Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.10.28 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, October 28, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the October 28, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Davis Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Sargent to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 8; Item 4 (824 Linden Avenue); third paragraph; change “Eric” Gee to “Gary” Gee.  Page 8; Item 4 (824 Linden Avenue); third bullet under “Commission questions/comments”; last sentence; insert “the top of the door” between “line” and “it”.  Page 13; tenth bullet from the top of the page; last sentence; replace “Bu” with “But”.  Page 15; top of page; insert “This item is not appealable” before “This item concluded at 8:37 p.m.”  Page 15; fourth bullet from the bottom of the page; third sentence; replace “show” with “shown”.  Page 16; fifth bullet from the top of the page; first sentence; delete “not”.  Page 16; sixth bullet from the bottom of the page; delete “more” and revise last three words to read should be smaller”.  Page 23; sixth bullet from the top of the page; second line; insert “currently” between “is” and “a”.  Page 26; “Commission comments”; add an additional bullet that reads: “Also look at the noise coming from individual HVAC units.” Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Davis absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR  No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for review. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 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. 1317 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NATALIE HYLAND, HYLAND DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JENNIFER PANOS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 28, 2013 with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin, presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of Staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Natalie Hyland represented the applicant. Commission comments:  The design is much better. There is focus in the design and the proportions are much better.  With respect to the belly band, is it still stucco? (Hyland – is intended to be paint-grade wood.)  Agrees that the design is much improved.  May wish to revisit the rear trellis; the post looks a bit thin and the trellis members are a bit infrequent. (Hyland – will look at this item again during the final design.)  Appreciated the inclusion of the landscape plan.  The stucco columns could get washed out; perhaps consider some additional detailing. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 15, 2013, sheets A1 through A6, L1.0, L2.0, L2.5 and GB1; and that the belly band shall be paint-grade wood; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 3 or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 9, 2013 memo, the City Engineer's August 15, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 15, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's August 26 and July 11, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's August 26 and July 15, 2013 memos 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 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 4 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; 14. 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 15. 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:  Note that the belly band should be wood. The plans should indicate that the material will be wood. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Davis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (1445 Cortez Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 2. 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 All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones, Bandrapalli and DeMartini met with the applicant. Commissioner DeMartini also met with the neighbor. Reference staff report dated October 28, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Two (2) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Noted that there were three properties that were the subject of code enforcement relative to fence height. Will these other properties be brought forward as well? (Meeker – would need to confer with the project planner to determine the status of those properties.) Commissioner DeMartini opened the public hearing. Paul Broeker represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Feels that the applicant has made an effort to work with the neighbor and address his concerns. Ideally, the fence would be stepped down to conform to height. The excess height is at a limited location, he could have taken other steps that would have significantly changed the alley side appearance in order to conform to the code. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 5  Reducing the height to seven feet for half of the yard is approvable.  Is still a bit reluctant to exceed the allowable height. Believes that the purpose of the lattice on the top is intended to ensure privacy. Perhaps reduce the solid fence to six feet with the remainder being lattice.  Homes are only eight feet apart, so you will always be able to feel the presence of your neighbors.  Feels it is difficult to make the required findings for the exception. Cannot find that there are exceptional circumstances to warrant the exception, nor do the regulations create an undue hardship for the property.  If the applicant is required to reduce the height, then they would not be able to enjoy the full height that could be afforded on half of the lot.  Is willing to compromise and allow six feet of solid fence with the remaining portion to the height shown being lattice. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plan submitted to the Planning Department, sheet L1, date stamped October 17, 2013, with the exception that the solid area of the fence shall not exceed six-feet in height with the remainder of the increased height be of lattice construction; and 2. that if the fence is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the fence exception, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Commissioner DeMartini called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-1-1 (Commissioner Davis absent, Commissioner DeMartini dissenting, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 3. 60 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE (NEW INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY). (ANNE & HORACIO MATTA, APPLICANTS; SWATT MIERS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; RILCO-EDW ARDS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Sargent, Yie and DeMartini spoke with the architect. Reference staff report dated October 28, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-four (34) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 6 Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. George Miers, Anne Matta and Lance Fukushima represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Agrees that the south elevation is actually an improvement.  Is concerned about the west elevation; thinks the addition of the trees could be a better use of the space than additional parking.  Should the Commission take the opportunity to add more spaces since a parking space variance was granted? (Meeker – reminded the Commission that the parking analysis demonstrated a need for only 36 spaces. The original plan provided more spaces. Should take into account the de- intensification of the use with the current proposal.)  Could the applicant seek approval in the future to add the uses being deleted with the revised project? (Miers – the use is not intended to be a money-maker. Need to stay within the defined budget. With some major remodeling in the future, could likely convert the area over the locker rooms into another use.)  Given the changes to the design, should the gathering spot be shifted? (Miers – the entrance is in the same location, so it is believed that the gathering spot should remain in the same location.)  Is the new, two-story glass element intended to be the primary entry? (Miers – the element is intended as an emergency exit. Want people to enter and leave at the main entrance.)  Will there be a different employee count than initially intended? (Miers – will definitely be fewer staff given the reduction in uses.)  Was the opportunity for additional trees explored on the east elevation? Will the signage be placed in this area? (Miers – signage is intended to be on the north elevation. The same amount of landscaped area is provided on the east elevation. Because of the water retention area, additional parking and fire department turnaround, there is no significant area to add more landscaping in this area.)  Could more bike racks be provided within the new landscaped area? (Miers – could easily be provided if a number is specified.)  Would be concerned about encouraging biking in the area given that there are no bike lanes on Rollins Road. (Miers – integrated bike racks was provided along the north elevation. Could provide an additional bank of racks if requested. Would likely already add racks if the need is demonstrated in the future.)  The advantage to the uses that were removed from the second floor is that they provided observation areas. Where are spectators anticipated to congregate with the new plan? (Miers – observers can access the catwalk area. This area was retained as it accommodates an area for filming. There are also accessible areas for observation at the ends of the courts. The entire front of the building is grass and provides an additional area for spectators.)  Feels like the eye is drawn to the left as the entry point. (Miers – There is an overhang that provides visual cues to the main entrance. This element along with the parking, the plaza and other features will focus attention on the front entry.)  If there is confusion, signage could be added.  What is the applicant’s preference for the unused space? (Miers – would prefer landscaped area with the trees.) Public comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 7  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Likes the new design.  Would prefer to have the four red Oaks installed on the west façade. Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the indoor tennis facility shall be limited to 53,300 SF of commercial recreation space, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped April 2, 2013, sheets 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; and as amended by the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped October 9, 2013, sheets CS, L-1, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8. 2. that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed and maintained as shown on the Landscape Plan sheet L-1, date stamped October 9, 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 8 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; 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 9 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 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 10 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: 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 11 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 12 Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Davis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 860 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (AUDREY TSE, INSITE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBIN ALLISON CAVANAGH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 28, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Audrey Tse and Allison Cavanagh represented the applicant. Commission comments:  On page A2.1, detail 26; what is this item? (Tse – refers to the new five foot fence along the side that is intended to enclose the yard.)  On the right side elevation, is concerned that the design does not draw attention to the front door. (Tse – intend to pull the door forward for a bit more protection. The only steps approaching the house lead to the front entry.)  Have the plans been shown to the neighbors? (Cavanagh – no, didn’t understand that this was a requirement.)  There is currently a shed on the property; is it being removed? (Tse – it is intended to remain.)  With respect to the Japanese Maple tree, will it be removed? (Tse – will be relocated because it is affecting the porch.)  With respect to the right-side elevation, is having difficulty understanding the rooflines. There is a very tall gable end on the Edgehill Drive elevation. Is there something that could be done to minimize the impact of the addition? (Tse – could consider changing the slope of the roof to be something more similar to that on the kitchen, subject to the client’s concurrence.)  Agrees with comment regarding reducing roof pitch on the addition.  Feels like the office window with the arch by the entry should be the entry.  Does not believe that the arch on the second floor goes with the design. (Tse – is a carry-over from the element that was above the original entry.)  Did they consider having the gable over the office extend over the front door? (Tse – could consider. Has a problem with further emphasizing the front door.)  Will the fireplace remain wood-burning? (Tse – will change to a concealed insert.)  Requested clarification regarding fence heights in the front yard. (Hurin – clarified.)  Provide an illustration of how the windows on the project relate to the windows on the neighbor’s house.  Could a roof pitch change reduce the overall height? (Tse – it may reduce the height. Have met the declining height envelope. There is a driveway along the side of the house as well. Have designed the addition to provide the greatest relief to the neighbor.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 13  Encouraged meeting with the neighbor. Public comments: Rudy Horak spoke:  Next door neighbor to the applicant.  Has been an excellent neighbor.  She is enhancing the neighborhood with the addition. This is the second oldest neighborhood in the City.  Will improve property values.  The designer lives and practices in Burlingame as well; she is very sensitive to the community’s values. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Davis absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:43 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would need to recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5 (1153 Bernal Avenue) as he owns property within 500-feet of the site. He left the City Council Chambers. 5. 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING (WILLIAM PASHELINSKY, ARCHITECT; MAYA EYDELMAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 28, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Why is the alcove not considered to be a bedroom? (Hurin – wouldn’t matter with respect to the parking.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Alex and Maya Eydelman represented the applicant. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 14  Commended the applicant for considering an improvement to the front porch.  Feels that the entry element is too tall, or too narrow. Did they consider widening or lowering the height? (M. Eydelman – are keeping the entry the same width, there is nowhere to go.)  Feels that the height should be reduced in height to eliminate some of the white space above. (A. Eydelman – to what height?)  Consider reducing the height so that the peak of the entry roof peak is at the same level as the back of the shed roof element.  Appreciates that fact that the front windows are being replaced with better scaled windows.  The railing looks very utilitarian; consider something more substantial. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  This house is a poster child for why design review came to be in Burlingame. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action 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 Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Davis absent, Commissioner DeMartini recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:01 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of October 21, 2013:  None to report. FYI: 1512 Rollins Road – clarification of information requested for an approved Conditional Use Permit for automobile sales: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 28, 2013 15  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary