Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.06.09 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, June 9, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the June 9, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Sargent Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the May 27, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:  Page 3; “Community Needs Assessment”; second bullet from top of page; change $176 million to $76 million.  Page 3; Item 4; first paragraph; note that Commissioner DeMartini also spoke to the applicant.  Page 10; add a bullet before “Public comments” as follows: “The ceiling height of the office area is ten feet, not eleven feet, as noted by the neighbor.  Page 10; third bullet from top of page; first line; add “additional” between “one” and “thing”.  Page 17; motion regarding approval of the “Mitigated Negative Declaration”; add “Appeal procedures were advised” at the end of the paragraph.  Page 7; “Commission questions/comments”; second bullet; last sentence; revised to read: “The second floor addition is centered on the lot”.  Page 34; “Commission comments/questions”; first bullet; change “being” to “be”.  Page 36; FYI for 1378 De Soto Avenue; noted that the item was “continued” not “accepted”. Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 2 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 215 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OFFICE AND BATHROOM IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. (LUIS BARBOSA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; WENBAO WANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated June 9, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report. Commission comments:  Is a conditional use permit required even if the window doesn’t face the neighbor? (Meeker – yes, it is required for any window within ten feet of the property line, regardless of orientation.)  Could the office space be converted to a secondary unit? (Meeker – will review against criteria for new secondary dwelling units to determine if this is possible.)  Need to provide a better description in the application that only implies use as an office. Will need to condition the approval to ensure that the garage is used as intended for parking.  What were the details of the code enforcement complaint? The response letter notes that the current owner bought the house after the work was completed. Clarify if this was the case.  Was there any indication of a use other than office on the site?  W as the initial code enforcement complaint filed before or after the current owner acquired the property? (Meeker – will clarify this). This item will be set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 305-371 PRIMROSE ROAD/1401-1403 CHAPIN AVENUE AND 401-411 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED BAC – PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND-USE CHAPTER OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 305-371 PRIMROSE ROAD/1401-1403 CHAPIN AVENUE FROM BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) TO DONNELLY AVENUE COMMERCIAL (DAC), AND TO REZONE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 401-411 PRIMROSE ROAD FROM BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) TO CHAPIN AVENUE COMMERCIAL (CAC) CONTACT: BILL MEEKER All Commissioners had visited the properties. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated June 9, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker, presented the report. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 3 Questions of staff:  Will the parcels being rezoned from BAC to DAC be subject to the food establishment limitations imposed upon properties in the BAC zone? (Meeker – no, there are no restrictions upon the type or number of food establishment uses under the DAC zoning.)  What is the vacancy rate in the area? (Meeker – not certain, but relatively high. Some spaces have been vacant for several years.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Public comments: Kirk Syme, 330 Primrose Road; spoke:  Has worked with the City to reposition the uses in his building at 329 Primrose Road.  Have tried to secure retail or restaurant users on the first floor for the past four years.  Everything across the street is office usage.  Fully supports the zoning change as presented by staff. Commission comments:  Is the primary interest in offering the spaces for office or commercial recreation use? (Syme – simply wants the option for either.)  Would completion of capital improvements (e.g. streetscape improvements) on the side streets help the site become attractive for retail use? (Syme – is supportive of such investment. It could help the block.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Is the Commission’s action to recommend to the City Council? (Meeker – yes.)  Did walk the Primrose block, it is a tough retail site.  The building next to David’s Tea could use some landlord investment to make it appear more tenantable.  There are a couple of spaces on Primrose that are already office uses. Doesn’t want it to become like the AT&T building on Burlingame Avenue.  Would rather see office workers than nobody.  There have been several land uses approved for the space behind David’s Tea.  Have had four years to see how the plan has worked for the area; it may be advisable to make revisions.  Would office uses require a conditional use permit? (Meeker – no. The area is quite different in character from the side streets that lead to Howard Avenue. This section of Primrose leads only into a residential neighborhood, not another commercial area and tends to lack vitality needed for retail uses.) Commissioner Terrones moved to adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission, recommending to the City Council, approval of the proposed rezoning and determining that the environmental analysis prepared for the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan serves as the environmental analysis for the proposed rezoning. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 4 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gum. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Item 3 as he resides within 500-feet of the property in question. He left the City Council Chambers. 3. 1529 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVEN CROOKS AND HELEN MIRANDA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated June 9, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant.  Reviewed project changes.  Most homes he represents nowadays are being designed for clients and are not spec homes.  The design minimizes visual impacts of the standing seam roof. Commission comments:  No problem with the metal roof that is proposed. Can’t restrict solar panel installation – this type of roof is more amenable to that type of installation.  Perhaps add another material around the tower given the large amount of stucco, and to draw attention to the entry. (Grange – has considered it, but it appeared like two different houses stuck together.)  Likes that a door has been provided at the dining room  Are one-inch low-profile ribs on the metal roofing proposed? (Grange – yes.)  No issue with the type of roof proposed.  Had previously requested that the plant material under the tree in the front be changed. However, instead it was changed under the rear tree. (Grange – will look at it.)  Concerned about pumping a lot of water to the street. Has analysis been done? (Grange – not sure if water table will be reached, but will be reviewed by the soils engineer during construction.)  Likes the house, but is concerned about the roof – doesn’t like it.  Doesn’t feel that the home with this roof will fit into the neighborhood. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 5  Feels that people in Burlingame have been considering their neighboring properties when re-roofing homes; hence, haven’t installed metal roofs.  Appreciates receiving the examples of homes with similar roofs.  Feels the roof fits well with the house. Feels the neighborhood is a mix of traditional and contemporary.  Will likely see more metal roofs over time.  More contemporary styles will likely be seen. Public comments: Neighbor from 1535 Bernal Avenue and Matt Nejasmich, 1412 Castillo Avenue:  Some really ugly homes have been permitted in the neighborhood.  Not sure that the design would throw the character of neighborhood into disarray.  The existing house is currently pretty modern looking.  Surprised regarding the special permit for the basement. Will there be impacts upon the neighboring properties? (Meeker – the design and construction must not impact the adjacent neighbors.)  Curious about the row of trees at the rear. Hopes that new trees will preserve privacy.  Feels that the French drain has reduced flooding impacts upon her property.  What is the allowable time to begin work? (Meeker – described construction work hours.)  Has considered more modern design and metal roof designs.  As a builder confirmed that this is what people will want.  This is the area to try this type of design. Responses from Grange:  24-inch box trees and the Pittosporum will grow quickly and protect privacy.  Have greater than normal setbacks.  Perhaps people haven’t installed a metal roof because they don’t know of the benefits. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Neighbor expressed concern regarding noise from construction.  Doesn’t feel that approving a metal roof at this location is a de facto approval of all metal roofs.  In this context, very little of the roof will be visible. The profile of the roof and of the property is such that the roof will be minimally visible. The roof fits with the house, and the house will fit with the neighborhood.  The neighborhood is somewhat eclectic, and is a transition to Ray Park.  Can support the application as it stands.  Concurs with the speakers that the type of design sought is changing. This design doesn’t scream modern and is evocative of other homes in the neighborhood.  There are a lot of elements that help it fit in with the neighborhood.  Homes are now being built for a particular owner who wants a particular style.  There is a mix of housing types in the area, the home fits with the neighborhood, as does the roof style.  The topography of the lot places the home high on the lot where the roof will not be noticed much. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 6 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 May 29, 2014 sheets A1.1 through A4.1, L1.0, L2.0 and PW.1; and that the two trees along the rear property line shall be a Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and a Pittosporum undulatum (Victorian Box) and shall be 24-inch box size when planted, as shown on the Landscape Plan, sheet L1.0, date stamped May 29, 2014; 2. that the windows in the stair tower shall be revised as reflected on the 3-d images for the project; 3. that the plant materials under the Red Oak tree in the front yard shall be revisited; 4. 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); 5. 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; 6. that the conditions of the Building Division’s March 31, 2014 memo, the Parks Division’s April 7, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s May 6, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s March 28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s May 8, 2014 memo shall be met; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 7 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; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  If another material is shown at the entry, then bring it back as an FYI. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-1-1 (Commissioner DeMartini dissenting, Commissioner Sargent absent, Commissioner Loftis recused). Appeal procedures were advised. 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Loftis returned to the dais. 4. 1412 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO ADD A NEW ATTACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; MATT NEJASMICH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated June 9, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 8 Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Matt Nejasmich, 1412 Castillo Avenue represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Perhaps consider installing a window on the garage wall facing the front yard.  Elevations are mislabeled.  How does the brick on the front connect to the garage; perhaps take a look at that.  The windows previously shown in the garage are now switched. The prior window design appeared to match better, why the change? (Nejasmich – agrees that six light windows would fit better.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Comments:  The prior garage door windows (six light) were a better design.  Is a nice project.  Six-light windows should be installed in the garage door.  Sills and headers should be wood, not stone. 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 May 29, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.8 and GP; 2. that six light windows shall be installed within the garage door; 3. that the sills and headers on the windows for the project shall be wood and not stone; 4. 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); 5. 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; 6. that the conditions of the Building Division’s May 20, 2014 and April 28, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s May 1, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s May 7, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s April 14, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s April 28, 2014 memo shall be met; 7. 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; 8. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 9 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 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. 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; 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 Loftis. Discussion of the motion:  The suggestion to place a window on the right side of the garage is only advisory. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent absent). Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the Variance, subject to the following findings: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 10 The variance is supported as there is no location to build the garage due to site constraints, the only alternative is attached garage. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:24 p.m. 5. 1545 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEORGE NOVITSKIY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRIS SADLAK AND MEE KWONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) The item was continued at the request of the applicant. 6. 1321 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT OF A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT; JOHN WELSH, DESIGNER; AND FRANCES MILLIKEN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated June 9, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-two (42) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  When would an applicant typically come forward to request a change such as that proposed? (Meeker – it is incumbent upon the applicant to make application for approval of the change at the point in time that he/she becomes aware that a change is required.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Mike Gaul represented the applicant.  Were attempting to lower the overall height of the building during construction once the sewer lateral issue was discovered.  When the roof ridge was surveyed, it was determined that the overall height is one-foot, eight-inches higher than approved.  All mechanical equipment is in the attic; that’s why the roof is pitched.  Only portions that are higher are the ridges, but are still two feet below the maximum allowable height. Public comments: Unnamed speaker (neighbor): CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 11  Expressed concerns about the adequacy of the project’s parking. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission Comments:  Good looking building and nice addition to the block. No problem with the proposal.  If it was a design review issue previously with story poles perhaps could have been an issue.  Is still two feet below the height limit.  The change is inconsequential. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 15, 2014, sheet A2.0 and dated stamped October 15, 2010, sheets 1 through 2.1, 4, 5 and L1; and that the project shall include an affordable unit as shown on the plans date stamped October 15, 2010, sheets 2 and 2.1; 2. that the bicycle rack/storage area shall be enclosed; 3. that this project shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 25.63; the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the sale, rent or lease of the affordable unit with Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley at least 120 days before the final inspection; 4. that documentation with exhibits that show detailed project construction plans including work on the driveway, sidewalk adjacent to the mature eucalyptus trees, and a description of any other ground- disturbing work within 100-feet of the matures trees shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval of an encroachment permit. The documentation should describe efforts to avoid affecting the trees and if avoidance is impossible, efforts to lessen the impact on the trees must be described; 5. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; 6. that the applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans regarding the replacement of any eucalyptus trees or planting any new Accolade Elm trees within the Caltrans right-of-way along El Camino Real; one 24-inch box Accolade Elm tree as approved by Caltrans shall be planted within the Caltrans right-of- way along El Camino Real; 7. that a tree protection plan showing how the four existing Oak trees (6 to 12-inch diameter) will be protected during construction, to be reviewed and approved by the Parks Division, shall be prepared and implemented; 8. that a Protected Tree Permit shall be required from the City of Burlingame Parks Division to remove the existing 22-inch eucalyptus tree on the subject property; 9. 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 12 10. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 104’-0” as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real for a maximum height of 44'-0", 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. 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; 11. 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 Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 12. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 16 and May 22, 2010 memos; the Parks Supervisor’s August 17 and May 22, 2010 memos; the Fire Marshal's June 14, 2010 memo; the City Engineer's June 14, 2010 memo; and the NPDES Coordinator's May 25, 2010 memo shall be met; 13. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 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 if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; 16. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 17. that prior to underfloor 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 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 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 13 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 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; 26. 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 and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 27. 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; 28. that 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; 29. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution protection plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: - A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted (generally April 15 to October 15) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; - Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; - Silt fences, hay bales, or some kind of inlet protection at downstream storm drain inlets; and - The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 14 30. that the project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 31. that the project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance; 32. 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; 33. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a building permit from the Building Division; and all requirements of the permit shall be complied with during construction; 34. the applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist; 35. 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 building permit; the approved tree protection plan shall be implemented prior to any construction on the site; 36. 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; 37. 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; 38. 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; 39. 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; 40. to reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: - 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). - 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 15 41. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 42. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the Community Development Director and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent absent)). Appeal procedures were advised. 8:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 463 CUMBERLAND ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; BRIAN AND BARBARA KOTT, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones and Loftis reported that they had had conversations with the applicant. Reference staff report dated June 9, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. Brian/Barbara Kott and Una Kinsella represented the applicant.  They love Burlingame and their neighborhood.  Have tried to keep the neighbors fully informed of their plans.  Asking for a few special exceptions for the project in order to maintain the setback non-conformity at the front and rear of the structure. Commission comments:  Is the chimney being kept? (Kinsella – will replace with a wood-framed chimney and clad it in stone.)  Chimney shape and location not accurately reflected on the drawing – too far forward and too skinny. (Kinsella – Noticed that too, needs to update.)  Where is the fifth bedroom? (Kinsella – the utility room off of the kitchen counts as a potential fifth bedroom even though it is open to the kitchen and doesn’t include a closet.)  Has spoken to the neighbors; they are all supportive of the proposal. Is concerned that a future neighbor may be concerned about the reduced setback. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 16  Was any thought given to setting back the second story a bit and making up the difference on the rear of the home; could give a new neighbor a bit more of a sense of separation between the structures. (Kinsella – this would result in a short section of roof and revisions to other portions of the roof that would not be necessarily consistent with the neighborhood.)  There are a significant number of trees on the right side of the property; will these remain? (Kinsella – were originally going to remove trees, but now intend to maintain the large Maple tree that can be seen from the street and remove one small Maple from the rear yard.)  Was consideration given to moving the washer and dryer into the utility room from the garage? Doing so would enhance the usability of the utility room. (Kinsella - didn’t wish to move the plumbing because the garage would never be considered a two car garage even without the washer and dryer’s presence. Strohmeier – could move the washer/dryer and/or water heater into the utility room and eliminate its consideration as a bedroom.)  Some windows include divided lights, some do not; was any consideration given to making them all the same? (Kinsella – prefer the large expanse of these picture windows.)  Could a different garage door be provided that would fit better with the design of the home? (Kinsella – will review and consider an alternate design.)  There may be enough unique circumstances to warrant granting the setback variances. Not sure that the existence of a non-conforming garage can justify a parking variance for a five bedroom home. The need for this variance is driven by the program of the project. If the utility room were converted to a laundry room, then that space would not be counted as a bedroom and a parking variance would not be necessary. Could also open up at least fifty-percent of this room to the kitchen so that it wouldn’t be considered a bedroom.  What is the utility room currently used for? (Kinsella – used as storage space for the kids. Kott – there isn’t a means of closing off the utility room from the kitchen.)  Is there a door between the utility room and the garage? (Kinsella – no.)  Need better justification for the parking variance or eliminate it from the request by revising the project to eliminate consideration of the utility room as a bedroom. Public comments: Mike Ortiz, 470 Cumberland Road, spoke:  Is supportive of design.  He and wife did a similar design years ago.  Likes the traditional look of the home. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  Include an enhanced porch with the design. Chair Bandrapalli 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 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:59 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes June 9, 2014 17 There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 2, 2014:  The Historic Preservation Ordinance was introduced by the City Council and is set for adoption on June 16th.  There were no appeals of recent Planning Commission actions. FYI: 1378 De Soto Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Will Loftis, Secretary