Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 07.13.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California July 13, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the July 13, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Terrones, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom Staff Present: Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier, and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner A uran to approve the minutes of the June 22, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 5, sixth bullet item: City needs to look at how the City properties integrate with circulation on the Safeway site and taking into account the Walgreens development; consider a working group process led by the City to come up with alternatives. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, there were some houses built before design review, one at 815 Walnut, had a nondescript stucco front, was recently remodeled, now it is almost a craftsman, good to see the improvement. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 398 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STANLEY LO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated July 13, 2009. There were no commission comments. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 This item was set for the Consent Calendar with no revisions requested. This item concluded at 7:06 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. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. The applicant requested that 1208 Bernal be pulled from the consent calendar to consider roofing material options. Commissioner Yie recused herself from participating on Item 2a, given a past business relationship. She left the Council Chambers. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 1208 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW BASEMENT QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRAD AND ROXANN LOOSE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 13, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, represented the applicant. He requested that the Commission consider two options for the roofing material, either the metal roof as shown on the plans or with a clay tile roof. Provided a sample of the proposed zinc roofing material. Commission comments: ■ Design lends itself to a tile roof, given the quality of workmanship, if we specify that it be a non - homogenous clay tile roof, would feel comfortable approving the alternative roof material. ■ While Mr. Grange is a talented architect, it would sets a bad precedent going forward, think an FYI will not slow it down too much, should be more specific about the type of tile and bring it back as an FYI. ■ Neighbor asked a question about the ability to waterproof the basement, will it be a sealed unit, will the gutters drain to the basement? (Randy Grange — today's designs for basements are fully waterproofed — will be engineered and the engineer will oversee construction in the field). ■ If you go with the metal roof, will you see the solar panels as a part of roof? How far along are you in the structural design? (Randy Grange — yes, but it would be a clean looking roof, you won't see the solar panels, we are close to making decision on the roof material, but haven't completed structural.) ■ Prepared to approve with metal roof with solar, and if choose to go with a tile roof, it can be brought back as FYI. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, think tile roof is preferable, metal roof will be noisy in rainstorm, There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he did not attend the study meeting on this item, so he will abstain from the vote. 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 July 1, 2009, sheets A1.1 through A3.4 and 1_1.0; 2. that if the applicant chooses to propose a clay tile roof instead of the metal roof with solar panels as proposed, the item shall be brought back to the Commission as an FYI item; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 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 Chief Building Official's April 29, June 29 and June 9, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 12, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 4, 2009 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's May 5, 2009 memo shall be met; 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 which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 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, 2007 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 Cauchi. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-1-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Yie recused, Commissioner Vistica abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from participating on Item 3a because he lives within 500 feet of the property. He left the Council Chambers. 3. 1595 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND RENOVATION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (SERGE AND ALMA KARANOV, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARK ROBERTSON, MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 13, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant, San Mateo, represented the applicant. At previous Planning Commission meeting, there were five major points raised that have been addressed: that the proposed office be returned to bedroom use, replaced stamped concrete with pervious pavers, increased the side setback to seven feet except for two bay windows, added a larger front porch, and proposing to install a hedge along neighbor's property line. Commission comments: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 ■ On the front elevation, why is there one column on left side & two on right, it seems that it is not symmetrical, could open porch opening even more and have columns closer together, could the guard rails be eliminated (Mark Robertson - there is a lot of mass and bulk with the brick chimney on the left side, thought one was sufficient on that side. Building code requires railing, the columns would have to be four inches apart to eliminate the railing)) ■ Are bay windows allowed to project into side setback? (Planning Manager Brooks - no, chimneys can project into side setbacks, bay windows are allowed to project into front setback but not side.) ■ Great job on the house, symmetrical columns make sense, but the garage door seems like a holdover, seems that it's a little plain compared to what will be done to the house. ■ There is some justification for the Setback Variance; the bay windows do a nice job of articulating the fagade. ■ Agree with justification for Lot Coverage Variance, the need for the Variance is created by filling in a hollow on the site, not for adding a structure. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, want to know if there is plumbing in the existing accessory structure, would it become a bedroom, living space. (Planning Manager Brooks— the accessory structure has been there for a long time and contains plumbing, it is considered an existing nonconforming condition.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: There have been a couple of comments on how the porch could be made better, could require revisions to the porch to come back to the Commission as an FYI; applicant has addressed our concerns; approval as submitted with revisions to porch coming back as FYI. Commissioner Vistica 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 June 17, 2009, sheets 1 through 6; 2. that revisions shall be made to the front porch to address the Commission's concerns with symmetry and shall be brought back to the Commission as an FYI item; 3. 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); 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 1 and May 8, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 12, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 8, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's May 12, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 8, 2009 memo shall be met; 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 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 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, 2007 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. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Brownrigg recused). Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg returned to the dais. 4. 2963 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING, AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE FOR A SINGLE -STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT NEBOLON, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PAUL LEUNG, 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 13, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Robert Nebelon, 801 Camelia Street, Berkeley, CA represented the applicant, noting that the project has been revised to address neighbor's concerns with impact on his view, and adjustments were made to make sure it accomplished his concerns, view is preserved completely. Commission comments: ■ Have met with Mr. Holland, the uphill neighbor, and he stated he had no concerns with the current project. ■ Appreciate working as hard as you did to come up with a great solution that satisfies the neighbor. ■ Thanks for working it out, how will the grading be handled around the house? (Robert Nebelon — grade will drop 15 — 16 inches, will have a low wall around it, walls go forward up and around the driveway and keep the landscape as it is now, will make it more interesting. There is already a retaining wall, will replace it and add steps.) ■ Wondering as long as there will be a new floor and excavate down, did you consider using an in slab radiant system to be able to raise the ceiling inside? (Robert Nebelon - it is a budgetary constraint, did consider, but are proposing to use forced air.) ■ Where will forced air system be located? (Robert Nebelon — there will be two separate systems for the two sectors of the house, one will hang in the rafters in the garage, will handle the right side, the other furnace will be in a closet outside Bath #1, there will be a soffit down eastern side of house to handle ducting on that side.) ■ How will the two forced air units vent, concerned with things popping up from the roof and affecting the neighbor's view. (Robert Nebelon — will use a high efficiency direct vent system.) ■ How will the skylights be detailed so they won't project above roof line? (Robert Nebelon - will use flat glass, so won't block, they can be made smaller, will have a low profile.) ■ Would like to see how the skylights will be configured, need to show the location and how high it will be, like to be more confident so we can see the impact on the view. ■ Have you thought about clerestory windows in the wall between the lower roof and the existing roof? ■ Consider rotating the hallway skylight so it has a less potential to impact view, will also provide more light into hallway. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Elevations fine, greatly improved, only remaining concern is impact of skylights, want to see impact.. Would like to add to the conditions of approval that 1) a mock up of skylights be done with story poles and a certified story pole plan be brought back to the Commission as an FYI; 2) that the 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 forced air furnace system shall be direct vent; and 3) that the plumbing vents shall be collected in an unobtrusive location. Commissioner Vistica 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 June 26, 2009, sheets AO through A8, and date stamped May 27, 2009, sheet L1; 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 a mock-up of the skylights be installed with story poles and a certified story pole plan shall be brought back to the Commission as an FYI item; 4. that the forced air system shall be direct vent; 5. that the plumbing vents shall be collected to a single termination in an unobtrusive location that does not impact the neighbor's distant view; 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the parking and lot coverage variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 7. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first floor or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 25 and April 22, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's February 23, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 23, 3009 memo, the City Arborist's April 30, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 24, 2009 memo shall be met; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance !3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 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: 14. 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; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge, including both lower and upper roof ridges, and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. 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. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 5. 2617 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION INTO AN ATTIC SPACE IN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ELIOT AND KARA ALFI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 13, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, represented the applicant. The space in the attic was already there, don't know when it was improved, earlier plans did not show that space. It appears some of the space has been accessible for quite some time. It is a split level house, circulation is inefficient, has a large attached garage. They are not adding to mass and bulk, but trying to be able to use the attic space. Had the attic space been shown in original plans, would have met the FAR requirements in place at that time. Building Division comments indicate that the existing man door that leads to the storage space is required to be changed to a 22" x 30" hatch because the room does not meet the requirements for habitable space as it is now, submitted photos of front "closet". Commission comments: 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 ■ The attic spaces are created because of the 12/12 roof pitch? (Randy Grange — yes.) ■ Remodel done several years ago, family room extension & kitchen remodel, did that add floor area? (Randy Grange — yes, removed an old addition, and added family room at back.) ■ The plans note "recently finished floor" at front part of closet, explain. (Randy Grange — the owners put in a hardwood floor over existing plywood.) ■ Can justify the variance given the fact that this lot only has a 45-foot frontage, so it is difficult to detach the garage and take advantage of increased floor area allowance, and due to the evolution of zoning requirements regarding floor area, it caused the existing attic space to exceed current floor area ratio requirements. Public Comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, Commission reviews projects that are maximum FAR and also get permission to have basement which is exempted from FAR, why not call this attic a basement, it is existing space that is already there, doesn't contribute to mass and bulk, not different from what is granted for basements. Kara Alfi, 2617 Hale, as far as the storage closet in back, like that this house has storage, were able to get rid of rental storage unit, would like to keep that door. (Planning Manager Brooks— the issue of whether the door can be full size needs to be resolved with the Chief Building Official and project must comply with building code requirements.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Have to consider common sense, this is an elegant house with steep pitched roof, if we don't count it we should have; don't think this will impact neighborhood. Commissioner Brownrigg 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 July 1, 2009, sheets A1.1 through A3.1; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 6 and May 29, 2009 memos shall be met, or as amended by the Chief Building Official; 4. 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; 5. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: Should amend condition 3 to give flexibility to Chief Building Official's conditions. The motion maker and second agreed to amend the motion to modify this condition. Chair Terrones called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 6. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PARKING AND FOR AN EXISTING PARK AND FLY PROGRAM AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (JIM ENSIGN, DOUBLETREE HOTEL, APPLICANT, AND TODAY'S III INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 13, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Jim Ensign, DoubleTree Hotel, 835 Airport Boulevard represented the applicant. Want to convert from self -parking to utilizing the pay gates. Will result in cost savings of about $70,000 a year; also don't have gates down 24 hours a day, concern with guest safety. Have ample parking spaces, people use shuttles to get to airport, business is with airport personnel. There were no Commission comments. 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 park and fly program shall be allowed to operate at this hotel with a maximum of 30 vehicles, the vehicles shall only be parked in the north end of the hotel parking lot, as shown on the plans date stamped February 9, 2005; no vehicles of the park and fly program shall be parked on any part of the adjacent public park site or in the Bay trail access parking area in front of the shared parking lot; 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 2. that any increase in the number of vehicles parked on site at one time because of the park and fly program shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3. that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 19, 1999, Sheet PK-1, as revised by the site plan (sheet Al. 1) date stamped June 4, 2009, and the installation of any new automated equipment shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 28, 1998 and March 2, 1999 memos and the City Engineer's March 8, 1999 memo shall be met; 5. that a fee may be charged for self -park visitors at a rate of up to $2.00 for the first hour, and $1.00 for each additional hour up to a total of $16.00 per day, and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 6. that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the automated parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 7. that any change to the operation of the automated parking system, affecting the fee charged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 8. that prior to use of the City landfill parking lot for paid valet or paid self -parking, the hotel shall obtain an amendment to the Shared Parking and License Agreement with the City to reflect this use; 9. that the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more than 10% of the on -site parking spaces are employed for this duration; 10. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 14, 1997, Sheet AO through Al 1, and that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; 11. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 18, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos, and the Chief Building Inspector's November 12, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos shall be met; 12. that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 13. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 14. that the overall height of the addition as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 84'-6", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft and mechanical room shall be 99'-0"; 15. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 16. that in the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 an east -west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on -site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; 17. that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 18. that the traffic allocation for a 101- room addition to an existing 291-room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which is a part of the planning approval of this project and the agreement for use of 115 parking spaces on the adjacent sanitary landfill shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning approval expires on the project; 19. that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan for the transition period between occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and availability of at least 115 spaces in the proposed shared use parking lot on the sanitary landfill site; 20. that since the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required parking by seeking an agreement with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before issuance of any building permit under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that provides that the applicant will be allowed to use the City property to the north and west for parking for at least 115 vehicles so long as the applicant's property is used as a hotel or the required parking is not provided in some other way approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant shall either reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 115 parking spaces or provide alternative parking approved by the City; 21. that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 22. that the proposed structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake; 23. that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1995 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code; 24. that in order to minimize settlement of roadways and other site features, recompacting or surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving; 25. that flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground settlement; 26. that the finished floors for any structure to be at least 9' above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater; 27. that any new construction on the site shall elevate the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater. Habitable areas include meeting and conference areas and their support facilities; 28. that this project shall comply with the requirements of the state -mandated water conservation program, that a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 and irrigation plans at time of permit application, and shall be approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit; 29. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 30. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; 31. that the developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 32. that when the level -of -service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through lane on Airport Boulevard at Anza Boulevard to a second exclusive left -turn lane. This improvement will improve cumulative conditions during the p.m. peak hour at this intersection to an acceptable LOS D (V/C=0.85), and the applicant shall pay a fee at that time toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's contribution to the total increase in traffic through the intersection; 33. that payment of a Bayfront Development Fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection; 34. that the proposed Anza Boulevard driveway access shared with the future park shall be widened from its current proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet; a stop sign shall be provided at the driveway to control access on to Anza Boulevard from the shared parking facilities at the public park; 35. that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport shuttle service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees at shift changes; 36. that no portion of the required parking on site or on the landfill shall be used for long-term airport parking as part of a hotel promotion; 37. that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 38. that the City shall require that the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip pile drivers with shields, and shall also develop a schedule for pile driving to minimize the impacts on the existing Doubletree Hotel facilities, the Red Roof Inn and Red Rock Cafe; 39. that the hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; and 40. that in the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during construction -related earthmoving activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find were determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, then representatives of the project applicant, the City, and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. If the discovery includes human remains, Section VIII of CEQA Guidelines Appendix K would be followed, requiring coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission if the human remains are of Native American origin. All significant cultural 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 materials recovered would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by a qualified archaeologist according to current professional standards. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0- 1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1701 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MRS. JING LING LAU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND LI-SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 13, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Li-Sheng Fu, architect, 180 Martindale, Fremont, represented the applicant. Design of exterior follows the original ranch style details; second story repeats first floor details. Commission comments: ■ Concern with height of addition, noticed have nine foot plate height proposed on second floor, makes it look top heavy, like to see it reduced to 8 foot ceiling. ■ The front porch extends across, but entry roof element only spans the front door, feels like front porch area is not sheltered so not usable, would make a stronger entry statement if covered, could use a trellis, think some sort of roof or connection would reduce vertical mass of two-story wall, also creates negative space under the porch and creates sitting area. ■ Could have a roof on knee braces centered over the window to provide some covered area. ■ Concern with choice of roof design on garage — feels like the house was chopped off and shifted over, if had gable would tie into gable on front elevation. ■ Why did you detach the garage? (Li-Sheng Fu - originally because it would allow increase in square footage and to have separation, with existing attached garage, there is no direct access from house to garage, want to have a two car garage, it also provides screening for the hospital next door, creates a sense of courtyard for the area behind the garage.) ■ If an attached garage didn't count in FAR, would you attach it to house? (Li-Sheng Fu — no, want the court yard feeling at the back.) ■ Maybe missing a great opportunity to get light into the stairwell because of entry element over front door, that should be developed and stair well expressed on exterior of building. ■ Could have 16 —18 foot width on garage since it's not required to be two -car garage, but could still fit two cars. ■ Need articulation on large mass at rear, consider adding a roof over the back door. ■ Have sympathy with corner lot and attached garage, but don't want to see a solution that's not the best use of space between the two structures, if you attach the garage and have access into the house without going outside it works better for the homeowners. • Could stagger the two garage doors. Public comments: 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa spoke. Share a property line with this property, wouldn't discourage two -car garage, there is a lot of on street parking in the area from duplexes. Shared photos of back of her house, only see the hospital behind us, expect when in operation will need black out curtains, the one place we have sky views is over the top of this house, which will be increased in height. Have concern about windows in rear of property, will look directly into our property, like to have you consider applicant change window layout to protect our privacy, agree that back of building looks plain, would like to see some detail, but mostly concerned with the windows, like the idea of clerestory windows, when house sold, hospital was up and huge, should have been aware of hospital being there. Would like to remind the owner that the trees on the hospital property next door will be 40 — 60 feet tall, will screen hospital, but will lose sunlight, will need to get sunlight from the front of property. Commission comment: There is a window facing the hospital, and two facing neighbor, what if those windows facing neighbor could be made higher, could also get high windows on front elevation. (Li-Sheng Fu - two windows in bathrooms could be clerestory, and windows in bedroom could be obscured.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: ■ Agree that the house looks top heavy, like to see it reduced to 8-foot plate height on second floor. ■ This project appears to be a fine candidate for referral to a design review consultant. ■ There are parking issues in this neighborhood, think that the garage can be two car, but think that thought needs to be given to the garage design, should consider reorienting the gable roof, think it's okay to have garage attached and consider Variance for FAR, in this case it may make more sense to have an attached garage. ■ Design review consultant can provide input on design and placement of garage, height of structure, side elevation of house, views into neighbor's yard, front porch design. If garage is buffer to hospital then it's okay if garage is detached, otherwise should have an attached garage. ■ Hard to understand what's going on with the landscaping, landscape plan should consider screening of the added mass and bulk. ■ In looking at the windows on the back, there are possibilities to put windows on north side of bedroom two, but still need articulation on the elevation facing the neighbor, want to preserve neighbor's privacy. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to refer the item to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:02 p.m. 8. 117 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FLORIAN SPEIER, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOLANDA AND GARY BREAZEALE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 Reference staff report dated July 13, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Florian Speier, 2932 McKinley Avenue, Berkeley, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ What is garage door material (Florian Speier— would be wood to go with the rest of the house.) ■ Why is front door not on front of house? (Florian Speier— improved the layout of the house, trying to maintain privacy and get good lighting, clients wanted a large double story entrance in the middle.) ■ Looking at plan and site planning, getting excited with different things happening, courtyard on south side, but looking at roof plan, is a radical departure from architectural vocabulary we see around Burlingame, like to see explanation on how it fits neighborhood. (Florian Speier — main design consideration to respecting adjoining residences, tried more traditional styles, had more bulk at street, with this style will reduce the height at the front, older houses in neighborhood have clear and simple roofs, trying to avoid a complicated roof.) ■ Understand that a good portion of the house is springing from a story and half, but it is a large house on a larger lot, would like to see more articulation on front elevation, there is not enough that talks about entry and invites people to it from the street, it's a pretty blank wall with a peculiar shape and peculiarly shaped windows. The front elevation is usually a place where we like to see a vocabulary that addresses the street. ■ We would expect front of house to respond more directly to vocabulary around Burlingame, not just adding something to add decoration, there are things that can be done to integrate it more. • Not sure what you're trying to do, don't think it fits in with neighborhood at all, too bulky, seems like cabin in Lake Tahoe because of the bulkiness, the front fagade, and the doorway on the side. Cannot support it as it stands. ■ Don't understand where the design is coming from, we appreciate both contemporary and traditional design, but mostly appreciate contextual design. Cant' imagine more mass in front than what is proposed. Roof is brought down on driveway side where could have more mass, on side closer to neighbor it is more massive. ■ There is a wide portal tucked into the roof form, but nothing is expressed on exterior, what is expressed is a broad shingled roof. ■ Appreciate effort in green features, but we have seen designs that achieve these things but also are contextual and fit in with neighborhood. • West elevation looks like something that would look over Lake Tahoe and distant views. (Florian Speier— there is a green oasis at the rear, that's why a lot of glass is used on that elevation, there are no other windows from neighboring properties and lot is deep.) ■ Looking for pedestrian scale on front elevation. ■ Not necessarily looking for quaint storybooks, have seen contemporary designs that incorporate elements of scale. ■ Quirky design, some positive aspects, love the loft on second floor, if you could move entry to front and articulate front entryway, and reconfigure spaces to get drama you want. Reserve the grand gestures to the back rather than the side elevations. ■ There is a beautiful example cattycorner across the street, has beautiful porch, announces front door. ■ Look at driveway, it is a long driveway that requires extra movement to get in and out. Public Comments: 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 ■ Ed Bohnert, 124 Costa Rica, Mary Ann Nichols; 116 Costa Rica, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa; Tom Buckley, 113 Costa Rica spoke. ■ Don't think it's an attractive home for neighborhood, disappointed, aesthetics aren't what Burlingame is about, don't think it fits. ■ Agree with Commission about the feel of the house, it looks sideways and is barnlike, roofline doesn't feel like it's in harmony with neighborhood. Only required to have one parking space, seem to have parking issues in the neighborhood. Presented a picture of house on Occidental and Howard, is shingle on outside and it is not weathering well, too rustic looking. ■ When I looked at plans, couldn't figure out where front door is, from pedestrian point of view, is a retreat, is not a home welcoming neighbors, this would be great house on the Lost Coast, but does not fit in to the Costa Rica neighborhood, ask that applicant and homeowner rethink what they want their house to look like. Suggest project be sent to design review consultant. ■ Welcome them to neighborhood, but have a problem with the garage, it is barely able to be accessed, don't believe someone will park their car in the garage, and will impact street parking, should be redesigned to give more room to garage to relieve parking problems, agree it should be sent to design review for the reasons commission has stated. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to refer the item to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m. Commission comment: If the applicant wanted to completely redesign the project, process could start over and the revised project could be brought back to the Commission for Design Review Study rather than to a design review consultant. 8. 1419 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, DETACHED GARAGE AND BASEMENT (JACK MCCARTHY DESIGNER, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KIERAN J. WOODS TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 13, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose, represented the applicant. Requesting a special permit for height because the lot slopes up from street and height is measured from the top of curb. Commission comments: IN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 ■ Relative to finished floor, height is about 28-29 feet, but is considered taller because of slope of lot. ■ Nice house, good job, like treatment of chimney at back. ■ There is now some landscaping at the front entry that would be lost, would like to see a way to get a buffer back between the new house and driveway and house next door, driveway is 10'-8" wide , maybe could get some planting next to neighbor's house. ■ Where will the sump pump be for the basement, concern with sound attenuation (Jack McCarthy — will be inside the structure where it won't affect neighbors.) ■ Like your work, have a minimal front porch, what if you added French doors on the dining room at the front and expanded pavers in front and shielded that area, could create a retreat in front of dining area, would be buffered by the dwarf magnolia. ■ Like the brick element at the front, could you consider adding another brick element, could add at second story window, like to see vocabulary repeated somewhere, box for fireplace could be brick. (Jack McCarthy— as far as fireplace goes, wouldn't see, makes more sense to brick the area by the nook. Would see it along the driveway.) ■ Nice balance, like single brick element to set off stucco. When sourcing light fixture by the front door, pick a more interesting style. ■ Reason for doors to side, building code requires light and egress, unless allowed to artificially ventilate, need that much area to provide adequate light, building code also dictates how wide well has to be. ■ Are pushing the 36 foot limit, would encourage you to reach out to neighbors. ■ If change to French doors on the front, would like that they are appropriately articulated. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, love the house, hate the basement, it adds to floor area. Would like to see the French doors proposed for egress from basement moved to front, and egress to basement could be ladder, depending on how the basement is used, it could impact neighbors if used for entertainment. Like the brick don't think need to add more, could have brick walkway instead of pavers. 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. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: Given the request for 36 foot height, should consider requiring story poles to articulate the ridge height. Pole at outside edge and two at ridge to give profile would be okay, as long as the ridge is shown in the proper location. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed and story poles installed as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Subcommittee Assignments (Chair Terrones) 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 13, 2009 Chair Terrones indicated he had talked to each of commissioners and following are the subcommittee assignments: ■ Neighborhood Consistency: Commissioners Auran, Yie and Terrones Downtown Specific Plan: Commissioners Vistica and Terrones ■ Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee: Commissioner Cauchi ■ Peninsula Hospital: Commissioners Brownrigg and Vistica ■ Housing: Commissioners Brownrigg, Vistica and Lindstrom Commissioners Terrones and Vistica will serve on an ad hoc basis to assist the Council Economic Development Subcommittee when their input is needed. Commissioner Vistica expressed interest in forming a subcommittee to address Green Building issues, and Chair Terrones indicated he will discuss the need for this with the Community Development Director. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: There was no City Council meeting scheduled for July 6, 2009. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — June, 2009: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 20