Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.26.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 26, 2007 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the March 26, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 12, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended item 1, 12 Vista Lane, line 3 of that item should be amended to read “… but has not discussed the site in any detail with the applicant…”. The minutes were approved unanimously as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Brownrigg noted that based on a letter received he would move item 1a, 329 Occidental, from the Consent Calendar to the first item on the Regular Action Calendar. Otherwise the Agenda remained as submitted. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented on the three FYI projects on the agenda. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. VII. 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. Chair Brownrigg noted that item 1a, 329 Occidental Avenue, would be moved to the first item on the Regular Action calendar. He then asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 1b. 624 TRENTON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KATRINA KUHL, KUHL ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SUZI AND FRANK HENNELLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 1c. 819 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A BASEMENT (MICHAEL RABBIT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (107 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 2 1d. 2620 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KEVIN WEINMANN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LORNA BECCARIA, PROPERTY OWNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN 1e. 1110 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG AND DIANE HAUPT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Comment on the Consent Calendar: Commissioners noted that the conditions on the project at 819 Walnut Avenue, item 1c, should be amended to require that a rat abatement program shall be prepared and executed before demolition or any construction commences on the property. Further it was noted for the project at 624 Trenton Avenue, item 1b, that for security the property owner could install either opaque or tinted glass in the garage door if they wished. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1a. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOE AND JULIA MCVEIGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. Letter from Alan and Suzie Klein, March 20, 2007, to Planning Commission. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Joe McVeigh, property owner, 329 Occidental Avenue; Randy Grange, architect; Susie Klein, 325 Occidental Avenue; Robert Bodreau, 333 Occidental Avenue. Issues noted: existing landscaping along side property lines; driveway configuration; hammerhead in rear yard for forward exit; change in plans re: basement and terraces; keep existing wooden property line fence during construction; protect/retain existing established hedge on the right side property line. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Comment on the motion: Following items need to be addressed on the plans:  On the left side property line in the small space along the fence plant Pittosporum and provide a protection plan and implement it during construction to protect the established hedge along the right side property line;  Curve the driveway in order to retain as much as possible of the existing landscaping (trees) on the left side, including the Holly tree; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 3  On one sheet of the plans note all the existing trees, unprotected size as well as protected, along all the property lines;  For greater mature height consider Bradford Pear and Grecian Laurel in the rear; Chair Brownrigg noted that the house plans appear to be resolved, think changes to it were improvements, the removal of the basement was the applicant’s choice, moved to bring the item back on the consent calendar when the landscape plan and driveway have been amended as recommended. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the consent calendar after the landscape and site plans have been amended based on the direction given and reviewed by Planning staff. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers Cauchi, Osterling absent). Staff noted that they would renotice this item when it was placed on the agenda again. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. 2. 1473 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JASON AND DENISE PAYNE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if any revised plans were submitted, staff responded no. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Ave San Mateo, architect; Jason and Denise Payne, property owners; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Ave, spoke. Issues noted: front porch area; flat areas on roof; fireplace insufficient setback; Jasmine on landscape plan; curved windows; one car garage required; tree protection; and construction site maintenance requirements. The applicant submitted a single copy of a reduced sheet of new proposed revisions at the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:  May want to extend the rafters up on the roof at a pitch in order to avoid flat areas, particularly on the smallest flat area; tar and gravel is a lot of work and water can pond;  The proposed fireplace along the right side elevation has an insufficient setback to the property line, it needs to move at least 6” in towards the house;  The Jasmine vines along the left side property line need to be planted closer together and there should be more of them, in order to create a landscape barrier between the two properties;  The curved windows proposed on the house shall be retained during construction and shall not be replaced with rectangular windows;  An arborist report, prepared by a licensed arborist, shall be submitted with tree protection measures for the protected Oak tree in the rear yard, and the City Arborist shall review and approve the arborist report; the protection measures should be installed before a building permit is issued;  During construction, the applicant should coordinate, if possible, with the next door neighbor to share a debris box or at least avoid having two debris boxes on the street at the same time; the applicant shall abide by the new construction site maintenance requirements. C. Auran moved to approve the original plans and application, by resolution, with all conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 4 CA Anderson encouraged the Commission to not approve the project with the plans submitted at the meeting because they have not yet been reviewed by staff and their content is not reflected in the staff report or record. He stated that the Commission could place the item on the consent calendar when all changes had been made to the plans, reviewed by staff and there is room on the agenda. C. Auran amended his motion and moved to place the item on the consent calendar when all changes noted by the Commission had been made to the plans and reviewed by staff and when there was room on the agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place the item on the consent calendar when all changes had been made to the plans and reviewed by staff and when there was room on the agenda. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 3. 1136 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SARAH & BENJAMIN CHEYETTE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TIM HALEY, TSH INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Sarah Cheyette, property owner, spoke. Issues noted: size and material of vents at front elevation; only Scheme A will work in this circumstance; with Scheme A front fascia should be extended slightly and to the eave as well; header boards; placement and size of bathroom widow; can window be lowered a few inches; window box material; and cast stone material under windows. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with added conditions that Scheme A, date stamped March 13, 2007, be approved for the front elevation; that the eave over the bathroom at the front is extended proportionally to the wall to retain the same eave projection as approved originally; the bathroom window at the front should be lowered as much as possible and that the vents, as reflected in Scheme A, shall be made of wood and with the conditions in the staff report: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2007, Scheme A front elevation, date stamped January 29, 2007, left side elevation, date stamped January 11, 2006, sheets A0.10 to A3.03 (excluding the proposed front, sheet A3.01, and left side, sheet A3.03, elevations), and topographic survey sheet 1, with simulated true divided light windows and traditional wood stucco mold throughout, and with the relocation of the stairs between the garage and the house into the house and out of the required parking area; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the eave over the bathroom and front door be extended proportionally to the extension of the wall so that the eave projection remains the same as originally approved; that if possible, the bathroom window at the front when relocated in the new wall, shall be lowered as much as possible; the two vents, as shown in Scheme A, shall be made of wood; (3) that the variance for parking space width shall only apply to this residential building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; (4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 18, 2005 memo and the Fire Marshal's, the City Engineer's, the Recycling Specialist's, and the NPDES Coordinator's City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 5 November 21, 2005, memos, 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 second 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 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; (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 all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (12) 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 (13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 4. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENDRICK LI, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty (20) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Kendrick Li, applicant and property owner, Ben Behravesh, 4 W. Santa Inez Ave San Mateo, architect; Dennis and Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Issues noted: applicant volunteered to go to a design review consultant; wood headers missing over five windows along left elevation; headers over arched windows will be made of stucco; decorative railing; more traditional to have simulated true divided lite windows; site design; spiral staircase used to exit the sunken garden area; lights mounted on outside of house; greenbelt of backyards; detached garage verses a sunken attached garage; privacy tree hedge; noise from basement and sunken garden; large houses and maximum allowable FAR; basement used as fifth bedroom or second unit; City infrastructure supporting sump pumps; a drainage plan; not required to have a basement, but required to have a second exit from a basement; and great house, but on wrong lot. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 6 C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with added conditions that simulated true divided lite windows on a grid pattern be used throughout the house, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item; that the spiral staircase out of the sunken garden be eliminated and replaced with a ladder per California Building Code requirements; and that the only lighting on the left side shall be landscape lighting directed to the ground, and with the conditions in the staff report: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 14, 2007, sheets DD-1 through DD-7.0; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that the spiral staircase from the sunken garden shall be eliminated and replaced with a ladder per California Building Code requirements; and that the only lighting along the left side shall be landscape lighting directed to the ground, with the cone of light kept on the site as required in the Burlingame Ordinance; (2) that any street tree roots of one inch diameter or larger that are encountered during installation of the new sidewalk and driveway are not to be damaged or cut prior to inspection and approval by the City Arborist or the Park Department Supervisor; (3) that all windows shall be simulated true divided lite windows with a grid pattern and these windows shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item before issuance of a building permit; (4) that an automatic gate shall be installed in the driveway a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; (5) that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce night glare; (6) that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Arborlogic Consulting Arborists, dated August 3, 2006; (7) that the conditions of the City Arborist's March 21, 2007 memo, the Chief Building Official's November 27, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's November 27, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 29, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's November 27, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 12, 2006 memo shall be met; (8) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (9) that 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; (10) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (11) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; (12) 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; (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 Department; (14) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall 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; (15) 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; (16) 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; (17) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 7 partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (18) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; (19) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (20) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the proposed project with the added conditions. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 5. 1318 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FRANK PRENDERGAST, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PIERRE AND CAROL UHARRIET, PROPERTY OWNERS) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there were any changes to the project other than the height, staff responded no. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Phillip Uharriet, property owners son, and Frank Prendergast, architect, were available to answer questions. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 12, 2003, sheets A1 through A5 and date stamped March 14, 2007, sheets A1 and A4; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of he building shall require and amendment to this permit; (2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; (3) that the property owner at 1318 Benito Avenue shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations listed in the March 23, 2004 arborist's report to preserve and protect the existing Coast Redwood tree located at 1320 Benito Avenue; the recommendations include measures to be implemented before, during and after construction is complete; (4) 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; (5) 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; (6) 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; (7) that prior to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 8 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; (8) that the conditions of the City Arborist's April 5, 2004, memo including the requirements of the Arborlogic Consulting report dated March 23, 2004, and the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's August 11, 2003, memos shall be met; (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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (11) 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. Brownrigg. Commission noted that an extremely large tree and the slope of the lot help to mitigate the height of the house. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 9 6. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A 25-UNIT, 7-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (PAUL BOGATSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAN IONESCU ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, ARCHITECT) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT; AND b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP – PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report March 24, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-two (52) conditions including the mitigation monitoring program were suggested for consideration. CP noted that on February 12, 2007, the Commission held a public hearing on this multiple family residential project and continued the action until the applicant had responded to several design and open space issues identified. The applicant submitted revised plans dated March 14, 2007, and notice was sent for a continued public hearing this evening. Commissioners had no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dan Ionesco, architect, and Paul Bogatsky, property owner, represented the project. Issues discussed: the changes to the plans, placement of wrought iron below the store front gate; the construction of the trellis on the front of the building; the new podium used for open space; materials sample board. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion finding that, on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing and at the public hearing, there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a negative impact on the environment, so recommend the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Condominium Map to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to find the Mitigated Negative Declaration an adequate environmental disclosure and recommending both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Condominium Map to the Council for action. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent) voice vote. Commissioners comments on the project: because of the proximity of the hospital entrance across the street from this site would like to see all staging and debris management for this project done on site, applicant should find alternate parking for employees and for storage of materials during construction if necessary. Note that the exception for lot coverage is met because the area covered not only improves the quality of life in the building by sheltering future residents and neighbors from noise from the access ramps to the parking area below the building but also provides additional open space for the use of future owners; the front setback variance is justified on the basis that a major objective of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan is to increase pedestrian activity and life on the street, because the grade on this lot and easement location resulted in the first deck of parking being at grade, the main entrance into the building projecting into the front setback supports the objective of bringing more life to the street and encourages pedestrians. C. Vistica made a motion to approve the residential condominium permit, front setback variance, conditional use permits for lot coverage and height for a new seven story 25-unit residential condominium project by City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 10 resolution with amended conditions that building materials for this project shall be stored on this property or managed from another property in the area approved by the City Engineer; that all employee parking and equipment parking for this construction project shall be provided on the site or shall be provided on another site in the immediate area as approved by the City Engineer; that no mitigations proposed for materials storage, equipment storage and staging, or employee parking shall involve the Plaza Shopping Center parking or facilities; and that the portions of the trellises on the front elevation shown to be built with the 2x10’s shall be increased to at least 4x 10 over the 6x6 posts; and with all the conditions, including the conditions from the mitigation monitoring plan as follows: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 14, 2007, sheets A0.1, A.1, A2.1, A2.1.1, A2.2 through A2.7, A3.1 through A3.4, A4.1, A4.2, A5.1 through A5.9, Ground Floor Landscape Plan and Podium Level Landscape Plan, and Boundary and Topographic Survey Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and that the portions of the trellises on the front elevation shown to be 2x10’s shall be increased to at least 4x 10 over the 6x6 posts; (2) that building materials for this project shall be stored on this property or managed from another property in the area as approved by the City Engineer; that all employee parking and equipment parking for this construction project shall be provided on the site or shall be provided on another site in the immediate area as approved by the City Engineer; that no mitigations proposed for materials storage, equipment storage and staging, or employee parking shall involve the Plaza Shopping Center parking or any of its facilities; (3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 117.18'' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Trousdale Drive (42.18') for a maximum height of 75'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The lower level garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 33.5'; at-grade garage level finished floor elevation shall be elevation 42.5'; first floor above garage finished floor shall be elevation 53.5'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 63.5'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 73.5'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 83.5'; sixth floor loft finished floor shall be elevation 102.5'; and the top of ridge elevation shall be no more than 117.18'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; (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 the backflow prevention device and post indicator valve (PIV) shall be located and screened by landscaping so they will be hidden from both the street and project residents; (7) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 21, 2006, memo, the Chief Building Official's August 2, 2005, memo, the Fire Marshal's August 12, 2005 and September 3, 2006 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's August 15, 2005, memo and the Recycling Specialist’s August 8, 2005, memo shall be met; (8) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; (9) that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $12,593.70, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; (10) that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $12,593.70, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; (11) that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to establish the affordability of the three below market rate units required as a part of this project; the applicant shall also submit a below market rate housing plan City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 11 which shall describe in detail the applicant's proposal for a third party to meet and manage the inclusionary housing requirements as required by Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; the applicant shall enter into an agreement with a third-party non-profit organization approved by the City to administer the program; (12) that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the three guest parking stalls, and one service vehicle parking stall, 52 parking spaces shall be available on site for owners, and none of the on- site parking shall be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does not own a unit on the site; (13) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the three guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; (14) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (15) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; (16) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; (17) that the security gate system across the right side entrance driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; (18) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; (19) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; (20) 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; (21) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; (22) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; (23) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; (24) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; (25) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; (26) 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; (27) that in lieu of meeting the requirement specific to fire apparatus access required by Section 902.2.1, Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by Burlingame Municipal Code 17.04, the project applicant shall extend the required Class I Standpipe outlets to garage stair landings in accordance with fire department approved locations, and install Quick Response Sprinklers throughout the garage; (28) that the proposed project shall comply with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 12 construction standards and seismic design criteria contained in the Building Code as adopted by the City; (29) that before construction of the proposed project, per the Building Code, the project applicant shall obtain a site-specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The recommendations made in the soils report for ground preparation and earthwork shall be incorporated in the construction design. The soils evaluations shall be conducted by registered soil professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. The design for soil support of foundations shall conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33; (30) that a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions required by the City shall be completed as part of the building permit process and shall contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the project site that would become an integral part the construction design. Recommendations shall be included in the excavation and construction plans for the proposed project; (31) that although the proposed project would be exempt from preparing and implementing a project-specific SWPPP, because the City of Burlingame is a member of the STOPPP, the proposed project shall obtain coverage under STOPPP’s Phase I Municipal Storm water Permit and comply with performance standards set forth by STOPPP’s Storm water Management Plan. The City Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.14; Ordinance 1503 Section 1; June 20, 1994) would also be applied to the proposed project. In addition, the project applicants shall perform the following actions as uniformly required conditions of project approval, as identified by the City’s NPDES Coordinator upon submittal of project applications to the City: (a) Implement appropriate storm water best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pesticide usage in accordance with the City’s New Development/Redevelopment Landscaping Fact Sheet; (b) Incorporate applicable structural source control measures to minimize storm water pollutants in accordance with the City’s Model List of Structural Source Control Measures; (c) Identify the responsible party who would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the permanent post-construction storm water treatment measure(s). Prior to issuance of a final building permit, submit a completed, notarized Storm water Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement; (32) that the proposed project shall comply with City grading requirements specified in Section 18.20 of the Municipal Code; (33) that the proposed project shall comply with the City’s Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.17.001; Ordinance 1476 Section 1; January 4, 1993), thereby reducing the amount of project site runoff polluted by landscape chemicals; (34) that the project applicant shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: (a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; (b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; (c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; (d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; (e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; (35) that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic management plan that defines how traffic operations would be managed and maintained during each phase of construction. The plan should be developed with the direct participation of the City of Burlingame. To the maximum practical extent, the plan should: (a) Detail how access will be maintained to individual properties where construction activities may interfere with ingress and egress. Any driveway closures shall take place during non-business hours; (b) Specify predetermined haul routes from staging areas to construction sites and to disposal areas of agreement with the City prior to construction. The routes shall follow streets and highways that provide the safest route and have the least impact on traffic. (c) During construction, require the contractor to provide information to the public using signs, press releases, and other media tools of traffic closures, detours or temporary displacement of left-turn lanes. (d) Identify a single phone number that property owners and businesses can City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 13 call for construction scheduling, phasing, and duration information, as well as for complaints. (e) Identify construction activities that must take place during off-peak traffic hours or result in temporary road closures due to concerns regarding traffic safety or traffic congestion. Any road closures will be done at night under ordinary circumstances. If unforeseen circumstances require road closing during the day, the City of Burlingame should be consulted; (36) that in order to improve the ability of vehicles to turn from the lower level ramp to the driveway, the project has been revised so that the west driveway is 12 feet wide; (37) that the proposed project driveways shall be secured with an automatic gate system that would allow delivery vehicles to enter and exit the driveways with an opener. The entrance gate shall also provide an intercom system that would allow delivery vehicles to call from the entrance. Furthermore, rolling dumpsters shall be acquired by the project applicant, which can be maneuvered outside of the parking garage to the curb, to facilitate garbage pickup from Trousdale Avenue; (38) that the project applicant shall include in the proposed project a bicycle parking area that is 12 feet by 21 feet, in the lower level of the parking garage, as indicated in the site plan which is sufficient space for approximately 25 bicycles; (39) that the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; (40) that the trees proposed to be removed shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist whose report shall be reviewed by the City arborist to determine whether they are “protected trees” per Section 11.06.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and whether a tree removal permit is appropriate. If any trees proposed to be removed are protected trees, the City Arborist shall make a determination regarding the removal and replacement of these trees. As the proposed landscaping plan includes the planting of 16 new trees, the City Arborist may determine that the proposed landscaping plan is sufficient and no other replacement trees are required. (a) The Municipal Code includes the following requirements regarding replacement trees; (b) Replacement shall be three 15- gallon size, one 24-inch box size, or one 36-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed; and (c) Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 24-inch box size, or two 36-inch box size landscape trees for each tree removed; and (d) Replacement of a tree may be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance; and (e) Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and shall be based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed; and (f) If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree-planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree planting; (41) that the project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and protecting the existing on-site trees to be retained. The following specific actions shall be followed to maintain the health of the remaining trees: (a) Any pruning shall be done according to the direction of a certified arborist and all pruning shall comply with International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter Standards or other comparable standards deemed acceptable to the City Arborist; (b) Any abandoned utility lines (water, electrical, etc.) in the root zones (radius of ten times the trunk diameter) shall be cut and left in the ground to the satisfaction of the City Arborist; (c) Any surfacing material inside the root zone shall be pervious and installed on top of the existing grade. As an example, pervious pavers are acceptable provided the base material is also sufficiently pervious. Base rock containing granite fines is not sufficiently pervious; (d) Temporary construction City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 14 fencing shall be erected to protect the retained trees of a size to be established by the City Arborist. The fencing shall be placed at the perimeter of the root zone unless the pavement is supervised by a certified arborist. The fencing shall be in place prior to the arrival of construction materials or equipment; (e) The landscape irrigation shall be designed to prevent trenching inside the root zones of retained trees; (f) Supplemental irrigation shall be provided during construction. Approximately 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter should be applied at or near the perimeter of the root zone every two weeks during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall on average); (g) Retained trees shall be thoroughly mulched with a 3-inch layer of bark chips with the exception of a 6- to 12-inch area around the base of the root collar, which must be left bare and dry; (42) that as required by BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, the proposed project shall implement preventative measures during demolition and removal of all asbestos containing materials (ACMs) to prevent emissions of asbestos into the air. The proposed project shall also remove and dispose of all asbestos and PCB-containing materials according to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations and comply with the Cal/OSHA guidelines for worker safety during removal; (43) that the project applicant shall abide by its declared building height as specified in the FAA determination for the proposed project. The project applicant shall also ensure that construction equipment for the proposed project (e.g. cranes) shall not exceed the maximum height restriction specified in the San Francisco Airport Land Use Plan for the project site; (44) that if markings or lighting are to be included in the proposed project, the project applicant shall ensure that they are installed and maintained according to FAA guidelines; (45) that the applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control devices (e.g. mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g. surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), all of which would not require major equipment redesign. (a) Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: (1) Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; (2) Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; (3) Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and (4) Minimize backing movements of equipment; (b) Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible; (c) Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically- powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible; (d) Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; (e) Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible; (f) The project applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem; (g) The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site; (46) that the project applicant shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. The project applicant shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; (47) that the project applicant shall include in the final project design noise insulation features that would effectively maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less; (48) that the existing sanitary sewer on site shall be examined by the City after project construction to evaluate the pipe’s condition. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe is substandard or if the pipe has been damaged by City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 15 project construction, the pipe shall be replaced or repaired by the project applicant to the City Engineer’s satisfaction; (49) that if the project applicant does not provide a 12-foot wide driveway, the project applicant shall be required to purchase maintenance equipment for the City that can access the on-site sewer easement through the proposed 9.5-foot-wide driveway; (50) that per the City’s Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement, the project applicant shall submit a waste reduction plan that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition waste can be recycled; (51) that the project applicant shall design and locate all exterior lighting so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting elements is kept entirely on the project site on or below the top of any fence, hedge, or wall at the site’s property line, as required by the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas). All wall mounted up-lighting shall be excluded from the proposed project. All project lighting shall comply with requirements of the California Energy Commission and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels; and (52) that the following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources: (a) Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources, including training to recognize such possible buried cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are encountered; (b) Retain Project Archaeologist. Since the project area contains a portion of one recorded Native American archeological resource, and other previously unknown prehistoric or historic cultural deposits may be encountered elsewhere in the project site during excavations, the City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61, and who has expertise in California prehistory and urban historical archaeology; (c) If potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project applicant. The immediate vicinity wherein work shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant. Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered; (d) If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed; (e) The project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits; (f) If human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are found to be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 16 . Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project including the condominium permit, front setback variance, and the conditional use permits for lot coverage and height. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1560 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Brownrigg noted that he lives within 500’ of the subject property and recused himself from the item. C. Auran noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and also recused himself from this item. Both Commissioners stepped down from the dais and left the council chambers. Chair Brownrigg passed the gavel to Vice Chair Deal. CA Anderson noted that there was not a quorum on the item and that the applicant must make the decision themselves to either go to a design review consultant for guidance or to place themselves on the action calendar after incorporating the changes recommended by the Commission. Without a quorum, the Commission cannot make a motion on this item. ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Two letters were submitted: March 21, 2007 and March 26, 2007. Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Ave, San Mateo, architect, and Robert and Cindy Gilson, property owners; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, commented. Issues noted: existing fence, drainage; and requirements for basements to exempt 700 SF of FAR. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:  Looks like front of house is sunk down a couple feet; looks like grade is going down to the house and then up again, needs to be addressed; can do some sort of retaining wall in front of house to step down into a flat landscape area;  Will the stone surround be actual stone?  The cantilevered stone chimney at the back of the house hanging over a stairwell does not work; need to push chimney into house;  Will the attic vents stick out from the roof and will they have arched tops made of copper? Should show on the side elevations; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 17  Areas of flat roof could be eliminated; the flat roof area at top will break the 30’ maximum line by 6” to 8”, which should be easily solved with a special permit; because it is a small area, would be willing to consider a special permit for height to mitigate the flat roof;  Note fencing on plans, including where existing fencing is to remain; and  A wood beam should be added to the corbels that frame the double doors at the left elevation;  Fancy window above entry door is a little small. Because there was no quorum, the Planning Commission only provided direction. The Commission suggested that it would be best for this project to come back on regular action with the provision to allow the applicant to choose to go to a design review consultant. There was no motion. The applicant may decide to either go to a design review consultant or to come back on the regular action calendar. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. Cers. Brownrigg and Auran returned to the dais. 8. 1511 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK MELAMED, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; YURI BUBNOV, ARCHITECT) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners noted that the plans were not to scale, staff noted they had one set to scale which was the basis of the plan check; this is a second floor so entire structure subject to design review? yes; were retaining walls include in the originally submitted plans? No; why is an FAR variance not requested; part of the lower floor will remain as storage with a ceiling height of 5’-11”; noted issues with the accuracy of the plans. Two letters were submitted: Alexander Klein, 1509 Drake, Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake, Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake, together, March 26, 2007; and James Frolik, 1517 Drake, March 26, 2007. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Melamed, property owner; Alex Klein, 1509 Drake Avenue; Kirsten Garen, 1509 Drake Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Issues noted included: sheets of plans do not agree; CA noted that the applicant could withdraw and because of the code enforcement the city will follow up with legal action; problem with windows throughout the house; entire project is now subject to design review; location of windows on sides; vegetative screening; drainage; property for sale; can still do what building required, fill space with concrete. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that for design review the plans are considered as proposed project plans. Commissioners gave the following direction:  Provide a landscape plan addressing vegetative screening along the sides of the house and at the rear of the addition;  Provide a drainage plan, documenting how the system is to be installed and that all water goes into the street as required, and a grading plan; it is a mistake to grade down the rear 6 feet;  Scupper should not connect into the sanitary sewer, correct plans;  Need to provide better articulation on the elevations to reduce the scale and blend the walls.  Adjust window placement to reduce views into the neighbors properties;  Should look at a project which makes a modest upper story addition within FAR requirements;  All windows should be replaced with simulated true divided lites or true divided lites, all windows should have stucco mold finish consistent with the style of the house; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 18  The size of the rear deck should be reduced and the windows removed;  There is no connection between the yard and the house, provide access;  Architectural forms at rear are not consistent or appropriate with those on the front;  Choice of finish materials should include more than stucco;  There is too much impervious material surrounding the house;  Application is not complete without an accurate set of drawings;  If proceed with an FAR variance, need to explain the hardship on the property to justify the variance. Chair Brownrigg moved to refer this project to a design reviewer with the comments made by the Commission and the suggestion that the reviewer listen to the tapes of this meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project at 1511 Drake Avenue to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent). There is no appeal for this action. The item was completed at 11:15 p.m. Mark Melamed came forward and asked how he could withdraw his design review application. CA told him to submit a letter in writing to the Planning Department tomorrow. X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports for review. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007 19 XI. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of March 19, 2007 CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken by the Council at their March 19, 2007, meeting. - FYI: 1520 Arc Way - changes to a previously approved design review project Commission acknowledged these changes. - FYI: 1609 Monte Corvino Way - changes to a previously approved design review project Commission directed that these proposed changes be brought back on the action calendar. - FYI: 110 Clarendon Road – changes to a previously approved design review project Commissioner Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant on this item and would recuse himself from any discussion. He left the dais and chambers. Commissioners directed that this item be brought back to the Commission on the action calendar. C. Deal returned to the chambers. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Vice Chair and Acting Secretary V:\MINUTES\Minute\unapproved 03.26.07