Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.24.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 24, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the April 24, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber, City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell; Chief Building Official, Joe Cyr. III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Auran noted that since there may be a number of people in the audience for item 5 a and b, 1427 Chapin Avenue, that action item would be moved to the first item on the agenda, to be followed by the study items. He also noted that because of the City Attorney's need to recuse himself from item 6, 2209 Hillside Drive, the Commission would be represented by a second attorney who cannot arrive until 8:00 p.m., so that item will be heard at 8:00 p.m. There were no other changes to the agenda proposed. The Commission gave their consent to the proposed changes. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. C. Brownrigg noted that he had reviewed the tapes from the last meeting, and thought that the Commission should pursue Randy Grange’s suggestion that the submittal requirements for many projects could allow submittal of half sized rather than full sized plans. It would be as effective for the Commissioners and a savings in materials and cost for the applicant. CA suggested that the commission might want to bring this item back as a Planner Report in the future. C. Brownrigg also noted that he has been reading about the Grand Boulevard scheme for El Camino and would like staff to put together some information for the Commission on the proposal. CP noted that there are a number of initiatives regarding the El Camino Corridor in San Mateo County and staff could collect them all, in summary, for the Commissioner's information. There were no further comments; and from the floor was closed. VII. ACTION ITEM 5. 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – PROPOSED TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION (FRED BERTETTA, OLYMPIAN JV, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FARRO ESSALAT, ARCHITECT) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS A. APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 2 REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO- STORY BUILDING; AND B. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS D & E, BLOCK 10, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE, PM 06-04 Reference staff report April 24, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty three conditions including the mitigations for the mitigation monitoring plan were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, represented the project along with Frank and Bonnie Bertetta, property owners, Ferro Essalat, architect, and Greg Terry, real estate agent. Applicant noted that they felt that the development team had done the right thing, engaged an award winning architect, worked with the city's subcommittee and the historical architect, feel that they and the city will be proud of the outcome, the project includes useful parking, hope that the commission will be satisfied with the landscape plan. Public Comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Patricia Urbane, 1210 Bellevue Avenue. Only regret is that the city did not purchase this landmark and make it a teen center; think the proposed design is good, sorry to see the existing brick wall along the street removed, liked it. Agree that this should be a public project, have a disadvantage son who is an artist, this building would be great for an art studio for such people, the parents of participants could do most of the up keep of the building, need places for the more unfortunate people in our community. The Commission asked the applicant for clarification about the location of the equipment on the roof, could it be moved more to the middle of the structure. Architect responded that the stacks are incorporated into the design of the fire escape stairwell on the side of the building and should be screened from view. Is there a way to landscape the replacement brick wall on the adjacent property. The architect responded that if the adjacent property owner will allow them to build a new wall they will also landscape it. Landscape plan is lacking, there are no details included on how the redwood tree and Chinese elm will be protected during construction and no details provided about the type of shrubs, size at planting or even clear notation of what are shrubs and what are seating blocks, would like to see a more detailed landscape plan which is what was requested, can come back as an FYI but needs to be reviewed. Staff noted that it could come back as an FYI before a building permit is issued. Concerned about the absence of identified tree protection measures, also revision should include species and size of all plantings around the water features and in open spaces. Applicant responded that they would be happy to revise the landscape plan and add tree protection measures and submit for FYI review. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that this is a great way to save the most significant building in the city, have talked about the way to preserve the brick building and this solution meets the California Building Code seismic and access requirements, opens the site to view from the street, would move to approve the mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review by resolution with the following 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 22, 2006, Sheets T0, T1, D1.0, A1.0, A2.0, A2.3, A2.5, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2, A4.0, A5.4, and date stamped April 12, 2006, Sheet L1.0, preliminary landscape plan, and that any changes to the building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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; 3) that demolition of existing structures proposed for removal and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 3 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 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 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; 6) 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; 7) that during demolition of the existing structures to be removed, site preparation and construction of the new structure, 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; 8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code; 10) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance for all site lighting; 11) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 27, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's June 15, 2005 memo, the City Arborist's June 22, 2005 memo, the Recycling Specialist's May 27, 2005 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 2, 2006 memo shall be met; 12) 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; 13) that the proposed structures and the renovation of the existing brick building shall be constructed to California Building Code (CBC) standards, as adopted by the City of Burlingame. The CBC requires the determination of expected seismic shaking at the specific location of the project site. The design engineers for the on-site structures shall design the structure and foundations based on the results of the site-specific geotechnical study and the determination of the expected seismic shaking. The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Reinforcement of the historic structure shall be interior to the building and shall place a priority on retaining the exterior historic qualities of the building; 14) that prior to issuance of a building permit, a site-specific geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed professional for review and approval by the City. The report shall evaluate the potential for liquefaction hazards at the site and provide recommendations for hazard reduction in accordance with accepted industry standards. The report shall also evaluate the potential presence of expansive soils underlying the project site and provide recommendations for treatment in accordance with standard industry practices. Priority shall be given to treatments that do not affect the exterior of the historic brick structure; 15) that the project shall incorporate the following measures established by BAAQMD to minimize and control dust emissions generated during construction activities: All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily; All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered with tarpaulins or other approved effective covers; All unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be paved; otherwise, water or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to all unpaved access roads. In addition, paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas shall be swept daily with a water sweeper; Hydro seed or apply non- toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded area inactive for ten days or more); Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads or on-site to 15 miles per hour; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways, and replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; 16) that the applicant shall contribute to the cost of striping at the Chapin Avenue/Primrose intersection on the Chapin Avenue approach to create two lane; twenty percent of the cost of the work should be funded by the applicant; 17) that prior to obtaining a building permit, a report shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 4 be prepared by an independent arborist and submitted to the City Arborist for review and approval. The report shall identify the construction period protection measures to ensure that the redwood and elm trees will not be adversely affected; measures may include fencing around the trees and prohibition of trenching and intrusive fencing near the root system; and include a plan with the palette of proposed landscaping trees (no fruit and nut trees) and other landscaping as well as an irrigation system plan; 18) that all trees on the site should be retained on-site to the extent feasible considering the proposed footprint of the addition; 19) that prior to demolition or remodeling of buildings at the project site, a lead-based paint and asbestos- containing material survey shall be conducted by a certified professional and submitted to the City Planning Department. Identified loose and peeling lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials shall be abated in accordance with applicable regulations. Federal and state construction worker safety regulations shall be followed during construction activities where lead and/or asbestos are known or suspected to be present. Other common hazardous materials that may be encountered during demolition, such as mercury switches and air conditioning refrigerants, shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with DTSC hazardous waste regulations; 20) that prior to construction at the site, a Contingency Plan (Plan) shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Planning Department. The Plan shall delineate monitoring activities to be implemented during excavation to detect volatile organic compounds. The Plan shall provide recommendations for construction worker training and personal protection in the event volatile organic compounds are encountered above specified action levels. If volatile organic com pounds are identified, the Plan shall also specify notification requirements to San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division; 21) 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; 22) that the following changes to the project shall be incorporated into the final design: (a) Move the proposed addition closer to the street so the setback is less than about 20 feet; or Maintain the proposed setback, but include a low seat wall or other design feature along the front property line with brick elements to respect the previous land uses where the courtyard was used to display plants for the garden center, previously occupying the site. The treatment at the street edge should reference the existing brick wall along the front of the property; (b) The transition of the proposed addition to the George Farrell House should be revised to make the roof treatment more compatible with the existing roofline; this could include reducing the height of the proposed addition; (c) The circular tube proposed ten feet up on the front façade should be either eliminated or be made of concrete; (d) Using the courtyard for active use (e.g., retail or a café) should be considered; (e) A pervious pathway off the right front of the proposed addition and to the rear of the property is encouraged to allow pedestrians to access retail on Burlingame Avenue (through an opening in the wall). The two elm trees should be retained at this time, and reconsidered for removal at a time when this area is needed for a driveway; (f) The reflecting pond at the entrance shall be included in the design only if it will not affect the foundation of the George Farrell House; (g) For the rear and side elevation, details should be added to break up the mass of the second floor windows and to make the entry more prominent from the rear; and (h) For the side elevation, concrete elements should be considered to break up the façade, similar to what is proposed on the rear elevation; and 23) that should any cultural resources or human remains be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and commercial design review for this project with the conditions in the staff report including those from the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C. Cauchi absent). The Chair noted that the Commission directed and the applicant agreed that the landscape City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 5 plan shall be revised with tree protection measures added and a more detailed planting plan with species and container size, and that the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for FYI and accepted before the building permit is issued for this project. C. Osterling moved to recommend the Tentative and Final Parcel Map for the merger of the two parcels to the City Council for approval. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Tentative and Final Parcel Map to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES/SLEEPING QUARTERS WITH A FULL BATHROOM (ALLEN MENICUCCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report and applicants request to now use this accessory structure for recreation and living purposes. Commissioners asked: • Have there been complaints about parking issues on this street over the years? • Has been approved several times, the Planning Commission always includes a five year sunset, but not final approval, concerned about this pattern; • Would like to see staff craft a condition of approval that has no five year expiration but says that if there is an addition to the house or a building permit issued for $100,000 or more then the accessory structure must be demolished; • Has been there for 17-years now, part of the house; • Condition should be added that says if the house is altered the Planning Commission shall require the removal of the accessory structure; • Condition should be added that accessory structure shall not be used as a second dwelling unit; • The previous Planning Commission approved in 1994 because the property owner had an ailing wife and needed an exercise area, it was not for guests or others, was trying to help out the owner at that time, should be removed now; • Owner needs a better explanation of why the Planning Commission should allow use of structure to continue. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. 2. 1400 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCES FOR A NEW BLADE SIGN (CONNIE MORRIS BOVIS, APPLICANT; MARTIN DREILING/ERIC HOLM, CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECTS; THOMAS KOROS, PROPERTY City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 6 OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commission asked if light bulbs at the bottom will blink, staff noted that the code does not allow blinking or flashing lights. Commission asked if the size of the sign is measured outside to outside, staff noted that, yes, it is measured from exterior edge to exterior edge, as long as there are no more than 6 sides. Commissioners asked: • Would like to see how this proposal compares to what would be allowed in the new sign code we are working on, could staff provide information on what the new sign code would allow in this area; • Will there be a sign over the door? Looks like there should be a sign located over the door, want to make sure one won’t be added later; • Should lower 2-4 feet so that it doesn’t destroy the existing scroll work on the cornice; • Try to preserve the scroll work, maybe lower the sign, but need to retain the 8’ vertical clearance; • Could staff provide summary of all the of the existing blade signs on Broadway and their approximate sign size; • Bottom of the sign is 10’4”, so can’t lower too much; consider shrinking the proportion of the sign; to preserve the scroll work on the cornice and maintain the required clearance over the sidewalk. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 3. 1111 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR HEALTH SERVICE USE (SKIN TREATMENT) (KEITH RALEY, DERMALOUNGE, APPLICANT; VIVIAN DWYER, DWYER DESIGN, DESIGNER; SAEED ESMAILTALAI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission noted that the Commission is not reviewing signage as a part of this application. Staff confirmed that signage is not included as part of this application, the applicant is to make separate application for signage. Commissioners asked: • Application use numbers seem low, only 14 people between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and only 4 people between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m.; • Confirm number of employees, 4 full time employees between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and then 4 part time employees after 5 p.m., this number doesn’t change in 5 years, is that correct? Seems like a high ratio of employees to customers. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 7 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. 4. 1625 LASSEN WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND SECOND FLOOR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TOM BRUNO, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Deal noted that he would recuse himself from the vote on the consent calendar because he has a business relationship with the applicant. Commissioner comment on the consent calendar: note that the applicant submitted a revised design for the garage door as suggested by the Planning Commission at study, have reviewed both and would recommend that the original door design with the curved member above the windows is preferable. CA noted that the project could be amended with that direction if the Commission wished. C. Brownrigg moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report amending condition one to provide that the garage door as shown on the March 17, 2006 plans shall be the door design installed with this project and with the recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-1(C. Deal recused, C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7.57 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 7. 1124 ROSEDALE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION. (JEFF AND EMILY SCHLEINING, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RAY BRAYER, DESIGNER) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report April 24, 2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, project designer and applicant, Jeff and Emily Schleining, property owners, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, had the following comments: family needs more space, not going for maximum FAR, other houses in the area have large lot coverage, neighbors would rather see a single story addition than a two story addition; the headlights are a problem at the front of the house because of the location on the block, so do not want to add a second story; have rented in Burlingame for 6 years, have owned this house for 3 years, and also work in Burlingame, want to make this family home; modest neighborhood, keeping smaller house when they could make it bigger, Commission should work out design issues and keep it a single story addition. Commission asked the size and height of the shed at the rear. The property owners replied that it is between 10’-12’ tall and 10’ by 15’, they will be removing City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 8 it as part of this proposal, the rear neighbors are happy about that. Commission asked if there is a minor modification for 25% of the rear setback at 12 feet, noting that would be a more palatable proposal. Staff confirmed that the minor modification allows a 20% decrease in the rear setback. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns about the proposed project: • options to take the mass out of the rear and redistribute it, need to look at change to layout and design; • concerned with family room layout, no blank walls to put the furniture and entertainment center; • better solutions without all of the variances; could set precedent for single story additions; • parking variance because of chimney encroachment is a standard request Planning Commission sees, but need to re-design without rear setback; • concern with lot coverage variance as well, it is way over 40%, 500 SF, look at re-design, consider second story; • revised site plan should correctly show alignment with Meadow Lane; • rear setback needs to go away, reduce square footage if project is to remain a single story house; • based on design proposing a box at the back, violates setbacks. C. Auran moved to deny the project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the project without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. 6. 2209 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MILLER DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER (CONTINUED AND RENOTICED) C. Osterling recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. City Attorney Anderson recused himself because he is involved in a different aspect of this property. Both stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Attorney Dan Siegel took the Attorney's chair with staff and represented the City Attorney for this item. Reference staff report April 24, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments noting that this item had been continued from the last meeting so that the staff could better understand the implications on the project of the demolition of the existing structures on the site without a demolition permit. She noted that the item was brought back on the action calendar because conditions were added to address follow up to the demolition action (conditions 2 through 5). She also noted the addition of Condition 14, the new standard condition regarding the fact that demolition permits are not issued until Air Quality and building permits are issued. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that Joe Cyr, the Chief Building Official, would share presentation of this staff report to explain the situation regarding the demolition of the structures and the implications for the site. Commissioners asked questions about demolition permits and what is required before they are issued and the status of the recycling and air quality actions at the time of demolition. Is demolition of this kind without a permit a common occurrence? CBO noted in his experience it has happened "once in a blue City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 9 moon". CP and CBO suggested that they meet with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission to review the process for issuance of a demolition permit and, based on that, appropriate administrative penalties. Staff noted that the issue before the commission this evening is the application for design review for the proposed single family residential structure. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, 216 Park Road, and Randy Grange, architect, represented the project. Pat Gironi, 1445 Balboa Avenue noted sequence of events and that the demolition was a mistake. Architect noted that he was ignorant of the demolition. At previous meeting was pleased with the design. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: concerned that correcting the process of issuing a demolition permit will lead to another layer of bureaucracy, proposed house is beautiful; current administrative penalties for failure to obtain a demolition permit do not seem to cover costs of staff and Commission time, should be addressed; CA Siegel noted that there were also enforcement penalties from the Air Board and other agencies available; concerned with how the city gets the attention of developers in the future. C. Deal noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee should address the demolition permit issue in the future and that the house met all the design review criteria based on the findings made by the commission when it was placed previously on the consent calendar, so 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 March 1, 2006, sheets A-1 through A-5, and L-1, and 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 property owner shall pay to the city within in 5 working days of the Planning Commission's action on this application $7,500.00 for the New Construction Waste Plan and a $5,408.25 deposit to remove the existing structures, failure to meet this deadline shall cause the Planning action on this project to be voided; 3) that before the issuance of a building permit, but after approval of the construction plans by the Building Division, the property owner shall pay $388.00 to the Building Division, this fee includes the penalty for doing demolition without a permit, failure to pay the demolition permit fee and penalty shall cause the planning action on this project to be voided; 4) that before the issuance of the building permit, the Chief Building Official shall determine that all materials, but particularly potentially hazardous materials, were appropriately removed from this site and appropriately deposited, and if they were not appropriately removed or deposited the Chief Building Official shall require appropriate remediation and notification of all state and local agencies responsible for regulation; notification shall include notice of both the violation and the correction, failure to comply with any required remediation shall cause the planning action on this project to be voided and it shall be disclosed to all future owners of the property that remediation did not occur and must be corrected before any future development or use can occur on the site; 5) that until building plans have been approved and a building permit issued , all NPDES remediations present on this site shall be shall be maintained as required by the City's inspector, and should construction on this site not occur within five (5) months of the Planning Commission's action on this project, the property owner shall create a grassy swale with domestic grass on the site to control runoff and provide appropriate irrigation and regular maintenance to establish the grass cover , this swale shall be retained until the site is developed, failure to install and maintain the grassy swale shall result in voiding the planning action on this project and the property owner shall pay a penalty equal to the cost of installation and maintenance until the property is sold and developed, the amount of the penalty shall be determined by the Public Works Department and shall be posted as a bond; 6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 10 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 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 conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, and NPDES Coordinator's March 3, 2006 memo shall be met; 12) 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; 13) 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; 14) 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; 15) 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 Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review. The motion passed on a 5- 0-1-1 (C. Osterling recused, C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. C. Osterling and City Attorney Anderson returned to the Chambers and took their seats on the dais. 8. 132 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEHL DESIGN/BUILD, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ELOISE MADSEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report April 24, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Eloise Madsen, property owner, reported she has had trouble with the contractor on this project. Commission asked why there is not a door to the study off of the hallway. Property owner said that she hasn’t seen the plans and is not going forward with this project. Commission asked the City Attorney if the project should be acted on at this point. CA Anderson replied that it would be best to continue the project to a date certain. Victor Gray, 617 Howard Avenue, stated that he submitted a letter to the Planning Commission with his concerns; main concern is privacy and impact of the project on his property; if there are modifications to the project he wants to see them, the rear of his property is located to the side of this property. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 11 Commission discussion: second floor attic space seems to be adding a lot of mass and wall space; have questions on this proposal for the architect/designer; some components of the project are wrong; needs some work, front façade with large vent is odd; need to clarify on plans what is new verses existing, needs consistency. C. Vistica moved to continue this item to a date uncertain to allow the property owner to review the plan. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. CA Anderson invited the property owner to come to the Planning Department to look at the plans and discuss the project with the project planner. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 9. 2112 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ORLANDO BUENA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet, and left the Council Chambers. He passed the gavel to Vice Chair Brownrigg. Reference staff report April 24, 2006 with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Orlando Buena, property owner, was available to answer questions. He explained that the plate height of the second floor was reduced at the request of the Planning Commission, therefore there is not enough room left to add the dentil molding in some areas, to add the dentils on the first floor only would look really bad. Commissioner noted that he met with the applicant at the site and went over the drawings to see what happened. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: approved elevation plans were not adjusted to show lowered plate height on second floor, the way it is built with the roof slope and the soffit there is no room for the dentils; the engineered drawings of the roof are not the same as the architectural drawings, the roof line is different; would not approve this design now; revised drawings don’t really show what is happening, only show the dentils removed, doesn’t show the soffit hitting the dentils, think there is a solution to this; house needs something added; not happy with the way this house turned out, have also heard this from neighbors; approved plans looked like two dormers in the front but was built with one continuous roof; there are ways to incorporate the dentils, windows on the upper floor can be made shorter; need to consult architect for solutions; may consider doing a mock up on the site; need to mitigate the boxy look of the house; roof framing is different, roof not at all what is portrayed on approved plans. C. Osterling made a motion based on the comments made to refer this amendment to a design review consultant. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: have given good direction on this change, design review is the way to go. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 12 Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (Chair Auran recused C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:23 p.m. Chair Auran returned to the dais, and took over as chair. 10. 821 COWAN ROAD, ZONED IB – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (ONE STOP DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT; KONSTANTINOS DOKOS, PROPERTY OWNER; DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES, ENGINEER) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FIVE- UNIT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING; AND B. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report April 24, 2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked what the actual address is because the site signage says 819 and the staff report says 821. Staff noted that they will verify the address with the Public Works Department. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Greg Ward, One Stop Design, project applicant was present to answer questions. He noted that they negotiated with the City to have a 7 foot sidewalk. They are trying to save the Sycamore tree in the front, and will try to move it. If it can’t be saved then they will be adding two, new 24 inch box Sycamore trees. Commission asked if the Sycamore tree can be moved easily? Commissioner Osterling clarified that it can be relocated easily. But it might be better to have two new 36 inch box trees. Having two on each side will establish symmetry. Commission asked if it might be better to have 48 inch box size trees. Commissioner Osterling responded that the largest tree that he would recommend would be 36 inch box because it will catch up in size faster and become better established over time. Would like to add a condition that the existing Sycamore tree be relocated and a new 36 inch box Sycamore tree be added. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application for the condominium conversion and amendment to the conditional use permit for floor area by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 6, 2006, sheets L.2, A.3, A.3A, A.4 through A.7, D.1, E.1, E.2, C.1, AS.1 through AS.3, C-1 through C-5, Lighting Details (8½" x 11" sheet) and date stamped April 13, 2006, sheets T.1 and L.1, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and the Physical Elements Report, Physical Standards Report and Acoustical Assemblies Report date stamped December 27, 2005; 2) that the reports required by this code, in a form approved by the city, shall be provided to each person executing any purchase, rental or other agreement to purchase or occupy a unit in the project. Copies of the full reports shall be made available at all times at the sales office and shall be posted at various locations, as may be required by the city, at the project site; 3) that a new 7'-0" wide sidewalk shall be installed along the front of this property as shown on the plans date stamped April 13, 2006, sheets T.1 and L.1; the new 7'-0" wide sidewalk, curb and gutter and driveway apron shall comply with the Public Works' construction standards and shall be installed prior to the final inspection; the applicant shall obtain the necessary special encroachment permit to install the curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveway apron; 4) that the applicant shall attempt to relocate the existing 12” Sycamore tree that will be within the new 7’ sidewalk; and if that is not possible then it shall be replaced with a new 36-inch box Sycamore tree; and the applicant shall plant one new 36-inch box Sycamore tree adjacent to the relocated or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 13 replacement Sycamore, for a total of 4 Sycamore trees (two on each side of the main walk way) at the front of the property; 5) that the conditions of the City Attorney's February 3, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's January 30, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 4, 2006 memo, the Chief Building Official's January 3, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist’s January 4, 2006, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 6, 2006 memo shall be met; 6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 7) 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; 8) that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each unit which allows occupants to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 9) that demolition for removal of the existing structures or walls within the condominium units 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 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; 11) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 4, 2005, sheets T.1, L.1, T.2, A.1 through A.7 and Plat of Survey; 12) that a seating area, to be architectural compatible with the building, shall be designed at the front entrance to the building; 13) that vines, to grow along the front wall of the building, shall be planted and maintained by the property owner; 14) that the windows and window trim shall be installed as shown on the detail, date stamped February 4, 2005; 15) that the parking variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for intentional replacement; 16) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Fire Marshal's June 1, 2004, memos, the Chief Building Official’s February 9, 2005, and June 4, 2004, memos, the Recycling Specialist’s June 2, 2004, memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 31, 2005, memo shall be met; 17) that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline areas shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half of the fee is due at the time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 18) that one-way directional signage shall be installed and painted throughout the parking area to clearly define the vehicular direction for employees and visitors to the site; prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/property owner shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and markings on the pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction; 19) that the driveway aisles in front of the roll- up doors at the rear of the building and in the parking area shall be maintained clear and trucks shall not be stored or parked in the driveway aisles; 20) that the paved area adjacent to parking space #15 shall be painted "No Parking" to provide a clear, unobstructed back-up area for the disabled-accessible parking spaces; 21) that the 53 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the customers and employees of the businesses at this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; 22) that the landscaping noted on sheet L.1 shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; 23) that the property owner shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 24) that the office/warehouse building shall be built so that the interior noise level in all areas used as office does not exceed 45 dBA; 25) that all construction shall abide City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 14 by the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; 26) that on-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City's exterior illumination ordinance; 27) that all parking areas should be lit for safety at night, such lighting should comply with the requirements of the City’s exterior illumination ordinance; 28) that the remodel/addition shall not be built with a reflective exterior finish; 29) that the project shall obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies including: Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 30) that the project design shall conform to all seismic related requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the time a building permit is issued and any additional seismic requirements established by the State Architect's office; 31) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and in addition to the limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035); 32) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; existing sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary; 33) that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections with the degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his approval and inspection; 34) that in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, the site shall be repaired as approved by the City Engineer; 35) that all site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage; 36) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met at all times, including special additional emergency requirements; 37) that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 38) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 39) that all applicable San Mateo County Storm water Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the wet season; erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to protect San Francisco Bay waters; 40) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 41) that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation; 42) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Storm water Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance; 43) that all runoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas, shall be filtered to remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 15 facilities in working conditions shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, all costs for the annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this project's property owner; 44) that the phrase "No Dumping-Drains To Bay" shall be labeled on new storm drain inlets by stenciling, branding, plaguing or casting; 45) that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the storm drain will be minimal; 46) that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site and maintenance shall be as directed by the City; 47) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning (vacuuming out) sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) and as directed by the City; 48) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 49) 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; 50) that no vehicles or equipment shall be washed, cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site; 51) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed during construction to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 52) that the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 53) that a construction fence, including a impermeable fabric/material, shall be required around the site during construction to keep all construction debris on site; 54) that if any trenching is proposed on the site, the applicant shall contact the San Mateo County Health Department; if any contaminated soil is encountered, the applicant shall follow County protocol for its disposal; and 55) that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit and amendment to the conditional use permit for floor area. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). C. Vistica moved to recommended approval of the Tentative Condominium Map to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. C. Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Tentative Condominium Map to the City Council for actions, including the conditions of approval. The motion passed in a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 11. 1299 BAYSHORE HWY, ZONED IB – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE, REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARBAGE CONTAINER AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCES TO CONVERT EXISTING OFFICE SPACE TO A TABLE TENNIS CLUB (PHILIP ZHOU, APPLICANT; PETER LAM, ARCHITECT; CINDY TSAI, UNITED ASSOCIATES INV., INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (9 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 16 Reference staff report April 24, 2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if CalTrans took away the parking would the applicant need a variance for more parking spaces. Staff replied that yes, the parking variance would increase. Commission asked if there is a prior lease agreement for the parking between CalTrans and the building owner. CA Anderson stated that we do not know for sure, but probably with the building owner, not tenants. Commission noted that there could be a fence at the southern property line if there is no lease with CalTrans. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, project architect, 848 Folsom Street, San Francisco, Julie Ou, project applicant, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame, had the following comments: noted that most of the variances are caused by the zoning change in this area. This is a family business proposed for table tennis. They tried to contact CalTrans regarding the parking. They were told that there are no CalTrans plans for that location for the next 10 to 20 years. They are not proposing to change the parking spaces, they will be operating during off hours, and will have less of a parking impact than the previous tenant; grew up in China and started playing table tennis at 8 years old, then went to a professional school at 15 years old and trained intensively. Came to the US at 20 years old and played for the United States national team. Have dreamed of opening up own sports club for years. Have been looking for the right location for a year, and then found this site. Not enough parking on the site, so need a variance but the busiest time for the club will be after work when the offices are closed. The club will be for members only and there will be no tournaments. The lease is only for three years. Want this opportunity to share table tennis with the community; if this is at the Broadway interchange then it will all disappear when CalTrans does the new overpass, it is only a 3-year lease, why do the tenants need to do the landscaping. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: project is short on landscaping, but seems like there are a lot of opportunities to add some; use is less intense than office use, have used the CalTrans lot for a long time, can add conditions that if CalTrans puts up a fence then the Planning Commission needs to review again; no problem with use, it is an existing building just a change in use; would like to see the five proposed 24 inch box Monterey Cypress replaced with five 24 inch Hollywood Juniper; frustrated that land owner is not here, tenant has to apply for parking variance then it is a benefit to the building owner. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 12, 2006, sheets PA-1 and PA-3, date stamped March 27, 2006, sheet LA-1 and date stamped February 28, 2006, sheet PA-2; and that there shall be no organized table tennis tournaments on the site; 2) that demolition or removal of any existing walls 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; 3) that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed as shown on the Landscape Plan, date stamped April 12, 2006, except that instead of the proposed five 24 inch box Monterey Cypress there shall be five 24 inch box Hollywood Juniper installed and that all areas of landscaping shall be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system on a timer and shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 4) that the table tennis club shall only be open seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of 3 full-time employees and a maximum of 33 people on-site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers; that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees or people on-site which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5) that the operator of the table tennis club shall include directions about how to access the site in all advertising and in all communications to members; 6) that there shall be no gambling or wagering on this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 17 business premise and no alcoholic beverages shall be served, stored in lockers for private use, or sold on the site; 7) that the table tennis club shall be limited to a lobby and office area (762 SF), and table tennis activity area (2,596 SF); that outdoor areas shall not be used for any activities associated with the table tennis business; 8) that the variances for on-site parking spaces, setback to garbage container, total on-site landscaping, front setback landscaping, parking area landscaping and parking areas within 15’ of Bayshore Highway shall expire with the termination of the conditional use permit for the table tennis club; shall be reviewed with any amendment to the conditional use permit granted to the table tennis club; and shall expire should the building on the site be deliberately demolished or destroyed by a natural catastrophe or disaster or should a major remodel of the building be proposed; 9) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s March 30, 2006 and November 29, 2005, memos, the Recycling Specialist's November 28, 2005 memo, and the Fire Marshal's November 29, 2005 memo shall be met; 10) 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; 11) that if the CalTrans parking to the south of the subject property shall become unavailable in any way including restrictive fencing between 1299 Bayshore and the CalTrans area the parking variance and this use shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 12) that the approval for the parking variance for this location shall be for the proposed table tennis club use as defined in the application dated November 23, 2005. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:02 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 1625 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATT MEFFORD, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAN AND EILEEN CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNERS (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, project architect, 205 Park Road, Burlingame, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, Burlingame, and Dan Conway, property owner, 1625 Howard Avenue, had the following comments: complicated roof structure, qualify for the declining height envelope exception, the garage is existing, built to side property line, and too short, if extend length then would trigger side setback variance; hard to get away from parking variance; five bedroom house- could open up wall to den so the den doesn’t count as a bedroom; driveway is 35’ long and they park two cars in driveway now; beautiful remodel, Howard Avenue is wide and can accommodate a lot of cars and two cars can be parked in the driveway, so parking variance should not have a big impact on the street; use the existing garage for parking a Saab 93, only store car cleaning supplies and bucket in the garage, the garage is not used for bulky storage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments: looks great, a lot of little components that are tricky, need a good roof framer; concerned that there is no parking now, and then there will still be no parking when it is finished, can garage be demolished and a new garage constructed; project architect replied that it cannot be done without a variance; can’t really make garage conforming without tearing down, because of the historic nature of the house, it would be a loss; if owner can get a car in the garage City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 18 now, would like to see project go through without changes to the existing garage. There were no further comments from the public. Chair Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: CA Anderson told the Planning Commission that a condition can be added to the approval that states that if the house is demolished the parking variance goes away. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 13. 37 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FRED STRATHDEE, F.R. STRATHDEE ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; DON AND LORRI MCCARTHY, PROPERTY OWNERS (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Fred Strathdee, project architect, 147 Leslie Drive, San Carlos, was available to answer questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. • The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the project: • Is house designed to be a Tudor? Looks like the evolution is not complete; • consider adding skylight in shower area; architect notes that he is trying to match the existing design of the house, yet the roof pitch is much taller on the new design; • existing character of the house is nice, new is not the same style; • inconsistencies on drawings: 1) on floor plans wall near the laundry and stairs wall is shown as existing but appears to be new 2) on the front elevation the open porch is not shown in proportion to what is out there, so if it is new need to clarify that; 3) balustrade is shown one way on the existing plans, but is different when viewed at the site; 4) left elevation shows an opening in the porch, is that new? need to label; plans need to clarify what is existing and what is new; 5) on the right elevation there is a projection on the first floor , but the roof goes straight across, very little eave or maybe it is drawn incorrectly; • looks like a whole new house, but any house any where, need to add more character through out the design, can follow the character of the existing house and it would be a nice addition, better off keeping with the existing design; • back doesn’t work, need to work on massing and detailing; • need to bring character to the side elevations; • would like to see the driveway and patio material changed from the concrete proposed to a permeable pavers to allow recharge of groundwater; o.k. with the style, appreciate that the project is not at the maximum FAR; • no problem with the direction of the design, plans should call out window type, either true divided lite windows, or simulated true divided lite windows; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 19 • drawing glitch, bedroom #2 on the left elevation has sloping roof to meet the wall, need to add roof to meet, call out area where downspouts are located; • are the leader heads, downspouts and chimney cap copper? Label accordingly; • need larger scale trees and shrubs, plants noted on sheet L.1 are anchor plans with a good variety, but need larger plants to visually screen the house; • consider pushing garage back from property line, if only one foot from property line it is difficult to get to for maintenance, recommend setting two feet off of rear property line for easier access; as an alternative, can also place garage on property line if you have a survey; • consider reducing to only a one car garage (that is all that is required by code for this house) would create more yard space; • materials need to be called out on all the elevations. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested changes have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Auran 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 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of April 17, 2006. CP Monroe noted that the City Council approved the Anza Point North zoning regulations and they will become effective May 17, 2006. C. Osterling suggested that the commission consider allowing applicants to use one-half sized plans and that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee considers the issue of required setbacks from property line for detached garages. Have seen three substantial problems which arose because of neighbors being unable to access the portions of their garages within one foot of property line. Need to have a direction. - FYI: Temporary change in hours of construction for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project. CP Monroe noted that this letter outlines the applicant’s reasons for wanting the construction hours extended for a temporary time, to catch up because of the unexpected rains in March and April. She noted the procedure was that the City Council would have to amend the Municipal Code first, and then the Planning Commission could consider an amendment to the conditions of approval to allow a temporary extension of construction hours within stated limits. If the Council does not adopt the amendment to the Municipal Code section, the applicant may still ask the Commission for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a temporary extension of construction hours within current code limitations. The reason for this is that the construction hours allowed in the current condition of approval are less than the construction hours presently allowed in the Municipal Code. This item will be on the Planning Commission’s agenda for public hearing on May 8, 2006. - FYI: 1316 Paloma Avenue – change to approved design review project. Commission had no issues with the requested change to the design of the project at 1316 Paloma Avenue. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 20 Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary