Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.08.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 8, 2007 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the January 8, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Osterling left at 9:15 p.m. Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the December 11, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were reviewed the following changes were approved: page 1, line 1, change Chair Brownrigg Vice-Chair Jerry Deal….; page 6 line 36 and 7, lines 8 and 14 change graphite to graffiti. With the noted corrections the minutes were approved. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, have comments on two FYI since public comment is not allowed in that portion of the meeting. Am in favor of the proposed changes at 1465 Balboa, the request was submitted in a timely fashion although, because of the holidays, the windows were installed because of the need to close up the building for the weather. 216 Bloomfield came to ask for an FYI after the framing had been finaled without prior notification to the Commission of changes, feel that any architect working in Burlingame should know about the FYI process, also do not endorse the change to the chimney cap replacement, it is a cheaper and not as consistent with the approved design. This item ended at 7:05 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIANCES FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSION, DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND BACK-UP AISLE WIDTH FOR A 25-UNIT, 7-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (PAUL BOGATSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DAN IONESCU ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIANCES FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSION, DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND BACK-UP AISLE WIDTH; AND b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP – PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 2  believe there is no podium shown at the rear of the building, however the top of grade is incorrectly shown at 53.10', please revise plans to accurately show top of grade at the rear of the lot;  concerned with the number of substandard parking conditions, concerned with the proposed parking layout including 8½ foot wide stalls next to a wall, vehicles will have a lot of difficulty maneuvering in and out of the stalls;  traffic study notes that within parking areas the substandard conditions create tight maneuvering for vehicles and the study notes that vehicles would have to drive with caution, this is not something we want to see;  concerned that the driveway width was reduced from 12 feet to 9.5 feet, landscaping along the driveway edge will reduce the useable driveway width even further;  concerned that the parking is still at the street level, intent of the TW zoning is to encourage pedestrian activity at street level, request that the applicant explain why the parking rather than housing or other pedestrian oriented use is at the street level;  why are there no residential units proposed on the ground floor;  clearly identify the proposed exterior materials on the building, including scale and size of trim and architectural elements;  the toilet room serving the common open space is not articulated or detailed well, revise building elevation to clearly identify this room;  concerned with the 11 foot floor to floor dimension for the garage level, why does it have to be so tall, what is the extra space needed for, typically 8'-2" is sufficient;  clearly show on the site plan the location of the PIV valve and backflow preventer, provide plan detail on how these utilities will be screened or otherwise blend in;  proposed common open space is located at the ground level below the level of the units, do not see a good access for the tenants from their units to the common open space area;  concerned with how deliveries will be made to the site given the size and number of dwelling units, proximity to the hospital and its entrance and narrow driveway width; need to address substandard parking issues;  species of some plants are not identified on landscape plan, need to clearly identify species of all landscaping on the landscape plan;  clearly identify which are the affordable units on the floor plans;  provide an explanation of how the program for the affordable units will be administered, also should be included in the conditions of approval;  if parking garage will be at street level, something will have to be incorporated into the design to make the building more pedestrian oriented, enclosing the stairway does not meet this intent, exterior stairway would be acceptable if it is designed appropriately and is more elegant;  provide most recent comments from Department of Public Works regarding status of the sewer line easement and access situation; and  this area was rezoned to allow high density residential, this project would be one of the first significantly taller buildings in the area opposite the hospital, would like to see a 3D visual presentation showing the proposed building in context with the other buildings in area, with more detail on the project and adjoining buildings than just the abstract buildings as shown in the environmental document. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 3 II. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on 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. 2a. 1441-1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – AMENDED APPLICATION FOR A NEW FOUR- STORY, 20-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O LITKE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (141 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. APPLICATION FOR ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING; AND b. AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG 2b. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT (JOEL CAMPOS, LA CORNETA TAQUERIA, APPLICANT; J. MARK CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; KARIM A. SALMA) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. A Commissioner asked that item 2b. 1123 Burlingame Avenue be moved to the action calendar. C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar item 2a, 1441-1445 Bellevue Avenue, based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2b. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT (JOEL CAMPOS, LA CORNETA TAQUERIA, APPLICANT; J. MARK CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; KARIM A. SALMA) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report January 8, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-one conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the projecting signs will be removed. CP noted that a condition of approval was added requiring the removal of the projecting signs, proposed plans also show the projecting signs removed. Commission asked if the design reviewer's comments will be incorporated. CP noted that the design reviewer's comments were added as conditions of approval. There were no further questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 4 Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Cronander, project architect, 1800 Laguna Street, San Francisco, represented the project, verified that the project signs will be removed, noted that his intention was to rectify the problems identified with the project. Commission asked the architect to clarify the size and location of the lanterns, don't just want to see larger lanterns at the same location of the existing smaller lanterns now on the building; architect noted that dimensions were provided on the revised front elevation, lanterns will be approximately 2 feet tall, 17'-1" above the ground to the center of the lantern, location will be different as shown on the revised plans. Commission expressed a concern with the location of the fire department standpipe, as-built standpipe extends out one foot from the building and is located at the entrance to the restaurant, location is unattractive and may not comply with ADA requirements, have recently seen them recessed into the building, should check with the fire department if this standpipe can be recessed into the building; architect noted that there were issues with the standpipe. CP noted that this request would have to be checked with the fire department, could add as condition of approval. Commission asked which front door will be used, the one installed on the building or the one shown on the revised plans; architect noted that the door shown on the plans will be used, the original design included a tapering entry, however the concrete column on the front did not allow for the flare, suggested using limestone around the entry to make it more substantial, design reviewer agreed with idea. Commission noted that a transom window was installed above the entry, this is different than what is shown on the revise plans, which one is correct? Architect noted that the grid above the entry was always intended to be made of wood, not glass, the wooden grid will be installed 3 feet in front of the transom window. Commission noted that the opening into the main entry is shown to be 11'-8" above ground, which is also the approximate height to the top of the existing beam, does the beam stop at the entry, if it does not the entry door and transom will have to be shortened, please clarify; architect confirmed that the as-built opening is 11'-8" tall, think there is a separate header, one over each window and one over the door, do not intend to change the height of the opening or door/transom window. Commission noted that the top of the opening at 11'-8" approximately lines up wit the top of the beam and transom on each side, would be acceptable if the height of the opening needed to be shorter, architect needs to decide. Commission noted that a special encroachment permit will be required for the trellis extending into the public right-of-way, applicant should apply for one now if applicant has not yet been submitted. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Asked if the business cannot begin operating until the change are made; CP noted that all changes will have to be implemented and verified prior to the final inspection and release of the gas tags. During the discussion with the architect, sensed some doubt about certain aspects of the project, do not want to see it come back in the future for further changes, can these questions will be verified through the building inspection process; CP noted that architectural certification prior to framing inspection will be required, if changes occur project will return as an FYI item. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amendments to the conditions to include the size and location of the lanterns, true height and design of the front door, and recessing the standpipe into the wall at the front of the building; and the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 15, 2006, floor plans and elevations, and date stamped June 15, 2005, site plan and demo plans; that the lanterns to be placed on the façade shall match the dimensions shown on the approved plans; and that any changes to the to building materials, exterior finishes, awnings, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that any signs shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; (2) that the two projecting signs shall be removed as shown on the proposed plans date stamped December 15, 2006, before scheduling a final inspection; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 18, 2006 and April 4, 2005 memos; the Chief Building Official’s December 18, 2006, May 25, 2005 and March 25, 2005 memos; the Recycling Specialist’s April City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 5 4, 2005 memo; the Fire Marshal’s December 20, 2006, May 26, 2005, and March 30, 2005 memos; and the NPDES Coordinator’s December 18, 2006 memo shall be met; (4) that the metal pull down gate and its supporting apparatus at the entrance to the patio along Burlingame Avenue shall be removed prior to scheduling a final inspection with the Planning Department; (5) 5. that the entry doorway shall be surrounded with honed limestone and all protruding exterior trim detail shall be designed using a ¾” plywood base with stucco applied over it; and that these improvements shall be in place before scheduling a final inspection; (6) that the size and location of the lanterns shall be installed as shown on the plans date stamped December 15, 2006; (7) that the front door, transom window and wooden grid in front of the transom window shall be installed as shown on the plans date stamped December 15, 2006; (8) that the fire standpipe shall be recessed into the building with approval of the fire department; all necessary permit shall be obtained to recess the standpipe into the building; (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 scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (11) that the full service food establishment, with 623 SF of on-site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; (12) that the 623 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; (13) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (14) that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; (15) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; (16) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; (17) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; (18) that this full service food establishment may be open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, with a maximum of 9 employees on site at any one time; (19) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; (20) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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; (21) that deliveries to businesses located on this site shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. daily, except Sundays and holidays; deliveries to the site shall be limited to the rear of the building on Hatch Lane, except BFI; (22) that the trash enclosure and recycling bins shall be covered and shall have a drain connecting to the sanitary sewer system as required by the City Engineer in the memo dated March 28, 2005, and shall be located on the parcel as shown on the plans date stamped June 15, 2005; (23) that one on-site parking space 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep shall be located in the paved area on the south east corner of the property, and shall be maintained for use exclusively by the food establishment at 1123 Burlingame Avenue; the parking space shall remain free and clear of any trash cans, recycling bins or other storage materials or debris; (24) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 6 Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 3. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENDRICK LI, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Osterling noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. Reference staff report January 8, 2007, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Kendrick Lee, 2212 Hillside Drive, project applicant, and Ben Behravesh, 4 West Santa Inez, San Mateo, project architect, were available to answer questions, submitted pictures of the roof tiles and color rendering of the front elevation. Commission asked why wasn't the sump pump relocated, concerned about it being located in courtyard adjacent to neighbor; architect noted that the sump pump can be relocated to the rear of the property, but that the water would then have to be sent to the back of the property and then pumped to the street, this would required a larger pump which be noisier, sump pump in the sunken garden would work better because the retaining wall provides a barrier to reduce the sound. Commission noted that for the neighbor's benefit, would rather error on the side of caution and see the sump pump relocated away from the neighbor, sump pump will be next to the neighbors bedroom, because the sump pump will be located in sunken garden, sound will echo and be louder, would like to see the sump pump completely enclosed in the mechanical room or garage, water can gravity flow to garage and then pumped to street. Architect noted that if located in the garage, the pump will have to pull the water up from the sunken garden, it is better to push the water rather than pull, pump will have to be bigger and louder if it is required to pull water. Commission noted that the pump can be installed deeper in the garage so that water can reach it by gravity. Commission noted that the window trim is inconsistent throughout the house, especially on the half-round windows, this element would help the north elevation, trim should continue at base of the windows at the height of the wainscot to meter height of wall and should be carried around to the master bedroom, asked if the applicant would object to continuing the trim; no objection. Commission also pointed out that the window treatment is missing from the window below the bump-out on the north elevation. Commission noted several concerns with the revised project: suggested that an additional beam be added between the upper and lower beams on the gables ends, as proposed beams are too far apart, adding a beam in between would give it more character; north elevation is flat with a couple of minor bump-outs, a six inch bump-out will not read in the field and is not enough to create a shadow line; north elevation is a big blocky mass with a second floor ridge line running straight across the entire length of the house, overall façade is long and tall, feel that not enough changes were made, north elevation needs to be handled better by adding more articulation or dropping the plate at various locations. Commission asked architect to confirm that exposed rafters will be 2x8 cedar sistered together, 24 inches on center as noted on the plans; architect noted that a 4x can also be used, this is usually left up to the contractor to decide, will at least be a double 2x8. Continued discussion: Commission commented that usually like round windows, but feel that in this case there are too many round windows, not necessary on the south elevation on either side of the chimney. Commission reviewed materials board and noted that the wood siding and trim seems out of place; architect commented that these materials were used on the house shown in the photos submitted, feel it is appropriate and vocabulary works well with this kind of architecture. Commission expressed a concern with the size of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 7 the window trim at the base of the window, trim size is not consistent, 3 inch trim as shown on window detail is not big enough, mullions are too small, materials too small and will negatively affect the appearance; architect noted that the mullions shown on the plans make not be the exact size from the manufacturer but it is close. Commission noted that asked is there any reason why the trim piece couldn't be from a 2x6 to get a 6 inch dimension; architect noted that a 2x6 could be used. Commission commented that lanterns with a bright light source are discouraged, want to make sure the proposed lighting complies with city standards; architect noted that he has used the proposed lighting in the past, glass is obscure to shield the light source. Regarding the landscaping, the Commission pointed out that photinia frazeri is susceptible to disease, should use pittosporum or bay laurel instead. Commission expressed a concern with the siting of the house, noting that it abuts a corner lot which presents challenges to development, suggested that the driveway location remain along the left side of the lot to create a buffer between the project and corner house; architect pointed out that the driveway was relocated to the right because existing corner house has an increased setback and the existing house on the right is located very close to the project house, felt the location as proposed provided the best solution. There appears to be several drafting errors, on floor plan laundry room contains no windows but one is shown on south elevation, second floor stairway window is larger on south elevation than shown on floor plan, and north-south-east-west building elevation are labeled incorrectly, plans need to be checked and revised accordingly. Commission expressed a concern with the design as proposed, this is barely a Spanish style design, three recessed gables are more appropriate for a Tudor or Craftsman design, not for a Spanish design, typically see one or two receding gables, also often see a round element which is common in this neighborhood. Public from the Floor: Delores and Dennis Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, expressed concern with the sump pump in the sunken garden, a sump pump at the rear with a typical sloping lot would satisfy concern, or would rather see the sump pump located in the mechanical room or somewhere inside house; concerned with the sunken garden, why is it necessary; would like the applicant to remove an existing cyclone fence and ivy along the driveway between the properties, wooden fence is located behind cyclone fence, ivy has damaged the wooden fence and it takes a lot of extra to maintain the fence in good condition; concerned about the amount of paving proposed and the potential of cars being parked in the rear yard, if project is approved would like parking area clearly defined to be in the garage and driveway, not in rear yard; wasn’t aware of new requirement for automatic driveway gates, would like Commission to explain; noticed that the design of the chimney caps were changed to reduce the height of the chimneys, would like to see the height of the center chimney reduced further, if it is a gas vented fireplace can just use a flue pipe; full landscape plan should be submitted, thought one was required for new houses; side access door should be added in garage; concerned that the amount of hardscape was not reduced, there is excessive paving; concerned that the plate height on the first and second floors was not reduced; 216 Bloomfield Road is a Spanish style house with a detached garage, house was recently remodeled, massing was handled well by articulated the second floor, architect should visit the site; alternative location for the sump pump is in the "wet well" along the right side of the house; Table 2, Comment 22 in staff report notes that Chief Building Official reviewed the basement and notes that proper egress is provided if the room in the basement were a sleeping room, feel that this is equivalent to a fifth bedroom and therefore a two-car garage should be required, could affect the proposed floor area ratio, encourage Commission not to approve ceiling height in basement, if basement is kept with proposed height project should be required to comply with parking requirement for a five-bedroom house. Architect noted that the presence of a door and closet defines a bedroom, room in basement does not have closet. Commission clarified that in Burlingame, a room with a door and window defines a bedroom. Architect commented that a door from the basement is necessary to access the sunken garden, the plate height was already reduced 8'-2" and does not think it's advisable to reduce it even further, future owners who will purchase the house have some rights too, cannot justify sacrifice to make all changes suggested by the Commission, this is a narrow lot which has its challenges. Property owner noted that the purpose of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 8 sunken garden is to allow natural light into the basement area. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there are many concerns with this project, think the design is marginal, more detail work is needed, second floor plate height needs to be articulated, very concerned with blank wall along north elevation, sump pump should be located in a mechanical room, cyclone fence and ivy along existing driveway should be removed, should add automatic driveway gate to make the garage access and driveway useable, could reduce height of center chimney with a gas vented fireplace, landscape plan does not reflect removal of the magnolia trees in the right-of-way, landscape plans should be revised and should correlate with the landscaping items mentioned in the discussion tonight, side access door should be added in garage, architectural details need to coordinate throughout the plans, window sizes need to be checked and shown at correct size, bedrooms are prohibited in basements therefore it cannot be counted by Planning as a bedroom, proposed parking complies with requirements for a four-bedroom house; toilet in basement will be located eight feet below grade and therefore will need a sewage ejection system, not just a sump pump, will need to redesign the mechanical room to accommodate a sump pump and sewer ejector, going to have difficulties pumping water and sewage out; proposed project is 6 SF below the maximum allowed floor area ratio, there is no requirement for a basement other than developer pro forma. CA Anderson noted that a condition of approval can be added to prohibit use of the basement for sleeping purposes or use as a second dwelling unit. Commission noted that at the last meeting felt confident that the project would come back improved, not so, now a good candidate for review by a design review consultant. CA noted that the Commission had an opportunity to refer the project to a design review consultant at the last meeting and chose not to do so, Commission should now take action on the project deny or deny without prejudice. C. Terrones moved to deny this application by resolution based on the various concerns expressed by the Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Commission asked CA to explain the ramifications of a denial. CA noted that a denial requires the applicant to wait one year before reapplying with the same or a similar project for Planning Commission review. With a denial without prejudice, the applicant may reapply with a project which has addressed the Commissions' concerns. The applicant may also voluntarily go to a design review consultant. The maker of the motion modified the motion and moved to deny the project without prejudice. The second agreed. Comment on the modified motion: if applicant chooses to voluntarily go to a design review consultant, the consultant should listen to the tapes of both meetings. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the dais. 4. 1300 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (STEVEN PEDIGO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TWYLA KABATCHNICK, PROPERTY OWNER) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 9 Reference staff report January 8, 2007, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Plr. noted that condition one should be corrected the overall height of 11’-7” as measured from adjacent grade to the new roof. Commissioner asked will the recently-approved penalties for work without a permit apply to this project. CP noted that this code enforcement was in process before the penalties changed, so it is not affected. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No representative of the project was present. Fred Mcelhany , 1009 Laguna spoke. Am neighbor to this house on the driveway side; members of my family have lived at 1009 Laguna for 56 years; we are used to the garage at the present location, it replaced the former garage; the new garage looks like the former garage; if the garage were moved to the rear of the property at 1300 Sanchez the yellow structure would be in the sight line from my patio, at its present location my house blocks the view of garage from my patio; would like to leave the garage where it is. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: went to the site and looked at the garage, its OK owners problem is how he handled the project, no problem with the garage’s location, but it needs to comply with the regulations of the building code, needs a one hour wall on property line and roof needs to drain to the street. CP noted that should the planning approvals be granted the property owner would be required to apply for a building permit and correct any errors in construction, and have a final inspection of the revised work and make corrections noted then. C. Deal moved to approve the application by resolution, with the additional condition that the variances for uncovered parking space length and conditional use permits for height and windows within 10 feet of property line in an accessory structure go with the existing structure and should the structure be removed or the house removed or have a major remodel of more than 50% of the value of the existing residential structure, then the variance and conditional use permits granted for the garage shall become void and with the following conditions: (1) that the accessory structure project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 11, 2005, site plan, floor plan and building elevations, and that the new detached garage shall not exceed an overall height of 11'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, with a maximum plate height of 8'-0" measured from adjacent grade; and shall meet all California Building and Fire Code requirements; (2) that the variance go with the existing structure and should the structure be removed or the house removed or have a major remodel of more than 50% of the value of the existing residential structure then the variance and conditional use permits granted for the garage shall become void; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official's May 15, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist’s May 17, 2006 memo shall be met; (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 the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen, there shall be no shower or tub added without an amendment to this conditional use permit, and the accessory structure shall never be used for living purposes as a second dwelling unit; (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, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 10 The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: This work was done without a permit, are there any consequences for the contractor who built it? CA noted that the CBO can notify the State licensing board. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the parking variance for uncovered parking space dimension and conditional use permits for accessory structure height and windows within 10 feet of property line with the amended condition that the variance and conditional use permits for the accessory structure shall become void if the garage is ever removed or there is a major remodel to the house or the house is replaced. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. 5. 1130 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE SEATING AREA, HOURS OF OPERATION AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RALPH T. BEHLING, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report January 8, 2007, with attachments. Plr.. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted that since the study meeting and noticing of this project, the applicant has removed the request for the use of the patio area for additional seating area, this change eliminates the parking variance; they propose to continue to use the area at the rear of the restaurant for storage and required exiting. Depending upon the success of the restaurant they may ask to extend the seating area to the patio in the future. Condition 1 has been amended to provide no seating in the area at the rear of this business and the business next door at 1136 Broadway. Commissioners asked: How are the hours of operation in the patio area determined? Plr. noted it is up to the Commission. So if this item returns to add outdoor seating at the rear, commission could review the hours and could add a limitation that smoking be restricted to this rear area and away from the front door? CP noted yes. Has this item has been noticed for the parking variance which is required to extend seating into the storage area at the rear? Plr.. noted that the parking variance had been noticed. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, represented the project. Main reason withdrew the request to put outdoor seating for this business in the area behind this business and the one next door was the need for a parking variance. Applicant wants to move forward quickly and was concerned about possible delay. Commissioner noted that he would like to reduce delay and asked if the Commission approved the outdoor seating area with a time limit to 9 p.m. would that work for the applicant. Architect noted that it would. Plr. noted that the outdoor seating is an intensification of the food establishment use on this site and requires a 5 space parking variance. Architect noted that they would be willing to reduce the area by placing tables only in the outdoor storage area behind their business, which would leave about three tables. Public from the Floor: Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue. Broadway is my shopping area, am concerned about granting a parking variance on Broadway, particularly in this area with Walgreens, the bank and other uses which cause the parking to fill up. In addition Broadway is an entrance to the freeway and cars travel very fast on the street which is difficult for pedestrians. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 11 Commissioner comment: Broadway is also my backyard, the issue here is that there is no on-site parking for this building, everyone coming must use public parking, reason would support outdoor seating is would like to see this business succeed, later evening activity helps street life on Broadway, outdoor seating would support increased activity. When City Council decided to expand the number of food establishments in the Broadway area they recognized that this would increase the demand on parking in the area since so few sites had any on site parking, however, they felt that the benefit to pedestrian activity created by the additional food establishments would off set the increased demand on parking. Agree, live on Paloma and walk to Broadway as do a lot of people, restaurant will not be a parking problem. Fine with outdoor seating, the findings for the parking variance have been made, the problem of noise from the outdoor patio use would be addressed by limiting its use to 9 p.m. CA noted that based on problems in other parts of the city, the use of the patio should not allow any live entertainment or piping of music to the outdoor seating area. C. Vistica moved to approve the application including a three space parking variance and the use of the portion of the outdoor area which would be supported by a three space parking variance e.g. maximum of 600 SF, that there shall be no cooler, bar, or piped music or live entertainment in the outdoor patio area , and that the use of the outdoor patio are shall be limited to 10 p.m. daily, by resolution, with the following conditions as amended: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 22, 2006, sheets P1 through P4, and shall include a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet customer seating in the outdoor patio area only behind 1130 Broadway, that there shall be no cooler, bar, or piped music or live entertainment in the outdoor patio area and that the use of the outdoor patio area shall cease at 10:00 p.m. daily; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 12, 2006 memo, the City Engineer’s June 9, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 8, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist’s June 12, 2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's June 12, 2006 memo shall be met; (3) 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; (4) that any mechanical equipment associated with the food establishment shall be located behind the existing parapet wall and shall not extend above the top of parapet; any new mechanical equipment shall be of a non-reflective material; (5) that this business location, occupied by a specialty shop food establishment, with 1,440 SF of on-site seating (765 SF indoor + 75 SF outdoor entry area + a maximum of 600 SF of on-site seating located directly behind the business at 1130 Broadway) may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same or less leased square footage subject to the conditions of this conditional use permit, or shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment with a new conditional use permit; that if this specialty shop food establishment is changed to any other type of food establishment classification, this site shall not return to specialty shop use; (6) that a clear path of travel for exiting from the rear of this business and the adjacent restaurant at 1136 Broadway through the outdoor patio area at the rear of the business at 1130 Broadway shall be maintained in accordance with building and fire code requirements; (7) that the 1,440 SF area of on-site seating of the specialty shop food establishment shall only be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space by an amendment to this conditional use permit; (8) that this specialty shop food establishment may be open Monday through Saturday, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight), with a maximum of seven employees (two full-time and five part-time employees) on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; (9) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (10) that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; (11) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; (12) that there shall be no food sales allowed at City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 12 this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; (13) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use this conditional use permit shall become void and a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site; (14) that seating on the sidewalk outside the food establishment shall require an encroachment permit and shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; (15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: want to clarify that there will be no piped music or live entertainment requiring an amusement permit in the outdoor patio area, concerned about nearby residents. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the food establishment use with outdoor patio area limited to 600 SF of seating area immediately behind the business with no cooler, bar, piped music or live entertainment in the outdoor patio seating area. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 6. 401 PRIMROSE ROAD – SUITE B, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (ALLAN OMAND, APPLICANT; MURRAY COHN, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report January 8, 2007, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Allan Omand, El Granada, represented the project. He noted that his business specializes in real estate investments. There were no questions of the applicant. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: (1) that the real estate business shall be limited to 812 SF in Suite B at 401 Primrose Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 18, 2006; (2) that the real estate business shall not expand into any other tenant space in the building without an amendment to this permit; (3) that the real estate business may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week; with a maximum of two employees at any one time, including the business owner; the number of employees shall not be increased without an amendment to the conditional use permit; (4) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; (5) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for real estate use in 812 SF in Suite B. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 13 C. Osterling noted that for business he needed to catch a flight and stepped down from the dias and left the council chambers. Chair Brownrigg noted his departure at 9:15 p.m. 7. 50 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCES FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (MCA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HACOR, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (7 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report January 8, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: need 69 parking spaces, 54 will be provided in 18 units which stack three deep, so 15 parking spaces are provided at- grade on site, outside of the loading docks. CP responded yes, should be identified on the plans. Applicant did not respond to the question about whether this location will be a point of sale for this product. CA noted that the commission can make it a condition of approval that this be a point of sale for the product produced on this site. If this business leaves this site what happens to the lifts? CP noted that commission can require that they be removed. CA noted that commission can limit continued use to a specific use such as food processing, and if the use changed from that the variance and stacked parking could be reviewed by the Planning Commission. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jeff Wright, HCA Architects, Portland, represented the project. He noted that the point of sale for products produced at this site would be in Burlingame; if the structures are not being used for stacking, the 18 parking spaces can be used for one car; there are 69 parking spaces, including the 18, 3 decked parking machines, on-site and documented on the plans; the staff report documents the main shifts and show that the crews come in at different times to allow for parking space turnover. Commissioner asked, chose not to go with a subsidy to employees who use mass transit, will you still provide incentives for employees to use mass transit? Have been working with the Alliance which has agreed to work with the employees to use mass transit, think that there is a strong possibility that many employees will use mass transit since all the employees at this site will be new. The entry canopy as drawn is massive, can it be modified so that it would look lighter; would suggest lowering the portion over the support beams by two-thirds. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: need to add a condition requiring that the point of sale for products made on this site shall be in Burlingame; observe that this stacking system is like one saw in San Francisco, did some work with a company that made these systems, they work. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the amended condition that the point of sale for all sales from this site shall be in the City of Burlingame and the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 26, 2006, sheets A0.0 thru L1.2, and date stamped January 2, 2007, sheet L1.1, as amended by the December 27, 2006 letter from the applicant, and date stamped December 28, 2006, supplemental packet for HACOR Burlingame In-Flight kitchen, that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, awnings, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that any signs shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; (2) that the point-of-sale for all products produced on this site shall be the City of Burlingame and should this change the conditional use permit shall be subject to review and revocation by the Planning Commission; (3) that the vertical lifts for City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 14 parking shall be operated by a parking valet shall be in the employ of the business on the site and shall be on-site to operate the lifts during all hours that the business is open and for one hour before and after opening and closing; the lifts shall be maintained in working order and a valet present at all times; and the applicant shall submit a report on their maintenance and operation record to the Planning Department on an annual basis, commencing one year after project approval; if the lifts are ever removed or become inoperable for a period to exceed 30 days, the parking variance for this use at this site shall become null and void; and the applicant shall be required to apply to the Planning Commission within 30 days for review of all permits granted to this site for this use; (4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s October 6, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshall’s October 10, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist’s and NPDES Coordinators October 16, 2006 memos and the City Engineer’s October 23, 2006 memo shall be met; (5) 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; (6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or mezzanine floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; (7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (8) 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 Department; (9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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; (10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (11) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 8. 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO STORAGE FOR A TOWING BUSINESS AND AN AUTOMOBILE DEALER IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT (MARC ROCHETTE, D & M TOWING, APPLICANT; FITNESS PROPERTIES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (18 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report January 8, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: thought that it was a requirement in the zoning that the vehicles stored be operable? CP noted that this application was received when the M-1 zoning was in effect for this area , and the operable vehicle requirement was a criteria added to the zoning with the RR zoning now in effect. Is the amount of the liability shown going to be sufficient over time? CA noted that in the past received a flooding claim for 40 vehicles stored in the drain, settlement was $20,000 per vehicle or $800,000, so thought $1,000,000 would be adequate. Commissioner noted that should add a condition to the liability condition that there be a bi-annual escalator for the liability insurance determined by the City Attorney. No variance is required for the storage of inoperable vehicles? CP under the M-1 zoning district that is correct. Noted in on site inspection that opening the gate at the end of 1640 Rollins Road for D & M towing access will cause the loss of some stripped parking along the fence at the rear of the site, can they be replaced on site? CP noted that it is our City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 15 understanding that the use in this building is changing. The new use would be required to provide parking to code requirements on site. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Nichole Rochette , D & M towing manager, and Guillermo Macalpin , representing the property owner spoke. Counted 18 parking spaces along the rear fence of 1640 Rollins Road, two of these are located in the gate area, there are also 12 parking spaces on the side of the building, for a total on site of 30 without the two at the gate. Atherton Appliance now owns the building and intends to use 1640 as a warehouse, then need access to the loading docks at the rear which may also affect the parking at the rear. Commissioner asked if when D & M parks an inoperable car, do they drain the oil and gas? Leave the car/truck as towed, if they see a leak they call the Fire Department, they put absorbent material or a pan under the vehicle, D & M is not a salvage yard, so do not touch the vehicles. Commissioner asked how often does the drain flood? Sr. Engineer Bell noted that there is about one to two feet of water in the drain every 5 years; no use will be allowed without an encroachment permit from Public Works which will require appropriate drainage with petroleum filters, etc. CP noted that there has been some kind of Fish and Game permit and US Army Corps of Engineers review, but any improvements will also need to be consistent with the requirements of these agencies. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with an amendment to condition 11 to provide the City Attorney bi-annually a review of the adequacy of the amount of liability insurance, and shall have the right to increase the amount if it is determined by him to be appropriate, and with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 18, 2006; and the use within the drainage easement shall include no construction except for a fence, required paving, drainage improvements, and wildlife protection facilities; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's February 22, 2005 and June 27, 2006 memos and the NPDES Coordinator's February 16, 2005 memo shall be met; (3) that driveway access to the towing vehicle storage area at the south end of the drainage easement shall be provided through property at 1640 Rollins Road, and the applicant shall enter into a lease agreement for ingress and egress with the owner of that property for the duration of the use of the drainage easement for storage of towed vehicles; (4) that driveway access to the automobile dealer storage area within the northern portion of the drainage easement shall be provided through the northern driveway on property at 1704 Rollins Road, and the applicant shall enter into a lease agreement for ingress and egress with the owner of that property for the duration of the use of the drainage easement for automobile storage; (5) that cars shall only be moved from the automobile dealers storage portion of the site only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., there shall be no car carriers used to deliver vehicles to the site or remove them, nor shall car carriers be parked in the public right-of-way to load or unload cars from this site; (6) that parking within the drainage easement shall be exclusive for storage of up to 40 vehicles for an automobile dealership and for storage of eight tow trucks and up to 70 cars which have been towed to the site; and the maximum number of vehicles stored in the designated drainage easement area shall not exceed 118; (7) that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from the adjacent parcels and from Rollins Road; (8) that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility and liability of the property owner; and it is the responsibility of the business to make tow trucks available to move any vehicles stored on the site that are not in operable condition; (9) that the applicant shall provide a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney that provides as follows: (A) Owner agrees and understands that some of the parking proposed in the application is to be located in a drainage area that is subject to periodic flooding. The Owner has obtained professional analysis of the effects and impacts of the drainage area; (B) Owner agrees and affirms that Owner is relying solely on Owner’s own knowledge and the representations of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 16 Owner’s own experts and consultants in designing, constructing, and using the project and in no way relying on any representations or analyses of the City or any of its officers or employees in proceeding with the construction and uses; (C) Owner agrees that Owner shall defend and indemnify the City, its officers and employees against, and will hold them and each of them harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or properties, penalties, obligations, and liabilities, including any attorneys fees or associated costs, that may be asserted by any person arising from the approval, design, location, methods, installation, operation, and existence of the parking within the drainage area approved by the City; (D) This agreement shall be recorded by the City in the Official Records of the Recorder of San Mateo County; (10) that the property shall be posted at all times with signs approved by the City Engineer at distances no further apart than 20 feet notifying all users of the property that the area is subject to flooding at any time and that use of the property is at the user's sole risk; (11) that the property owner shall maintain liability insurance for general liability and flood coverage at all times in an amount of not less than $1 million, naming the City as an additional insured; and that the City Attorney shall bi-annually review the adequacy of the amount of liability insurance carried by the applicants and shall have the right to increase the amount of that liability insurance if it is determined by him to be appropriate; and that the property owner shall keep a current proof of insurance on file with the City Department of Public Works with the additional insured endorsement at all times; (12) that the property owner shall obtain the same written acknowledgments of any tenant, lessee, subtenant, or sublessee of the property as required by Condition No. 9 and file a copy of the acknowledgments with the City; (13) that the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance on the drainage easement; (14) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from this site shall be required to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Runoff shall be collected and filtered into the storm water drainage system through a collection system whose size shall be approved by the City Engineer before it is discharged into the channel; the property owner shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the system; (15) that each storm water catch basin on the site shall be equipped with one Pig Sump Skimmer #SKM403 at all times; all catch basins shall be inspected on a weekly basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the Sump Skimmer filter; any filters found to be at or close to absorption limit shall be immediately replaced with a new product; and adequate inventory of new product shall be kept on hand to assure no replacement delays; (16) that the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for improvements within the drainage easement; submittal to the Public Works Department shall include a drawing for the proposed drainage improvements; provide detail drawings for alternate #4 for the drainage overflow pipe and the size of the sump pump shall be indicated; (17) that construction activities for the storm drain improvements shall comply with the construction hours of the Burlingame Municipal Code; (18) that if required for any improvements, the applicant shall amend the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for any operational or physical changes made for these uses in this drainage area, and if those permits are not issued these uses shall cease; and (19) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: People whose cars are towed should be made aware that they are being stored in a flood area; CA noted majority of tows in this case are involuntary or the result of accidents, this is not voluntary parking where notification of flooding would be important, in this case D & M towing takes responsibility once they tow the vehicle, it belongs to them and they are liable. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit to use the drain for auto storage and storage for towed vehicles, operable and inoperable. The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 17 9. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE: REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING PERMITS, RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY ON FRAMING CERTIFICATION (NOTICE IN SAN MATEO TIMES) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 8, 2009, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been working with the Chief Building Official, City Planner and City Attorney to address three issues: building permit extension times which also affect Planning approval extensions; fees for building permit extensions; construction site maintenance; and certification of framing for design review projects. The first three are amendments/changes to the Municipal Code are also recommendations to the City Council for action. The framing certification is a Planning Commission policy and should be adopted by Planning Commission Resolution. CBO Joe Cyr joined CP in responding to Commissioners questions. Why should the city not hire a qualified inspector for certification of the framing? If the City certifies the framing then the city becomes liable for whatever goes wrong in the building in the future, especially since this is not a life/safety issue; city does not want the exposure. Would not like to see this certification as a profit center for the City. What kind of litter does the construction site maintenance provision refer to? CP noted paper and other waste. CA noted that ‘litter’ also includes demolition debris scattered on the lawn or around the site for extended periods of time. Commissioner noted that responsible builders have dumpster on site, but the streets are so narrow that these can block traffic and cause a parking problem, not want them in the street any longer than necessary, this encourages dumpsters. Committee member noted that dumpsters were discussed, and it was noted that dumpsters are so expensive that they are not kept throughout construction, daily removal in a smaller truck is now more common. CA noted that litter includes all discarded material. Commissioner noted that stacked building materials would not be a problem. CP noted certainly not if they were covered. Commissioner noted that this does not seem to read that drywall and other debris would need to be removed from the site every night. CBO noted that currently there is no construction site maintenance ordinance, and thus no way to regulate serious abuse or address neighbor’s legitimate complaints. Commissioner noted he supported the framing certification being done by an architect or residential designer because too frequently the architect is not engaged in the project after it has been approved by the Planning Commission and the building permit has been issued. Commissioner noted that he had done several framing certifications since the Commission directed that a condition be added to residential design review projects, think it works well and is a great idea. Self certification rarely works. Architect would be certifying what he can see at framing, there will still be a design review inspection as a part of the final inspection to address details added after framing. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. The definition of litter notwithstanding, Commission should approve this amendment; regarding framing certification would also like to see a notice of completion filed with the County Recorder, so everyone would know up front if a project had not called for a final inspection, this should be required for all substantial remodels and all new construction. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: All agree on the permit extension and framing certification, think the construction site regulation is a dramatic change, would prefer to see a condition requiring site maintenance added to the Planning Commission’s action on each project. Don’t have a problem covering materials stored on the site or refuse and dumpsters at night, would have the benefit of keeping the neighbors from tossing their things into the dumpster; concerned about trash receptacle on site, when full should pick up, ok if it must be covered went they drive away; practically this is a code enforcement issue. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 18 . C. Cauchi, noted that the construction site maintenance issue is practically a code enforcement issue and moved to adopt the planning commission resolution establishing architectural certification of the framing for all projects subject to design review prior to calling for a final framing inspection and recommendation to the City Council for approval of the changes to the municipal code for permit extensions, short term extensions, permit extension fees and construction site maintenance with amendment to the text (in italics) to include: “Any property owner or person in charge of a construction site shall furnish covered litter containers for construction litter, including construction debris. All waste matter or litter from construction and related activities shall be picked up and placed in covered containers at the end of each working day. Waste matter or litter receptacles of a sufficient number must be located on the construction site to receive personal litter, construction debris, or any waste matter generated by the employees, workers, invitees, or other persons using the site.” The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Commission resolution for architectural certification of the framing before the final framing inspection and to recommend to the City Council amendments to the municipal code for permit extension, short term permit extensions, permit extension fees and the amended construction site maintenance provisions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MR. AND MRS. BERNARD CORRY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Auran noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that two letters were submitted by neighbors sharing concerns about the project. There were no questions of staff. Commissioner noted that he met with the applicant on the site to discuss the details of the project. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, and Bernard Corry, property owner, noted that this is a difficult site to work with because of the upward slope, there is a difference of 12 feet from front to rear, they are proposing to maintain the finished floor of the house as it exists because the sewer main is located in the easement to the rear of the property; detached garage is at the rear of the lot and therefore had to adjust the slope of the driveway to make it easier to back onto the street, otherwise driveway would be very steep. Public comment continued: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, noting that there are a lot of neighborhoods in Burlingame with the sewer line at the rear; however, there may also be a sewer line in the street at the front of the house, should check with Public Works; should consider planting a Jacaranda tree in front yard, would be appropriate for Craftsman style house; chimney along left side of house is too high and massive; should consider shifting the house six inches to the right to provide a wider driveway, would make it easier for vehicles to enter and exit the site; concerned that the design of the proposed door is being used on a lot of houses, should consider using a craftsman style door with divided lites, ledge and recessed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 19 panels; in June 2005, an application for a remodel and addition was approved, with that project the house was 4 feet taller than proposed, a building permit was issued but the project was never built, at that time the lot was listed as 6,000 SF but with this application the lot is listed as 6,014 SF, where did the extra SF come from? Commission noted that a survey was done for the current project, the surveyed lot size is more accurate. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the design:  front and left elevations are inconsistent, grade on front elevation should be lower and will make the house look taller, please revise to show correct grade elevation;  add note on plans to specify size of brackets;  chimney on left elevation appears slender, need to make it more substantial, could add a shoulder or other element to beef it up;  concerned with the 34 foot tall chimney along the left elevation, need to do something to reduce its height, could make it a direct vent fireplace or completely remove chimney; however, since the chimney provides articulation, removing it may create additional problems with articulation on that side;  front elevation shows stucco on bay window, right elevation shows shingle on bay window, please clarify right elevation to show stucco on bay window, review plans and make details of design consistent throughout;  concerned with the massing of the stairway to the front of the house, the 6 foot width and substantial railing will make it look very massive, steep stairway needs to be eliminated, suggest starting the walkway slightly to the right of the driveway and work with the slope, have the walkway meander up to the porch with some steps along the way;  concerned with the 100 foot long blank fence along the driveway, there is no landscaping proposed, need to add landscaping along the entire length of the driveway to soften the fence;  concerned with inset for stairway on the left elevation, creates an awkward roof relationship with the bay above, needs to be addressed;  stairway is prominent, need to reduce the massing of the stairway, also study size of stairway window;  concerned with the height of the mechanical door on the left elevation, looks awkward to have the bottom of the door raised off the ground, should consider lowering the door to look like it is entering the house;  if a driveway gate is proposed, applicant should consider adding an electronic gate, 20 feet back from the front property line to encourage use of the driveway and garage;  concerned with the two story element on the left side of the house as seen on the front elevation, need to reduce the massing at the front, suggest relocating bedroom #2 to the right side of the house to mirror master bedroom, this would benefit the front elevation by adding a one-story element at the front of the house, this would not significantly affect the floor space or room size, may reduce hallway area;  would like to see the relationship between the proposed house and houses next door to make sure the proposed height is compatible, provide streetscape of proposed house and adjacent houses;  would like to see a tree planted in the front yard of a species with a vertical shape which would grow to a 25 foot height to soften the height of the building, proposed strawberry tree can remain if it will grow to 25 feet in height, need verification of growth height from landscape architect; reduction of the walkway width will provide more room for a substantial tree in front yard; if strawberry tree will not achieve height, landscape architect should choose a tree that is the dominant species on this block; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 20  applicant needs to work with the neighbor regarding the concern over the hedge along the north side of the property, landscape architect or specialist should advise on protection during construction, issue needs to be resolved before coming back for action; condition of approval will be added to require an arborist's report to maintain and protect hedge during construction. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran abstain, C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. C. Auran returned to the dais. 11. 1592 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JAMES MCFALL, MCFALL ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREG AND LYNNE MCVEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Chairman Brownrigg noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that three letters were submitted by neighbors in support of the project. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public comment. Greg Mcvey, property owner and James McFall, project architect represented the project, noted that he has been a resident of Burlingame for 20 years, like the way the house is built around the center patio, but the house has an odd shape and placement on the lot; run local toy business in Burlingame which requires long hours, use the existing accessory structure in the rear yard as a home office, would like to continue same use in new hobby room proposed over the garage; now have a two-car garage at the front of the house, project includes moving garage out of site to the rear; three letters in support submitted by neighbors were unsolicited, show proposed plans to seven neighbors. Public comment continued: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, noted that this is a wonderful looking house, the front trellis would look great with wisteria on it, would also help to enhance the posts. Commission noted: typically would not approve two-story accessory structure, but in this case it is acceptable because the structure will not impose on the neighbors given the site conditions, including the buffer created by the creek behind the property; proposed hobby room above the garage is modest, no sewer or water line is proposed. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the design: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 21  projection for kitchen stove on the west elevation looks awkward, should consider removing it or changing the exterior material from shingle to horizontal siding;  should make the corbels along the left side of the house more substantial, use double corbels to add visual support;  suggest not building a property line fence along the left side and rear of the garage, fence should stop at the front of the garage and turn in, this eliminates the unusable space between the garage and fence and allows better access for maintenance if neighbors agree;  proposed garage is close to property line, applicant should verify that the gutter and eave of garage does not extend across property line;  skylights should be tinted to reduce night glow;  would like to see a detailed landscape plan or additional landscaping on the site plan; more landscaping should be added between the deck and rear property line (or identify existing material in this area) and along the driveway;  could break the plate line along the long side by increasing the plate height in the guest room at the front of the house;  concerned that the design proposed at the front of the house makes it look like the back of a house; the trellis, second floor cantilever and front door together make it look like the back of a house, does not integrate well, maybe could add a covered porch element to announce the front entrance and better integrate the entrance;  large, broad deck at the front of the house works well because this is probably the sunny side of the lot, consider changing the shape of the deck or adding a railing to help announce the entrance to the house; and  entrance to the house can also be identified by enhancing the design of the columns making them more substantial and adding the address number. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked, and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Brownrigg abstain, C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:25 p.m. Chairman Brownrigg returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS - There were no Commissioner's Reports for review. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of January 2, 2007. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 2, 2007, she noted that the Council set the appeal hearing from 1557 Drake for January 16, 2007. She also noted that at their special meeting in December the council moved the appeal hearing for 3 Rio Court to February 5, 2007. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 22 - FYI: 1465 Balboa Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project. Commission had no comments on this request. - FYI: 469 Bloomfield Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project. Commission had no comments on this request. - FYI: 2105 Roosevelt Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project. Commission had no comments on this request. - FYI: 216 Bloomfield Road – as-built changes to a previously approved design review project. Commission had no comments on this request. - FYI: 1783 El Camino Real – street light fixture selection for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project. Commission endorsed the selection of the American made light standard based on the facts that it was preferred by the Public Works department, the cost was less than the alternative and maintenance would be reduced because the parts were more readily available. Commissioners did note that they were opposed to the use of low pressure sodium lights or any colored lighting in these fixtures. Staff will pass this decision on to the hospital project manager. The hospital is getting ready to install the light fixtures and landscaping along El Camino and Trousdale at the parking garage. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary