Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 11.09.09 APPROVEDA M� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES R rc Monday, November 9, 2009 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the November 9, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Terrones, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg to approve the minutes of the October 26, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 5, first bullet under "Discussion of motion delete "the truly increase". Page 5, in the paragraph regarding the vote on Agenda Item 2: insert "Appeal procedures were advised" after "The motion passed 7-0" Motion passed 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission agreed to move Agenda Item XI, "Update on the Art Selection Process for the Peninsula Hospital Project' to immediately after Agenda Item 2 (1340 Bayshore Highway). V. FROM THE FLOOR None. VI. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIALLY HISTORIC PROPERTIES UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND DIRECTION TO STAFF - STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Community Development Director introduced the topic. As background, he described the information that was submitted for the "Burlingame Park" neighborhood that calls the historic status of the neighborhood into question. He noted that single-family development projects are typically considered to be "categorically exempt' under CEQA, and do not require analysis under CEQA. The City did not have information regarding the history of the neighborhood when prior projects were considered, with the exception of one CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 project for which information was submitted that was not brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and Community Development Director. This type of information could be submitted at any point in the development review process and trigger the need for CEQA analysis. He further described the difference between "discretionary" versus "ministerial" approvals; noting that CEQA only applies to discretionary actions. City Attorney Guinan introduced Attorney Anna Shimko, partner with the law firm of "Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson and Kawakami", who summarized her expertise in the areas of land -use and environmental law, and provided a presentation entitled "Historic Resources under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)". A copy of Ms. Shimko's presentation will be posted on the City web -site. Ms. Shimko responded to questions of the Commission during her presentation. Public comment: Nancy Dobson, 716 Burlingame Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Neil Dobson, 716 Burlingame Avenue; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Betsy McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; Paul Leininger, address not stated; Diane Condon-Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenue; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; and Rebecca Knudsen, 315 Occidental Avenue; spoke: ■ Can a seller decide not to sell to a developer or other individual? (Guinan — a property owner cannot discriminate in the sale of a property.) ■ Is the City going to tell property owners if they are on the list; can they go to the City to determine it? (Meeker — the information regarding the neighborhood is available for review at the Planning Division offices.) ■ Is the City condoning this; can a property owner cause this review? (Shimko — any individual can submit credible information to call a property's historic status into question.) ■ Can large/double lots contribute to the character of the district? (Shimko — if the character of an historic district includes the characteristic of large lots, then a request to subdivide a large lot into smaller parcels could potential be viewed as an impact upon a historic resource.) ■ Feels that the problem could have been handled by the Planning Commission. ■ A decision to look at the historic status of a neighborhood will put the neighborhood under the gun; better to continue with the status quo; look at properties on a case -by -case basis ■ Some of the most amazing historic buildings were removed by the City itself. ■ The Burlingame Historical Society is just a resource for information; it is not qualified to make a determination of historic significance. ■ It is important that the historic issue comes to a head; the City needs to abide by the law. ■ There is probably no money for a city-wide inventory. ■ A lot of information is available at the historical society. ■ Analysis of the historic status of a property is best left to a qualified architectural historian. ■ The City should conduct an inventory. ■ Having an historic designation on a property is not a liability; can have value. ■ It is important to get rid of the uncertainty regarding the historic status of properties. ■ Noted that 15 of 20 cities on the Peninsula have historic registries. ■ All of Burlingame is greater than 50-years old. • Indecision costs time and money. ■ She (Diane Condon-Wirgler) prepared the home history for 1540 Newlands Avenue. ■ The City should provide clear guidance by having an historic analysis prepared for the neighborhood. ■ Hopeful that the discussion will progress from negative terms; the community needs to recognize where we live. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 Other historic districts have nothing on the character of Burlingame. The presence of an inventory can be a tool for clarification; can provide opportunities for benefits and incentives. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend that the City Council authorized funding for an historic analysis of the "Burlingame Park" neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ Consultant should proceed in a manner so that community values are taken into account. ■ Asked if the consultant could be assigned to work with a community advisory committee? (Meeker/Shimko — not typically done; the State criteria for historic properties are the minimum criteria that can be applied to evaluations of properties.) ■ It would be valuable for the study to compare the neighborhood to other areas of the community that may also qualify as historic districts. ■ A determination regarding Burlingame Park as one of the oldest neighborhoods could help inform decisions regarding other neighborhoods. ■ Suggested that staff provide a link on the City web -site to the section of the proposed Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan that discusses incentives for historic properties. ■ Who determines eligibility of historic properties for "Mills Act" contracts? (Meeker— determined by the local agency; but must have a local preservation program in place.) Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed 7-0. The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. VII. STUDY ITEMS 2. 1340 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED SL — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT (FERENC PATAKI, APPLICANT; FOX INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER; AND LAM ENGINEERING, INC., ENGINEER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated November 9, 2009. Commission comments: Clarify why there will be more employees and customers on the property during the day. Why does the Police Department have purview? (Meeker— that department review and issues the locally required massage business permit.) Corrected reference in staff report to land -use designation; should be "Shoreline", not "Low -Density Residential". Bring back on consent. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. X. UPDATE ON THE ART SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT (moved from its position later on the agenda) 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 Commissioner Brownrigg provided an update of the art selection process for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement project. Three potential designs were presented. Mock-ups of each of the proposed designs will be prepared by the artists, and will be available for public viewing and comment; likely at the Burlingame Public Library. Final choice is likely to occur by February 2010. This item concluded at 9:16 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 3a was pulled for discussion by Commissioner Yie. 3a. 107 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID AND DIANNE WILLOUGHBY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 9, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Una Kinsella, 1033 Paloma Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ The architect's letter was unclear regarding the window choice, though window choice is shown on the plans. (Kinsella —will be wood windows, but unknown what the cladding material will be; could be aluminum, vinyl or other windows.) ■ Vinyl, even vinyl -clad windows are typically discouraged. ■ Aluminum powder coated windows will last forever; this is not true with vinyl clad windows. ■ Questioned the actual window choice; will likely be an aluminum clad window. ■ The Commission should specify that the windows will be non -vinyl clad. 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 amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 29, 2009, sheets A-1 through A-4 and L-1; E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 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 windows selected shall be wood -framed and shall not be vinyl, or vinyl clad in construction; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 28, 2009 and October 16, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's October 2, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 31, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's August 27, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 28, 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 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 1256 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NATALIE HYLAND, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; AND AZIZ AND SAIMAAHMAD, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 9, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Natalie Hyland, 585 Quarry Road, San Carlos; represented the applicant. Have made all changes requested; appreciated input from design review consultant. Provided samples of exterior finishing materials. Commission comments: ■ Likes the changes; important to provide a landscape plan. (Hyland — landscaping will be the same as the initial submittal.) ■ With respect to the interior layout, the location of the playroom could be problematic, being next to the dining room. ■ Regarding the termination of the stone on the south side; is it terminating at the door? (Hyland — added a half -wall near the side door that will also be covered in stone.) ■ Did they consider wrapping the stone around the back of the house rather than stopping at the half wall; seems arbitrary, would seem more logical. Perhaps drop it to the same elevation as the base of the building. The wall doesn't need to be 42-inches tall. ■ Is there a jog underneath where the second floor juts out? (Hyland — it is a cantilever.) Could organize it to be a step on each side from the door. ■ Likes the front elevation, particularly the leaded glass window that was brought from the rear of the house. ■ With respect to the site plan; has she thought how the fence will terminate at the garage; may wish to consider terminating the fence at the garage (no fence against the wall); would be a lot easier to maintain. ■ Regarding the chimney; did she consider bringing the stone down to the wainscot? (Hyland — attempting to stay on a budget with the stone.) ■ Assume that there will be gutters on the garage; will see them on the edges of each side. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 ■ Still disappointed in the size of the front porch; recommended an example of an open covered porch with reclaimed lumber; had very nice rafter tails. Need to draw the plan to accurately reflect the design. Include exposed rafter tails, flared out as shown in the illustration provided at the meeting. ■ There is an eleven foot ceiling height at the front door; would be another good place for a leaded glass window above the door. ■ Regarding the stone wrapping around to the side door; could consider pushing the rooms in a couple of inches to create a natural termination point. (Hyland — doesn't want to do any pop -outs that are insignificant; getting a lot of differing opinions on the stone, not sure who to listen to.) ■ The area in question will be quite some distance back on the property; will not be visible. ■ Termination of the stone at the wall is acceptable. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg 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 October 28, 2009, sheets Al through A7 and G1 and date stamped August 25, 2009, sheet L1.0; 2. that the project shall include simulated true divided lite aluminum clad wood windows; 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 Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the final design details for the front porch shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review as an FYI; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the City Arborist's November 2, 2009 memo, the Chief Building Official's August 6 and July 2, 2009 memos, the Fire Marshal's and City Engineer's July 20, 2009 memos and the NPDES Coordinator's July 21, 2009 memo shall be met; 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 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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 16. 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: Critical that the materials indicated are used. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:54 p.m. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 Commissioner Lindstrom indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the public hearing regarding Agenda Item 5 (808 Burlingame Avenue) since he has a business relationship with the owner of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 5. 808 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING EXEMPT FROM DESIGN REVIEW (CONNIE KNIVETON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOHN MATTHEWS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Jack Mathews, 335A East Fourth Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Was the non -conforming condition reduced somewhat? (Mathews — actually increased the non- conformity with the prior addition as well.) ■ How is the addition popping out, are there no braces, is it simply sticking out? (Mathews — there is a beam that will support it that is not visible.) ■ The 4:12 roof doesn't match the existing roof; have other solutions been considered? (Mathews — trying to avoid changes to the existing roof line. Is consistent with roof shapes. Would have been significantly higher.) ■ Clarified that the existing den is considered a bedroom. ■ Modest, minor addition. ■ The lot is substandard. Public comments: Nancy Dobson, 716 Burlingame Avenue; spoke: Supports the request submitted by her neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 1, 2009, sheets A-1.1, A-2.1, and A-3.1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the City Arborist's October 3, 2009 memo, the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's October 2, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 1, 2009 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Lot Coverage E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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 8. 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 Vistica. Discussion of motion: De minimus addition. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1. (Commissioner Lindstrom recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:07 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom returned to the dais. 6. 1199 BROADWAY #1, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO CHANGE FROM A LIMITED FOOD SERVICE TO A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING BUILDING (DAREN LOUCH, APPLICANT; GARBIS BEZDJIAN, PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOHN LUM, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 9, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 Clarified that a commercial kitchen causes the change in the restaurant classification. Clarified that a new parking variance is not required. If we are limiting restaurants, need to clarify what the threshold is for changing the type of restaurant. Nedal Elbarouki, 1199 Broadway, represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: • Familiar with the operational requirements for a full -service restaurant? (applicant — yes, aware.) ■ Increasing the level of restaurant service, and increasing sustainability. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue: How many seats does the restaurant have? Forty-five covers a day may not be sustainable; not a lot of cover; what type of turnover is anticipated? (Elbarouki — is certain he can increase the seating capacity; was an approximation.) 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 Department date stamped October 6, 2009, sheets A0.0 to Al. 1; 2. that all exterior venting and mechanical equipment required for this business shall be combined on the roof and not visible from the street; 3. that the parking variance shall only apply to this 1,104 SF tenant space and the food establishment use with 250 SF of on -site seating and shall become void if the tenant space or food establishment use is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 4. that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 250 SF of seating area, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the establishment, and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 5. that the 250 SF area of on -site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 6. that the full service food establishment may be open seven days a week, from, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with a maximum of five full-time and four part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 7. 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 II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 8. that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 9. that an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 10. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 11. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this Conditional Use Permit shall become void; 12. that seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 13. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 10, 2009, memo, the City Engineer's October 22, 2009, memo, the City Arborist's October 9, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 13, 2009, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's October 9, 2009, memo shall be met; and 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, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Is the best middle -eastern food around. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:21 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study items for discussion X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS The overview of the public art selection process for the Peninsula Hospital replacement project was moved to an earlier part of the agenda. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 9, 2009 Actions from Regular City Council meeting of November 2, 2008: ■ None. FYI: 1462 Burlingame Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review Project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1208 Bernal Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1775 Escalante Way — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 13