department, shall be prepared and implemented prior to issuance of a building permit; 7. 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); 8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 6 and 25, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's November 18 and 30, 2009 memos, the Fire Marshal's November 9, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's November 30, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 4, 2009 memo shall be met; 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. 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 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would recuse himself from participating on Agenda Item 9 since he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the Council Chambers. 9. 12 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP (DENHAM LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MACLEOD AND ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEER) a. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS WITH 55-FOOT WIDE STREET FRONTAGE WHERE 60 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE - PM 09-04 — PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Two (2) conditions were suggested for consideration. Noted that no comments were received during the review period for the Negative Declaration. Commission comments: Asked if the entire proceeding is being reopened? (Guinan — direction was given to vote consistently when the resolution was adopted based upon the prior discussion. At that time the error to the CEQA review had not been discovered. Following that time, the error was discovered, and the item has been returned to the Commission "de novo".) Clarified information regarding County of San Mateo development standards contained in table in the staff report. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. John Ward, 792 Willborough Road and Alex Mortazavi, 851 Burlway Road; represented the applicant. ■ The project has not changed since the last hearing. ■ The determination of the Negative Declaration has been made. ■ The attorney representing the neighbor adjacent to the site, the Thomas's, has met with the applicant, and arrived at some concessions that have resulted in them withdrawing their opposition to the project. ■ Requested that the Commission take a separate action on the Negative Declaration and the Lot Split requests. ■ Asking to be at parity with the neighboring properties. ■ Are surrounded by neighbors situated within the unincorporated County of San Mateo area; under a different set of standards. Public comments: Michael Brownrigg, 1524 Columbus Avenue; spoke: Noted that the Variance exists because of the manner in which the lots are divided; however, if the lot lines are adjusted slightly by moving the rear lot line further into the lots from the adjacent property, the Variance can be eliminated. Further comments from Applicant: 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 ■ Could eliminate the need for the Variance; are willing to change if needed. Additional Commission comments: If the Variance application could be eliminated, would support the application. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner A uran noted that the applicant has worked to preserve views of neighbors and that the logic for the 60-foot frontage is not appropriate given the different restrictions applied to neighbors, and moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Negative Declaration, Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for a lot split, with the following conditions: that the Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office and copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works; and 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 10, 2009 memo and the City Arborist's September 3, 2009 memo shall be met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: Applicant would be unduly penalized by strict application of the City's standards, given that the adjacent properties are not subject to the same standards. Can't consider the neighboring properties as an issue; if County requirements were greater, then this wouldn't be a consideration; we have similar situations where Burlingame properties lie adjacent to properties in other jurisdictions; the hardship created by applicant's desires to split the property. Chair Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend approval of the applications to City Council. The motion passed 3-2-1 (Commissioners Cauchi and Terrones dissenting and Commissioner Vistica recusing). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi left the meeting. Commissioner Vistica returned to the dais. 10. 1812-B MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TUTORING CENTER (ANNABELLE VAKILI, APPLICANT; RONALD A. PERNER, ARCHITECT; AND W.J. BRITTON & CO., INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Annabelle Vakili, 2721 Martinez Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 None. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 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: that the children's tutoring center shall be limited to approximately 700 SF of the existing commercial building at 1812-B Magnolia Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 23, 2009, sheets A.1 and A.2; 2. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to a children's tutoring center and shall become void if the children's tutoring center changes in the clientele they serve or cease, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3. that the children's tutoring center may be open Monday through Friday from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., with occasional appointments scheduled outside of operating hours; 4. that the tutoring center shall accommodate a maximum of 12 students per hour at any given time; any increase in the number of students shall require and amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 5. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 17 persons, including full-time and part-time employees and students; 6. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees or students which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 7. that if a parent or guardian parks more than one block from the tutoring center, the parent or guardian must walk their child to and from the tutoring center; the applicant shall inform parents of this policy during enrollment; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 5, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's January 11, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's and City Arborist's January 4, 2010 memos and the NPDES Coordinator's December 30, 2009 memo shall be met; 9. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:21 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Study Review Items. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 19, 2010: ■ None. FYI: 1125 Cabrillo Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 17