Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.10.11 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, January 10, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Yie called the January 10, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioner Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 18, top of page, vote on motion for Item 7; delete "appeal procedures were advised". ■ Page 22, sixth bullet from top of page, second line; replaced "office buildings" with "office park". ■ Page 24, bottom of page; indicate that Commissioner Gaul served as Secretary at the meeting, rather than Commissioner Lindstrom. Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi 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 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. Vice -Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 consent calendar. There were no requests. Vice -Chair Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from voting on Item 1 a (1116 Drake Avenue), since she resides within 500-feet of the property. 1a. 1116 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRET AND SUE BOTTARINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 1b. 1152 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (AVTAR JOHAL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND ASHLEY CANTY, INTERIOR SOLUTIONS, DESIGNER) (35 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran 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 Terrones. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-1-1 for Item la (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Yie recused) and 5-0-1-0 for Item 1b (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 1653 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFF BOSSHARD, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 10, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Cautioned the applicant regarding the finishes on the front balcony; will need to be durable and washable due to the proximity to the street and the tendency to collect street dirt. The front elevation appears to not be centered; take another look at it. Public comments: 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 21, 2010, sheets 1-7; 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 22, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's November 1, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 19, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 27, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 19, 2010 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; 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 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 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 Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0. (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating on Item 3 (3 10 Pepper Avenue), since his firm designed the project; he left the Council Chambers. 3. 310 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF GARAGE, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND FOR ABASEMENT WITH AN INTERIOR CEILING HEIGHT GREATER THAN 6'-6" AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK TO DETACHED GARAGE, FRONT SETBACK TO COVERED FRONT PORCH, SIDE SETBACK TO DETACHED GARAGE AND FOR PROVIDING THE REQUIRED UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE BETWEEN A STRUCTURE WHICH IS NOT THE GARAGE (STORAGE AREA) AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RICHARD M. TERRONES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ERIC AND DONNA COLSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 10, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Diana Marcus, 1103 Juanita Avenue; represented the applicant. IS CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 Commission comments: ■ None. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 17, 2010, sheets A0.0 through 1-1.1 and Topographic Survey; 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 October 15, 2010 and August 10, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's September 9, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 16, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's October 21, 2010 and August 11, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 10, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit and Variances as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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 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; 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 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 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 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 12. 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; 13. 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 14. 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 Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Have done a nice job with the design of the project. Understands that the unusual lot configuration warrants consideration of the variances. Are improving the property; will be something that remains on the property for many years into the future. Vice -Chair Yie called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Terrones recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussions for Item 4 (1220 Mills Avenue), since he owns property within 500-feet of the site; Item 5 (1321 El Camino Real), since he is the applicant for the project; and Item 6 (8 Vista Lane), since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the Council Chambers. 4. 1220 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RON JOHNSTONE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 Reference staff report dated January 10, 2011, 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 Yie opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: If there is any opportunity to embellish the front porch, encouraged to do so and present to the Commission as an FYI, but not a condition of approval. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 16, 2010, sheets T.0, A.5, A.6 and A.7; and date stamped November 3, 2010, sheets SP.1, LS.1, DM. 1, A.1 through A.4, A.8 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 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 October 1, 2010 and November 5, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 6, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 30, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's October 1, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 4, 2010 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 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 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 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. 7:22 p.m. 5. 1321 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT; JOHN WELSH, DESIGNER; AND FRANCES MILLIKEN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 10, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-one (41) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Questions of staff: Are the front stairs included in the setback calculation? (Hurin — there is an exemption for stairs with no covering within the front setback area.) John Welsh, 107 East Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas and Frances Milliken, 115 Newton Drive; represented the applicant. ■ Have shown all utility locations. ■ Have shown garbage disposal area. ■ Are adding patio furniture and a barbeque area in the rear. ■ Considered an alternate stair arrangement, but chose to retain the existing design. ■ Once plantings are in place, the stairway will be obscured somewhat. ■ Spoke with CalTrans regarding that agency's comments that will be applicable with the encroachment permit. Commission comments: ■ Will the parking spaces that are the subject of the variances be assigned? (Welsh — Yes. Will only be problematic if a very large car is in the space. ■ Doesn't like the open stairway look; if enclosed below, area below could be used for storage. (Welsh — landscaping will be used to soften the appearance of the stairway.) ■ Has the trash company been consulted regarding the location of the containers? The trash company will not retrieve the containers from the rear of the property. (Welsh — Someone will need to be placing the trash containers at the curb for collection. Hurin — Can pay the trash hauler an extra fee to retrieve the bins from the rear of the property.) ■ Likes the project, but wants the trash removal to be adequately addressed. ■ Doesn't seem like enough containers for five units. (Welsh — Have worked with Recology to identify the container sizes. Milliken — Clarified Recology's requirements.) • Could easily see Recology convincing the property owner that the trash bins need to be placed under the stairs at the front of the property. If, in working with Recology it is determined that the bins need to be placed at the front of the property; this should be brought back to the Commission as an FYI. ■ The County is dictating that fewer cubic -yards of material are to be discarded. ■ Likes that bicycle racks have been added; would be more useable if the bike racks could be covered; would provide greater protection and security. (Welsh — Not certain how the enclosures would relate to the setbacks. Hurin — If under 100 square feet, would not be considered a structure.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 Likes the project; would have appreciated smaller one -bedroom units for purposes of providing greater affordability. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 15, 2010, sheets 1-5 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; 10. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 102'-4" as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real for a maximum height of 42'-3", 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; 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 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; 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 II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 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. 30. that the project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 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. 41. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion: Proximity to El Camino Real and BART supports variance request for parking. The fact that existing trees are being preserved by designing the parking, as presented, is further support for the parking variance. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 8 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DENHAM LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: EDI ARCHITECTURE. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 10, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Alex Mortazavi, 851 Burlway; represented the applicant. ■ Addressed comments regarding use of drought tolerant landscaping. ■ Have also placed the garage further back on the property to accommodate a hammerhead for vehicle turn around. ■ Have reduced the height of the structure at the street by around 16-feet; have sunken the structure as much as possible. ■ The declining height envelope is a significant factor since the lot slopes from front to rear. ■ Have attempted to design a project that meets the guidelines. Commission comments: ■ Beautiful design. ■ Will need to erect story poles since it is a hillside project. ■ On the rear elevation, the relationship of the corbels to the columns appears to be off; the corbels should likely be a bit beefier. (Mortazavi — Will look at the scale to ensure that it matches the column.) ■ On the right side elevation; is there anything that can be done to break up the stone on the top half; could a vent or window be provided? (Mortazavi — Can consider adding a feature at this location.) ■ The building addresses the slope of the hillside nicely; presents as a one and one-half story house. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 ■ With respect to the window details, clarify the window trim detail; will it be a stucco mold? (Mortazavi — Doesn't like any type of foam; the stucco will turn in and run to the window; the windows on the front will have a deep recess, including on the garage.) ■ On the windows on the side of the house, what will be the trim? (Mortazavi — Will also be stucco returning to the windows.) ■ On the rake details for the roof tile, will it be a tile rolling over the edge? (Mortazavi — Yes.) ■ Appreciates that a story pole plan has already been put together; will be important to identify the front corners of the garage when the story poles are erected, as well as the hip -point of the garage. ■ Will the garage door be stain -grade or paint -grade? What type of wood? (Mortazavi — Will provide details of the material, but will be stain -grade.) ■ Encouraged use of natural stone versus cultured stone; identify the stone material. (Mortazavi — Will identify the stone to be used.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Concerned about providing story poles that will only benefit the adjacent residents in the unincorporated San Mateo County areas surrounding the property. (Meeker — City policy does require story poles in all hillside areas. Guinan — Legally cannot waive the requirement.) Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Incorporate the direction regarding the story poles requiring the front garage corners to be identified, as well as the hip -point of the garage. Vice -Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:06 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais. 7. 483 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WHICH QUALIFIES AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (MICHAEL AND FELICIA NG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; NATALIE HYLAND, BLUE COAST DESIGNS, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 10, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Natalie Hyland, 585 Quarry Road and Mike Ng, 483 Marin Drive; represented the applicant. The property owners have reached out to the neighbors; all are agreeable to the design; a letter of support has been provided. Commission comments: ■ Complemented the architect on the design. ■ Commended the applicant for working with the existing residence. ■ On site plan; there is a lot of concrete. Consider softening by providing enhanced landscaping; near the porch and extended down the driveway, for example. Could consider a planting strip down the center of the driveway. (Ng — Are on a corner lot, are attempting to minimize flooding. Want to be able to drive directly into the garage rather than backing into the garage. Commissioner— Can direct the flow with the pavement any way needed; the planter areas could be used for percolation of water. May want to look into an ejector pump to push all of the water to the street. Can incorporate drainage system into irrigation system for the landscaping. If there are currently groundwater problems, makes sense to address the problem now.) ■ Near the covered porch on the rear; consider another planting area. ■ The concrete pad near the garage could be an opportunity for a fire pit or shade tree; currently looks like it could be used as a parking area. ■ Encouraged to revisit the bathroom design; may want to place the dual sinks upstairs where the bathroom serves more bedrooms. ■ The massing is handled nicely; may wish to revisit details on the front porch. (Hyland — Are considering interlocking beams.) ■ On the rear stair, will likely need a railing. (Hyland — Will review and provide if necessary.) ■ On the rear elevation, is the wood siding being continued to the rear. (Hyland — Is a printing error; there will be wood siding all around. Horizontal vents will be provided at the top of the gables.) ■ With respect to the garage door; be certain that the design of the door is retained through completion of the project. ■ Are at the maximum FAR, be cognizant of not exceeding the limit. ■ Break up the concrete surfaces in the rear. ■ What is the manufacturer of the skylights? Usually tries to steer clients away from plastic skylights towards glass. (Hyland — Velux) ■ What is the material used below the railing on the front porch? Brick or stone could be used as a base for the house. (Hyland — Could bring the siding down as far as the code permits.) ■ Are the skylights for the bathroom? (Hyland — yes.) ■ Is the attic non -accessible? (Hyland — Under impression that it can't be accessible. Hurin — Could have a drop -down attic stair to provide an opportunity for storage.) ■ On the rear gable; consider a circular vent or window, similar to the existing house. (Hyland — Will consider.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. January 10, 2011 Vice -Chair Yie 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 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Old Business — Clarification of Commission comments on Environmental Scoping/Design Review Study for office/life science development at 300 Airport Boulevard (Burlingame Point): Community Development Director requested that the Commission clarify its comments regarding the scope of the environmental review and design aspects of the project based upon the actual application before the Commission and the specific requests submitted by the applicant. Commission comments: Reviewing how the project addresses what is encouraged in the Plan; the Plan encourages mixed - use and enlivening the street; particularly from a pedestrian perspective. The amendments to the Plan can't be supported unless elements are incorporated into the development's design that draws persons to the site, and enlivens the street and the area; draws visitors and residents to the shoreline. As designed, it appears that the design encourages only office users to visit the property and will not necessarily enliven the street. Uses that could enliven the area could be included on the ground floor of the buildings; such uses include (a written summary list providing greater detail was provided for the record): provide food sales (e.g. convenience stores, delis, wine stores, liquor stores, candy stores, coffee shops, or bakeries), dry goods (e.g. specialty clothing, drug store, tobacconist, stationery/business supply stores, card store, magazine/news stand, or bookstore) , entertainment (e.g. pub, restaurants, diners, food concession carts/wagons, night club, bowling, pool/billiards club, table tennis club, or badminton club), suppliers (e.g. florist, bike shop, or frame shop), administrative services (e.g. notary office, or lawyer's office), financial offices (e.g. bank, or credit union), insurance offices, real estate offices, personal services (e.g. day care center, barber shop, beauty parlor, day spa, beauty supply, watch/jewelry repair, shoe repair, tailor, seamstress, dry cleaners/launders, locksmith, printers/sign making, or copying/binding), health -related uses (e.g. pharmacy, nutrition/food supplement sales, or eyeglasses), and transportation related uses (e.g. car rental, or bicycle/recreational goods rental). These are the types of uses that are symbiotic to office uses and that are of use to office workers. The Bayfront Plan encourages activities that will draw residents and visitors to the shoreline. Additionally, the area provides great opportunities for visitor oriented uses, as well as employee related uses in the Bayfront area. Uses such as those identified address this need. Additionally, the City is being asked to consider a revision to the building design that will result in a loss of the Plan policy that encourages internalized parking. Is concerned about revisions to language the referenced internalized parking that will encourage more of an office -park design with lifeless streets. There is still a means of enlivening the area for the office workers, but that will also be draws for 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 persons using the recreational opportunities in the area; want to create a destination for residents and visitors to the shoreline. ■ Feels a lot of the non-residential suggestions were well made. ■ Would prefer a roadway design that takes advantage of the views and the Bayfront location; is there something that could be done to create more of a promenade edging the water; encourage less of an emphasis on the office workers; make it more of a destination for residents on the week -end. ■ There is an opportunity to enliven the street at its current location; the buildings should be edging the street to add life to the street front; make the street more of an amenity. (Meeker— discouraged relocation of the roadway since the current location and design has been determined based upon discussions with Public Works as a means of improving circulation in the area, while ensuring continued funding for ongoing roadway improvements and maintenance.) ■ With the 100-foot Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) restrictions along the perimeter of the property, the applicant has been required to work within those restrictions; the suggested uses could conceivably be accommodated within the base of the office buildings. • Create an area that can be an amenity to residents of Burlingame where they can drive and park and enjoy the uses in the area. ■ Clarified that the southerly side of the street is more problematic in terms of the parking being adjacent to the street; if not detailed properly it could feel more like an office park; the parking is not edging the street on the north side of the development. ■ Not opposed to the increase in height (as long as it can be crafted to address the wind issues), FAR and other issues, and acknowledges the need for the parking. ■ The illustration within the Bayfront Specific Plan shows more of a grid pattern for internal streets that can provide a livelier street environment; could there be opportunities for having better circulation within the site to encourage use? By providing perhaps a couple of streets, it could promote more activity and make it feel more like a downtown area. If you could drive a bit more around the buildings, it could encourage people to use more of the site. ■ Can create a street without actual creating a street for vehicles; could possibly create a potential pedestrian promenade across the street (similar to that shown on the plan) that could be lined with mixed -uses that are more pedestrian oriented. ■ Need to be certain that we create a location that will draw people into the area. ■ Noted that the beach area in the nearby unincorporated San Mateo County area is fenced off so that people are forced to use paid parking at Coyote Point. ■ Need to have water access in the area; this is a "beyond the City" issue. ■ San Mateo County restricts public access in its areas; the proposal improves access to the area. ■ The airport will not allow housing to occur in the area because of the noise issue; they would need to pay millions of dollars in mitigation of such impacts. ■ Need a development of commercial uses that is a benefit for Burlingame. ■ The proposed development will benefit other businesses in the area, including the hotels. ■ Will not have a development similar to Santana Row in the area. ■ Feels that the intent of the Bayfront Specific Plan relative to mixed -uses is being misinterpreted. Applicant comments: Mark Farrar, Millennium Partners; spoke: Verified that the Commission's comments and directions are clear. Consider making a recommendation to the City Council to re -appoint Stan Vistica to the Planning Commission: EN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 10, 2011 Vice -Chair Yie moved to recommend to the City Council that Stanley Vistica be reappointed to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi Absent). XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 3, 2011: ■ Nothing to report. FYI: 1235 Burlingame Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — December, 2010 ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Lindstrom, Secretary 19