Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.07.22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, July 22, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the July 22, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, Gaul, and Yie Absent: Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Civil Engineer Doug Bell; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Approval of the July 8, 2013 minutes was deferred until the August 12, 2013 regular meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Gaul noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5 (1341 Paloma Avenue) due to a professional relationship with the property owner. Given that his recusal resulted in a lack of a quorum, it was announced that the item would be deferred to the next regular meeting on August 12, 2013. V. FROM THE FLOOR Unidentified individual spoke:  Noted that the project plans for Planning Commission agenda items are not posted on the City website. (Meeker/Hurin – clarified that only the staff reports are posted on the site. Plans are available for review in the offices of the Planning Division.) VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 2 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. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1442 AND 1460 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE IN AN EXISTING PARKING AREA (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; CATHY NILMEYER, ARCHITECT; WURLITZER TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (45 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA; VARIANCE NOT REQUIRED PER CS 25.70.090) Community Development Director Meeker noted that this item was removed from the agenda because it was determined that the variance was unnecessary. 2. 60 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY. (ANNE & HORACIO MATTA, APPLICANTS; SWATT MIERS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; RILCO-EDWARDS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated July 22, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-four (34) conditions were suggested for consideration. Community Development Director Meeker described the applicant’s request for a waiver of development impact fees, and provided his recommendations relative to this request. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. John Ward, Horacio Matta, George Miers (project architect), and Gary Black (Hexagon Transportation Engineers) represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Wondered if a second outdoor seating area could be provided near the fire truck turnaround. (Miers – have considered this arrangement, but the area is part of the stormwater runoff system, it would be difficult to place tables and seating in the area.)  Likes the fact that the seating is placed in the front of the building. There is some area on the exterior at the front that could be used for exercise stations such as a “paracourse.” (Miers/Matta – Could use the area as a warm-up area prior to playing a match.)  Likes the landscape plan. This is going to bring a lot of value to the community.  The changes made are good. The outdoor courtyard activates the space. (Miers – given that a large portion of the clientele are children, the courtyard area was provided.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 3  Will there only be four staff on site at a time? (Matta – Will normally have three or four coaches, plus a manager on the site at any given time. Meeker – noted that condition 6 may need to be revised to a maximum of 74-75 individuals on the property at any time.)  Feels the mitigated negative declaration is supportable.  Agrees with the Director’s determination regarding the fee reduction.  If there was a situation with overflow parking, where would they be parked? (Black – there is street parking in the area. Didn’t believe that they would even come close to exceeding parking on site.) Public comments: Unidentified individual and Ken Robinson spoke:  Has worked with the Mattas for many years.  They have been supporting a program in East Palo Alto for many years, and they have a track record of supporting the community.  Mattas have helped on the courts as coaches.  The Mattas have been instrumental in providing support for improvement of the programs in East Palo Alto.  Support doing the best with the kids.  Has had private instruction at private clubs over his tennis playing experience.  World class instruction with world-class pros will be at the facility.  Will be able to play tennis year round.  Tennis is a game for life; provides opportunities to meet people from all walks of life.  Suggested approval. Additional Commission comments:  Will be a great facility.  How will the café be advertised? (Meeker – Will not be allowed to advertise the café as a free- standing use; it is part of the tennis facility.)  Storage of construction materials – encouraged construction staging on the site during the construction process. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City Attorney Kane asked the Commissioners to confirm the adequacy of the findings in the staff report, and additionally she encouraged adopting separate resolutions for CEQA and the project entitlements. Review and make the findings for the variance as well. Further Commission comments:  The project will be improving runoff in the area.  With respect to the CEQA evaluation – given the occupancy of usage of the facility, there will be adequate parking for the use.  The design is good, it will be a great addition to the community.  Lighting concerns will not be an issue based upon the evaluation.  Noise analysis also shows that there will not be an impact.  The conditional use permit for the height is supportable due to the volume of space needed for the use; there will not be a second story involved.  Agrees with the approach regarding the trail; the design accommodates the future construction of the trail when warranted. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 4 Commissioner Yie made a motion to adopt a resolution declaring the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and that, subject to conditions of approval and mitigation measures, implementation of the project will not result in a significant impact upon the environment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of the motion:  Add language to condition 11 reinforcing that all construction materials and staging be kept on the site.  Clarified that the maximum number of people on the site should be clarified as 75, regardless of whether they are staff or visitors. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the CEQA resolution. The motion passed 4- 0-3-0 (Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones absent). Motion by Commissioner Yie to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the indoor tennis facility shall be limited to 62,985 SF of commercial recreation space, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 12, 2013, sheets CS, A-1, A-6, A-8 and L-1; and date stamped April 2, 2013, sheets A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, C-1.1, C-2.1, C- 3.1, C-4.1, C-5.1, C-5.2, C-6.1, C-6.2, C-6.3, C-6.4, C-6.5, ER-1, ER-2, SW -1, SU1, SU2 and SU3; 2. that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed and maintained as shown on the Landscape Plan sheet L-1, date stamped April 2, 2013; 3. that fencing shall be installed along the western property line (adjacent to 25 Edwards Court and 1400 Marsten Road) as shown on the diagram date stamped June 13, 2013; 4. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variances shall apply only to an indoor tennis facility and shall become void if the indoor tennis facility ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 5. that all activities associated with the tennis facility shall occur indoor only; no portion of the exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the indoor tennis facility; 6. that the indoor tennis facility shall only be open seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, with a maximum of 75 people on-site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers; 7. that tournaments shall be hosted a maximum of twelve times a year, that the tennis facility will be closed to the general public during tournament days, that each tournament would start on Saturday and run from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and would continue on Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and that the starting times for matches would be staggered so there would be a 90-minute break from conclusion of one match and the start of a subsequent match; 8. that the café may be open to the general public but shall not be advertised with signage on site, nor advertised in any media; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 5 9. 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; 10. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s April 25, 2013 and February 25, 2013 memos, Chief Building Official's April 10, 2013, April 4, 2013 and February 28, 2013 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s April 4, 2013 and February 28, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal’s February 25, 2013 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator’s April 12, 2013 and March 4, 2013 memos shall be met; 11. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited, and that all construction staging shall be conducted on site; 12. 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; 13. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Impact fee in the amount of $11,022.38, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 14. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Impact fee in the amount of $11,022.37, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 15. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $15,431.33, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 16. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $15,431.33, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 17. that demolition or removal of the existing paving and 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; 18. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 19. 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; 20. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 6 The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 21. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 22. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 23. 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; 24. 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; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Air Quality 25. During construction, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement the following measures required as part of BAAQMD’s basic and enhanced dust control procedures required for all construction sites. These include: a. Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. f. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Cultural Resources 26. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 7 notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out; 27. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame; 28. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered; Geology and Soils 29. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations performed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from the engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction. Hydrology and Water Quality 30. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 8 a. A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b. Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; c. Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; d. Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and e. The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. 31. The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post-construction treatment and control of storm water runoff from the site. Post-construction treatment measures must be designed, installed and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-construction stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection. Noise 32. The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). b. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. Transportation/Traffic 33. Tournaments shall be limited to no more than 12 tournaments per year, consisting of two-day tournaments on up to one weekend per month. There shall be a 90-minute break between the end of one round of matches and the beginning of the next round of matches. 34. The project sponsor shall obtain approval for a Parking Variance for providing 48 off-street parking spaces on the subject site where 299 spaces are required based on the findings of the parking study done as a part of the Broadway Tennis Center Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants dated June 5, 2013. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 9 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  Requested that if the applicant does determine a location for an outdoor seating area that the information be provided to the Commission as an FYI. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 3. 122 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DE NGUYEN, THE DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MR. & MRS. COSTAGLIO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated July 22, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public comment period. De Nguyen represented the applicant:  Are attempting to redefine the home as Craftsman-style.  Are keeping the existing one-story wall at the front that is at a substandard setback in order to provide a greater setback at the rear.  The two story element will be pushed back on the lot to provide less mass on the structure. Commission comments:  Expressed concern regarding the retention of the existing front wall; what will happen if the wall ends up being removed during construction? (Meeker – noted that if the wall is removed, then the project must be returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. A notation has been provided on the plans to this effect; a similar condition would be included in proposed conditions of approval.)  Remembers a similar situation elsewhere in the City; should the project have returned to the Commission? (Meeker – yes, though if staff wasn’t made aware of the situation if could be missed.)  Doesn’t look like the existing wall will last long – he was able to push his pen through the wall when visiting the site. (Nguyen – will reinforce the existing wall and footings if needed during the construction so that it can remain as it is.)  The existing wall will be stripped down to studs during the construction – it could be rotted and require removal. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 10  Why is the setback being measured to the existing bay window? (Hurin – the setback is measured to the existing wall that is proposed to remain.)  Why is a two car garage being provided? Seems like it is eating into the yard area. (Nguyen – client requested it.)  The applicant needs to understand that there will likely be a condition of approval to require the project to be revisited if the existing wall is removed. It would likely be easier to begin with a clean slate. (Meeker – if the wall is removed, then the applicant would need to request a variance. It is unclear whether or not findings for a variance for a new wall could be met, so the project may need to be revised to comply with the setback.)  Asked if a bay window that doesn’t extend to the ground would still be counted in the setback? (Hurin – yes.)  Noted that the roof structure over the bay window is to be revised from a flat roof to a gabled roof.  Page A.1 – shows hip roof on site plan, but it is a gable on the elevation.  In general, the massing is being handled well.  May wish to spend more time on the detailing, particularly header trim around the windows seems exaggerated and may not be necessary.  Feels like there is not a consistent proportion with the window pattern.  Expressed concern regarding the six by six column elements on the front porch – could be spaced too closely and may be difficult to maintain – a more substantial column may be better, or space them out more. Look at details that are more typical of the Craftsman style.  Noted that there are some awkward interior elements – should consult an interior designer, as there could be some floor plan changes that may change the massing of the structure.  Clarify the dimensions of the design elements on the exterior – thickness as well as width.  Referenced other examples of material massing that could be helpful.  A.2 – the master bedroom window will look down onto a roof – look at detailing in this area.  On page A.5 it appears that the roof adjacent to the balcony on the rear is not proportioned correctly.  Window notation – specify that will be wood windows with aluminum cladding will be used on both the home and garage – be consistent.  Noted the direct vent fireplace – would like to see the vent for the fireplace run all the way up rather than out the side of the house.  Regarding storm water runoff notation – planning to save rainwater? (Nguyen – will consider.)  Noted that the floor drains in the garage cannot be drained to the sanitary sewer.  Noted other possible errors in the storm water checklist.  Noted concerns expressed by neighbors. (Nguyen – has met with neighbors and they are ok with plans now.) Public comments: Dennis Wong, 121 Channing Road; spoke:  The second floor deck appears to be looking directly into his rear yard – will impact his privacy.  The plans show the Plum tree being retained – is this correct? (Nguyen – correct. Meeker – suggested that applicant meet with Wong to address his concerns.) Additional Commission comments:  Main concern is with front wall. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Calendar when complete. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 11 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 4. 1521 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING W ITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER; ANGUS GAVIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioners Bandrapalli, Gaul and Davis noted that they had spoken with neighbors to the project. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated July 22, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public comment period. James Chu and Angus Gavin represented the applicant.  Is a spec home on a very unusual lot.  Are proposing to remove the existing guest house and replace the existing single-story home with a two story home, with an attached two car garage.  The garage was kept at the location because the Fire Department would require an equipment turnaround on the property if it was placed further back on the property – this would render the project infeasible. Commission comments:  Is the proposed garage wall location where it currently lies? (Chu – yes. The owners are able to get in and out of the garage currently.)  Is the tree healthy? (Chu/Gavin – have designed the landscape plan to provide adequate nutrients to the tree.)  The recommendations in the arborist report should be included in any conditions of approval. Clarified that the Oak trees are to remain on the site. (Chu/Gavin – will take appropriate measures to protect tree roots.)  Will it be possible to build a new guest house on the property in the future? (Meeker – yes, would be limited to 640 square feet. Chu – would be difficult given the presence of the creek and required setbacks. Gavin – no plans to build anything else on the property.)  The front porch doesn’t look large enough for the house – suggested wrapping the porch around the side to create an outdoor sitting area.  Consider having the dining room open out to the creek. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 12  Noted the letter from the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue – suggested meeting with the neighbors. (Chu/Gavin – the stairway windows are not likely to affect privacy. Will look at the window in bedroom four. The sunlight comes over the rear of the house. Have removed several windows and a balcony to ensure the privacy of the neighbors behind. Still need light to come in from that side of the home. Has spoken with the neighbor regarding some of the concerns. Can perhaps look at fast growing evergreen plant materials.)  Suggested perhaps a leaded glass window or some other type of glass to obscure views to the neighbors while still preserving light.  Perhaps add a trellis on the garage façade below the eave.  Would look better to have two separate garage doors. (Gavin – originally considered having the garage facing the creek, but there is not enough room. Two garage doors will not be workable given the presence of the Oak tree. Is a difficult driveway to turn around in.)  Given the circumstances, the single door is acceptable.  Spoke to the neighbor at the front regarding driveway access. Encouraged getting the trucks off of the street during construction.  The concrete driveway will likely be pretty deteriorated by the time the construction is completed. (Gavin – will do everything possible to ensure that the driveway is in good condition when the project is completed.) Public comments: Frank and Linda Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue; John Maccabe, 1523 Cabrillo Avenue; Chris McCrumb, Drake Avenue; and Pam Kaufman, Cabrillo Avenue:  Enjoy a lot of privacy currently; the home will block their views.  Have asked the builder to obscure the windows from the bedroom that creates the greatest impact upon privacy on their deck.  Encouraged plantings that may provide more privacy.  Fifteen feet of shrubbery will not block the light of the house. (Commissioner – the property owner has the right to plant on their side of the property as well.)  Feels that any issues regarding impacts upon neighbor’s driveway can be worked out with the builder.  Likely that the trucks will deteriorate the driveway.  The Oak tree is in serious need of pruning – assumes that there can be a condition requiring pruning. (Commissioner – cable and phone lines run through the Oak tree as well.)  Assumes that a future owner may wish to place a new guest house on the property – want to be notified. (Commissioner – what are the pipes crossing the creek? Gavin – sewer lines.)  Sewage has seeped into the creek previously.  Suggestions regarding leaded glass or other obscured glass and shrubbery will also provide privacy to his property, and the neighbors could implement these measures on their own properties to mitigate the issues as well.  Accommodation needs to be made given the significant changes being made to the property.  Highlighted the traffic and circulation issues due to the school in the area. It is critical that all of the construction vehicles not be on the street. They must also arrive and leave outside of school hours.  Has concern regarding the size of the house and the fact that the street was never intended for the density of homes. Additional Commission comments:  With respect to bedroom four, consider providing transom windows. Also consider eliminating the windows in the closets. Could provide a skylight in the hallway and/or bedrooms to provide more CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 13 light. (Gavin – have considered the skylight idea – is an added expense, plus the ongoing maintenance. The skylights would almost be too high to receive light. Chu – will look into the ideas expressed.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 5. 1341 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARCO CAVALIERI, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Due to Commissioner Gaul’s recusal from participating in the discussion regarding this item, which resulted in the lack of a quorum of members to participate; it was recommended that this item be continued until the August 12, 2013 regular meeting. Commissioner Davis moved to continue the item until the regular meeting of August 12, 2013. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Terrones, Sargent and DeMartini absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. 6. 1109 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANDREW PECEIMER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioners Bandrapalli, Yie and Gaul spoke with neighbors to the project. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated July 22, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  There is a big open area by the family room; it seems like it would be easy to convert it to a bedroom. (Hurin – isn’t currently counted as a bedroom, but could be converted in the future, though parking would then be substandard.)  Is the uncovered parking space adequate? (Hurin – for existing homes, the measurement of depth for the parking space is to the inner edge of the sidewalk; the space meets the requirement of 20 feet.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 14 Vice-Chair Davis opened the public comment period. Andrew Peceimer and Hector Estipona represented the applicant.  The downstairs bathroom will be eliminated.  Was not made aware of the inadequate garage space when the home was acquired and when past improvements were made to the property.  The variance is needed for the garage because the number of bedrooms is increasing.  Most people in the neighborhood use their driveways for parking.  The street is not busy; there is no problem with parking.  Existing large street tree blocks the view of the house.  The house is eleven feet from the adjoining neighbor; this setback will help to alleviate impacts upon neighbors.  The second floor is significantly set back from the neighbors.  No plans to change the landscaping at the front of the house.  The neighbors have commented that trees that have recently been planted have protected privacy.  Have two children that share their bedroom; would like to provide them with private bedrooms.  There is a lack of storage in the house.  The neighbor’s patio area is about twenty feet deep; he feels there will be little affect upon light into this area; the neighbor could plant a tree if privacy is a concern. Commission comments:  Generally don’t prefer vinyl windows – how old are the existing vinyl windows? May be better to replace all of the windows in the house. (Peceimer – they are about ten years old.)  Suggested going to wood windows on the second floor, but replace the windows on the front to create a cohesive appearance from the street. (Peceimer – would prefer not to have mismatched windows. Has already upgraded the property quite a bit.)  Would be worth exploring wood windows. Most vinyl windows from the past have a cheap look – prefer more substantial windows. May be able to find deals on the wood windows. (Peceimer – would prefer not to replace the windows due to the added cost.)  Likes the existing brick chimney – consider adding stone to the extended chimney rather than the proposed stucco finish. (Peceimer – doesn’t know what the designer proposed.)  A neighbor noted that the street does get pretty packed with cars once everyone returns home at the end of the day. Has a problem with the variance – could the stairs be eliminated to provide additional depth for the parking space, with only exterior garage access. (Peceimer – the washer and dryer are also located within the garage.) Perhaps look at placing the laundry room on the second floor. (Peceimer – are trying to utilize as much space upstairs as possible. Was told that there was no issue with the garage when the home was purchased and when the kitchen was remodeled.)  Parking is not considered for a kitchen remodel – need to make an effort to mitigate the variance. (Peceimer – are not bringing additional people onto the property. Basketball courts and a skateboard ramp on the street take parking away. Doesn’t feel that he will be adding to the parking problem.)  Where is the furnace? (Peceimer – under the house.)  If the stairs are removed, then it reduces the functionality of getting into the garage. Could alter the interior to accommodate an extended garage.  Should work with the designer to determine how much of the first floor will be disrupted to accommodate the second floor.  Encouraged relocating the water heater to provide more depth for the garage. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 15  Could revise the first floor plan near the breakfast nook to come up with additional length for the garage. (Peceimer – are trying to fit into the neighborhood.)  Feels that the substandard lot size, the existing garage condition and retention of the existing structure support the variance. Public comments: Stephen Smith, 1113 Clovelly Lane and Tom Niland, 1122 Clovelly Lane spoke:  Appreciates the applicant’s sensitivity to the privacy issues.  Have just completed a remodel to the kitchen on his property, including window replacement.  The living space is oriented to the courtyard that faces the Peceimer property – this addition will replace the sky view and distant tree views that they currently have. Dismayed, but understands the needs of a growing family.  Requests consideration of non-transparent windows in the area facing the courtyard. (Commissioner – spoke with the neighbor regarding the windows and made note of the window in the closet, perhaps it could be removed.)  Will be a great addition to the neighborhood.  Would like to see more two story homes brought to the neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Terrones, Sargent and DeMartini absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None Actions from Regular City Council meeting of July 15, 2013:  None (meeting was canceled). FYI: 1552 Vancouver Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 22, 2013 16  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary