Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.09.09 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, September 9, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the September 9, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2013, with the following changes:  Page 6; eighth bullet from the top of page; change “to” to “about” following PG&E.  Page 8; vote on the motion for Item 4; change “approve” to “continue”.  Page 10; fourth bullet under Commission comments; change “show” to “require” at the beginning of the fourth line.  Page 11; first bullet at the top of page; change “epe” to “Ipe”.  Page 12; vote on the motion for Item 7; delete “Appeal procedures were advised”.  Page 14; vote on the motion for Item 8; delete “Appeal procedures were advised”. Motion passed 7-0-0-0 Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of August 26, 2013, with the following changes:  Page 2; tenth bullet under Commission comments and questions; delete first “close”.  Page 4; second bullet under Commission comments; revise to read: “As justification for the variance, the applicant stressed that work was done on the house previously with permits that did not trigger the need for a variance or anything else as the number of bedrooms did not increase.”  Page 5; fourth bullet from top of page; revise the first sentence to read: “If removing the washer and dryer, water heater and stairs meant the garage would comply, there would be less justification for requiring the variance.”  Page 12; second bullet under Comments; delete “this is a” and replace “it might” with “they may”.  Page 13; top of page; delete “other” from first line.  Page 15; vote on the motion for Item 8; delete “Consent” and replace with “Regular Action”. Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Yie abstained) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 2 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. 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. 1a. 1418 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GUERSE, GUERSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEAN MARIE LABONTE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Yie indicated that she would abstain from voting on the Consent Calendar item as she was not present at the study meeting for the item. Commissioner De Martini indicated he would abstain from voting on the item as he has a financial interest in a property within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Davis moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-0-2. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:09 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 1401 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JESSE GUERSE, GUERSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; M & H FOUNDATION, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners indicated they had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated September 9, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  How much space will be in the new garage? (Meeker – 10’ x 20’, the minimum required for such a space. Strohmeier – the uncovered space complies with commercial parking space sizes.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 3 Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Is the rear of the garage set back from the property line? (Geurse – is situated 2-inches from the property line.)  Is there a gutter on the rear of the roof line? (Geurse – yes.)  One of the neighbors indicates concerns regarding protection of the neighbor’s property during construction. (Jesse – will enclose area with a construction fence.)  Did this project begin as a remodel? (Jesse – Leaving the existing foundation and the existing floors for cost savings. Are also keeping the majority of the front wall that wraps around the side where the garage is located.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Substandard lot width limits the options for placement of the garage, and can still maintain the 20- feet measured from the back of the sidewalk.  Is making a non-compliant garage compliant – improving the condition.  Is a trade-off between the covered and the uncovered space, better to reduce the size of the uncovered space.  Are reusing portions of the existing home for the construction.  Even if the lot were scraped and all new, would still be very limited in the location for the garage. Commissioner Davis 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 July 22, 2013, sheets T.0, BMP.1, GB.1, GB.2, DM.1, A.3, A.5, A.6, G.1, AD.1 - AD.4 and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map and sheets A.1, A.2, A.4 and SP.1,date stamped August 26, 2013; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s June 24, 2013 memo, Building Division’s May 31 and July 10, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s June 4 and July 16, 2013 memos, the Fire Division’s June 3, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s June 3, 2013 memo, shall be met; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 4 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 5 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 Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Agenda Item 3 (2202 Summit Drive) as he owns property within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Terrones indicated he would recuse himself from the discussion as he has a business relationship with the neighboring property owner. Both Commissioners left the City Council Chambers. 3. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING (JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AMY GILLIS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners noted that they had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 9, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Jack Chu and Amy Gillis represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Overall a good design.  Seems like quite a few windows are being added, and some are being deleted. Why not install aluminum-clad wood windows? Noted that it would be a very simple change to make. Would bring continuity to the house. Would result in a much nicer house. (Gillis – have gotten a bid for replacing the other windows. Will accept a condition if desired.)  Appreciated the clarification regarding the height measurements.  The changes to the roof line seem appropriate.  Was the neighbor uphill contacted? (Gillis – have contacted the neighbors that are within view. No one had any concerns.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 6  On the Variance application, the exceptional/extraordinary circumstance references the measurement from Summit Drive. (Gillis – the extreme slope from the front creates the circumstance that warrants a variance. The existing structure exceeds the height limit.) Public comments:  None. Additional Commission comments:  Supports the variance due to the slope and size of the lot, the residence is not visible from the street. Unique piece of property. Are working with the existing structure.  The addition makes the home more compatible with the lot.  Doesn’t believe that too many neighbors are impacted.  Would also like to see the notation on the plans for the aluminum-clad wood windows. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 20, 2013, sheets A.0 through A.5 and date stamped August 30, 2013, sheets A.6 and A.7; and that all new windows shall be aluminum-clad wood windows; 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; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 31 and June 11, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's June 25, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 10, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's August 2 and June 14, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's August 1 and June 13, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 7 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, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. Commissioners Sargent and Terrones returned to the dais. 4. 1225 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE, DESIGN REVIEW, AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW, SIX-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (PRIMEVERE, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; EDI INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER All Commissioners indicated that they had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 9, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixty-seven (67) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 8 Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Seems silly for the lifts not to be high enough for a small SUV. (Gardiner – noted a reference in the staff report indicating that an additional 8-inches of height would be required. Mortazavi – this can be done.)  The garage height is 11-feet 1-inch? (Mortazavi – will accommodate vehicles like a small SUV.)  Feels that the lift height should be increased to the next level – will it impact the height of the building? (Mortazavi – can accommodate the additional height within the height limit.)  Agrees that the additional lift height should be accommodated.  With respect to the vegetable garden planter boxes; create every opportunity to accommodate the use of this feature. Refine the planter design to make them more user friendly; maybe add pavers around the boxes. (Mortazavi – can install a hose bib to permit irrigation.)  Good project.  On May 28th, discussed the lifts extensively, particularly the operation of the lifts. Is everyone comfortable with the lifts’ operation? (Mortazavi – is confident that there is no noise issue within the building. Doesn’t believe there will be a noise problem outside the building either. The garages are a much greater distance from the neighbors’ properties than would normally be the case. There is a 24-foot separation from the neighbors.)  How does the intercom system work – where is the intercom system, is it above the steps? (Mortazavi – the intercom is above the step on the left hand side. Accessibility is not required for townhouse style units.)  Was a sample of the tile provided? (Mortazavi – no.)  Provide a sample of the GFRC trim material as an FYI.  There is a lot of detail in the staff report regarding noise from the lifts. However, mitigation measure 16B – requires training to the original purchasers of the units. Clarify that the lifts are installed per manufacturer specifications during construction.  Some neighbors have complained about potential construction impacts – has this been addressed? (Mortazavi – must comply with the City’s construction regulations.)  Is bicycle parking required? (Gardiner – clarified that the condition applies to all projects within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Exceeds the requirement of the plan.)  Is there extra space for storage within the garage? (Gardiner – yes, required by the Downtown Specific Plan. Mortazavi – Provided space underneath the staircase.)  Create a more obvious path to the correct door for guests. Perhaps a wider stone path for the main entry with more of a landscape treatment for the secondary path. (Mortazavi – could make one less “comfortable” as a primary path.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 9 Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 10, 2013, sheets A-01 through A-10, L-1, and G-1, with the following modifications, details of which shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval as an FYI, prior to building permit issuance: a. The interior clearance height of the garages shall be increased to a minimum of 11’-8” measured from floor to ceiling in order to permit the parking of sport utility vehicles on the parking lifts.; b. The vegetable/garden planter boxes will be configured with clear access and walkable (i.e. surfaced with a material that allows ease of passage) pathways to allow access to each plot without disrupting plantings; c. The pedestrian entrance along the western (right) side of the property will be enhanced to emphasize pedestrian access with elements such as a wider pathway, seating, lighting, and/or landscape design features. d. Details of all exterior finishing materials, including roofing material, shall be provided and reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item. 2. 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; 3. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures throughout construction for all existing trees including the existing tree in the planter strip in front of the property; 4. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application; 5. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 65.26' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Floribunda Avenue (21.59') for a maximum height of 43’-7 7/8", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 23.60'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 24.68’; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 36.43'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 47.60’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official memos dated June 17, 2013; March 5, 2013; October 19, 2012; the Parks Division memos dated April 25, 2013; March 11, 2013; October 22, 2012; the City Engineer’s memos dated December 18, 2012 and September 4, 2013; the Fire CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 10 Marshal's memo dated October 29, 2013.; and the Stormwater Division memos dated May 1, 2013; March 14, 2013; October 22, 2013 shall be met; 8. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to establish the affordability of the one (1) below market rate unit required as a part of this project; the applicant shall also submit a below market rate housing plan which shall describe in detail the applicant's proposal for meeting the inclusionary housing requirements as required by Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; the applicant shall enter into an agreement with a third-party non-profit organization approved by the City to administer the program; 10. that the ‘service vehicle stall’ shall be marked on the service parking space and designated on the final map and plans, this stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 11. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service vehicle stall shall be reserved for service vehicles or guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 12. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 13. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 14. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 15. that any security gate system across the driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; 16. that the guest entrance gate shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 17. that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 18. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 19. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 11 system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 20. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 21. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 22. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 23. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 24. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 25. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 26. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 27. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 28. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 29. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 30. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 31. that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to the street as determined by the Public Works Department; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 12 32. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 33. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 34. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 35. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 36. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 37. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 38. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 39. 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; 40. 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; 41. 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 Aesthetics 42. The project sponsor shall be subject to the design review process to evaluate the aesthetics of the construction of a residential condominium in the Downtown Specific Plan R-3 District. Air Quality 43. During construction, the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 13 b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 44. The project sponsor shall implement the following GHG reduction measures during construction activities: a. Alternative-Fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment shall make up at least 15 percent of the fleet; b. Use at least 10 percent local building materials; and c. Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. 45. The project shall include a common facility for trash disposal, recycling, and composting as shown on the project plans date stamped July 10, 2013. 46. The project sponsor shall participate in all residential recycling and composting programs offered by the solid waste provider to multifamily residential customers. This shall include the composting program, currently offered as an optional service. Biological Resources 47. The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist. 48. That a certified arborist's report showing how the existing trees to remain will be protected during construction, to be approved by the Parks Department, shall be prepared prior to issuance of a CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 14 building permit; the approved tree protection plan shall be implemented prior to any construction on the site. 49. Construction under the Downtown Specific Plan shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 ft. of the nest, until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Cultural Resources 50. 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 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 15 Geology and Soils 53. 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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 54. That the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit. 55. That prior to demolition of the existing structures on the site, a survey shall be performed to determine if there is any presence of asbestos. The person who performs the survey must be Cal- OSHA certified. If asbestos is found, the BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be immediately notified and the applicant shall comply with asbestos removal requirements. Hydrology and Water Quality 56. 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: 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. 57. The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 16 58. The project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance. 59. That all surface storm water runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as adopted by the City of Burlingame. Noise 60. That all construction shall be done during the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays. 61. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, 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. 62. That the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping area. Transportation/Traffic 63. The project sponsor shall obtain approval for a Parking Variance for satisfying off-street parking requirements with parking lifts. 64. Klaus #26061-190 (or comparable) parking lifts shall be installed in the garage of each residential unit, with the following conditions: a. The parking lifts shall be properly illuminated to provide safety for easy loading and unloading, while not causing excessive glare. b. Sound absorption materials will be used to minimize any excessive noise from the operation of the parking lifts. c. Signage shall be installed in each garage explaining the proper use of the lifts and emergency contact information for lift maintenance or problems. d. The applicant shall be required to work with the manufacturer during construction to review issues related to installation of the parking lifts and to receive operational and safety training of the parking lifts. e. The final design of the parking lifts shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 17 65. A minimum of ten (10) parking spaces shall be permanently maintained on the same lot with the building. 66. At any time a minimum of three (3) residential units shall maintain operational parking lifts capable of accommodating two (2) passenger vehicles each. 67. Project sponsors shall provide adequate secure bicycle parking in the Plan Area at a minimum ratio of one bicycle spot for every 20 vehicle spots. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:12 p.m. 5. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED CAC – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY (PURE BARRE) WITH CLASSES (ALYSSA BOTHMAN, APPLICANT; MICHAEL NILMEYER, ARCHITECT; IAN PAGET, CORTINA INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 9, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer and Alyssa Bothman represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Re: the gate that closes automatically at 7 p.m. (Nilmeyer – there are still at grade parking spaces and street parking available.  Noted that the rear doors to the parking are locked.  Feels that the parking study is very helpful.  Justification for the variance based upon the use that is being sought.  Suggested having the employees park in the lower level garage. (Bothman – that is acceptable).  Great project. Applauded the applicant for bringing retail down into the area.  Encourage that they note to their clients that public parking is available across the street. Public comments: Nick Delis spoke: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 18  Is a landlord in the Downtown area.  Supports the applicant’s project.  Discussed having the use come to Primrose, but the site wasn’t of an appropriate size and parking was not adequate.  This is an ideal means of bringing retail to Chapin Avenue. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the group fitness instruction studio shall be limited to 2,119 SF of the existing commercial building at 1440 Chapin Avenue Suite #100, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped August 16, 2013, sheets CS 1.0 through A 1.2; 2. that employees for the business shall park behind the security gate in the parking lot; 3. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance shall apply only to a group fitness instruction studio and shall become void if the group fitness instruction studio ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 4. that all activities associated with the group fitness instruction studio shall occur indoor only; no portion of the exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the group fitness instruction studio; 5. that the group fitness instruction studio may only be open for business Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm and on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm; there shall be a maximum of two part-time employees on site at any time; 6. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 17 persons, including the part- time employees and clients; 7. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 15, 2013 and May 24, 2013 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s August 12, 2013 and May 28, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal’s May 28, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator’s May 29, 2013 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 19 11. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  Parking for the property is currently adequate. Observation shows that there is no deficiency. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Agenda Item 6 (1445 Cortez Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 6. 1445 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A FENCE THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT (KEVIN BURNS, MAXIMUM SERVICE LANDSCAPING, APPLICANT; PAUL BROEKER AND SHIRLEY LEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Terrones was unable to visit the property as no one was home. Commissioners De Martini and Gaul met with the neighbor on Cabrillo. All other Commissioners indicated that they had visited the property. Reference staff report dated September 9, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Two (2) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Paul Broeker and Kevin Burns represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Asked if the applicant had done work in Burlingame previously?  Was the taller fence ever discussed with the rear neighbor?  Were alternatives such as landscaping considered rather than just the fence? (Broeker – originally had Bamboo on the property, but needed to screen the area with landscaping as well.)  The applicant has agreed to finish the rear of the fence with Redwood boards to make it look like a more traditional fence. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Applicant is willing to make some concessions. If the neighbor were aware of the other modifications suggested, they may be amenable to the request.  Continue with direction to the applicant to work with neighbor to refine the design. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 20  Is opposed to taller fences, particularly on Cabrillo. What will prevent others currently building homes from requesting a taller fence? Not certain that even the consent of the neighbor will be convincing. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner De Martini. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent recused.) The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:56 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 2205 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES AND LORETTA STEPHENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES MCFALL, MCFALL ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners noted that they had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to note. Reference staff report dated September 9, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Is the property situated within the hillside area? (Meeker – yes.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. James McFall represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Will the new windows match the existing windows? (McFall – existing are wood windows with divided lights. Is noted on the plans.)  Doesn’t see a problem with the continuation of the side setback that currently exists.  Removal of the deck is a mitigating factor as it enhances the neighbors’ property.  Is the roof deck used much? Will the master bedroom be more useable? (McFall – the deck is not used and is a potential water problem. Removal of the deck allows more flexibility in the first floor family room ceiling height.) Public comments:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 21 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.  Design integrated well and is a continuation of an existing setback.  The creek located in the rear of the property impacts the flexibility to place an addition on the property.  The additions are pretty de minimus. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a 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 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8 (1433 Floribunda Avenue) as he owns property within 500-feet of the site. He left the City Council Chambers. 8. 1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY, 10- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (IRIS2 LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners indicated that they had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 9, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Toby Levy represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Understands the argument for the variance given the width of the lot.  There isn’t enough street parking in the area.  With new construction there ought to be a solution that can allow the delivery space to be provided.  Why is the Fire Marshal not allowing the lobby at the front of the building?  Concerned that the front elevation is lifeless. Most other projects in the area have a lobby in the front.  Something needs to happen to the design. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 22  What are the raised platforms in the rear yard? (Levy – intended to provide an opportunity for sitting.)  Encouraged working vegetable garden opportunities into the space.  Noted that the BMR unit is the only one that doesn’t have two full bathrooms. Is there a way to make it a full two bath? Is the worst unit in the building. (Levy – will explore addressing this concern.)  Need to provide some form of screening for the mechanical equipment.  Feels the design would be more appropriate in the Trousdale area. (Levy – picking up on the mid- century modern theme. Cutting the building back has resulted in a reduced area for mechanical equipment which leads to having few opportunities for screening. The Oaks would need to be cut off where they have a week point in order to allow them to be salvageable.)  If you walk down the street, the trees are visible from a significant distance. Is there another design solution that could preserve the trees?  Likes that the top floor has been stepped back.  There needs to be human scale and a prominent entry at the front.  If the total unit count were reduced, then could provide an off-street delivery space.  The front design is more vehicle oriented, but the neighborhood is very pedestrian oriented.  Difficulty with the variance since the developer is proposing a density that is greater than what is presently on the property. (Levy – since Public Works doesn’t allow the curb-cut for the delivery vehicle, the trucks would be required to enter into the subterranean parking area.  Show the alternatives for the Commission to consider what the impacts upon the design would be. Public comments: Therese and John Finnegan, spoke:  How will the project impact their property as it is located behind them?  Because the parking is underground and going to the property line, there will be no setback for the parking spaces; five will run to the property line. What impact will there be from the construction?  The rear fence is to be a six foot fence; currently a twenty foot fence between their cottage and the rear cottage that is to be removed. Their privacy will be impacted with the removal of the fence between the properties.  There is a large tree at the rear of the property near an electrical pole that could be impacted.  The 20-foot rear setback will impact their property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Community Development Director noted that no action is required on this item as the review was for Design Review Study as well as Environmental Scoping. The item will be placed on the Regular Action Calendar once modifications are made and the environmental analysis is complete. This item concluded at 9:54 p.m. 9. 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP (KEN RODRIGUES, KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JIM HANNAY, RECTOR MOTORS CAR CO., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner De Martini noted that he had met with the applicant. Reference staff report dated September 9, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 23 Questions of Staff:  How many other parking variances have been granted in the vicinity of this project? Impacts of such variances are cumulative. (Strohmeier – analyzed the impacts on a site basis and on the basis of the entire block. The only other use in the area is North Park Apartments.) In the future would be helpful to take into account other variances that have been granted in the area.  Could still have granted many variances, but still have plenty of parking. (Meeker – understands the concern, but not certain how it applies in this instance as the entire site provides adequate parking. The variance is only requested because the parking is distributed across multiple properties that constitute the site. Strohmeier – the applicant has long-term leases for all of the properties on the block and will be making improvements to circulation and parking.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Kenneth Rodrigues and Jim Hannay represented the applicant. Commission comments:  The upgrades to the façade are great.  Is there a means of including a condition to address cross-parking on the block? Also concerned that if the applicant loses control of a property, then the parking could become substandard. (Meeker – is common under these circumstances to include a condition requiring cross-parking easements. Cited the example of Burlingame Plaza, where there are easements across multiple parcels for parking purposes. Strohmeier – noted that there are a total of 24 additional spaces available on an adjacent property owned by Rector. Rodrigues – are attempting to hold all vehicles on site; other dealerships may have inventory stored elsewhere. Kane – can require cross easements that guarantee the availability of parking.)  Need to look at the site as a whole.  Has no issue with the parking variance.  Expressed concern that the design is appropriate for places like Southern California, but may not be appropriate on Broadway. Is there another building in the area with a similar finish? What will be the actual color of the finishing material? (Rodrigues – the color is as represented on the sample provided. Cannot deviate from the material as it is required by Audi corporate. The design provides an extensive amount of glass that doesn’t currently exist and will improve the pedestrian character of the site. Are making significant structural modifications in order to improve the site. Have come up with a great solution that marries City requirements with the Audi corporate requirements. Pacific Audi in Torrance is the closest location with a similar design. Hannay – noted that the design cannot be deviated from and that construction must commence by December 2013 or funding will be compromised.)  Noted some variation in the appearance of the actual material and the rendering; shadows create an effect. (Rodrigues – this will occur due to the honeycomb pattern. Meeker – suggested providing high-definition photos of an existing project as no one will be traveling to Southern California to see an example.)  Feels the exterior finish is gorgeous. It has an organic quality about it.  Has no problem with the parking variance.  Has always been bothered by the Broadway elevation of the property. This is the gateway to the North Rollins Road area.  Reminded the Commission that there are three gas stations within a block of the site. This will be a significant improvement. (Rodrigues – had no idea of the quality of the Broadway overpass CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 24 improvements. That will also contribute to the attractiveness of the area. Would be surprised if the gas stations will remain following such significant improvements to the area.)  Excited about the improvements. Public comments:  None. 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 Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a 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 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:23 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 September 3, 2013:  None to report. FYI: 1800 Trousdale Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  The item was pulled for a future public hearing. FYI: 2828 Hillside Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. FYI: 1032 Cortez Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 9, 2013 25 FYI: 2208 Hillside Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. FYI: 1310 Columbus Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary