Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072406PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 24, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the July 24, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Terrones Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica (Osterling arrived at 8:15 p.m. and left at 8:35 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Chair noted that he would hold the option open to move the consent calendar item when the commission reached that point in the meeting. There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, noted that she had counted all the projects which have been processed through the design review since it began and it is almost 300, few bear any visual relationship to the houses removed, the number is significant; designers should be required to propose really new designs because these new houses are the driving force of change in the neighborhoods. The developers are quick to learn the language; they know the Commission has no say about the interior, this is not right since the floor plan drives the exterior design. Make two requests: it is time to pay attention to the floor plans of houses and Commission should take a field trip to see the impact of the new residential construction. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1300 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (STEVEN PEDIGO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TWYLA KABATCHNICK, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Need to readdress the findings for the conditional use permits and variance, ones presented cite only existing conditions, need to be based on physical hardships on the property; • Review building code requirements for this structure, if they are not met, indicate clearly on the plans how they will be met; • Clarify when applicant first contacted the contractor, when he hired the contractor to work on the garage, and how it happened that work was done without a building permit; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 2 • State that this is a repair, please clarify since saw all new material with a few recycled members, explain how it was that nothing added and that this is a repair; • Survey markers should be in place before applicant returns to the Planning Commission; • Contractor’s sign has been on this property a long time, so long that it has become an advertisement, it should be removed or dramatically reduced in size; • Review in the staff report what happens when there is a series of repairs on a building, when does it become a new building; 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 7:16 p.m. Chair Brownrigg asked, and all commissioners agreed, that they had visited all the projects on the calendar tonight. 2. 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR ANTENNA EXCEPTION TO INSTALL WALL MOUNTED ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING BUILDING (OMNIPOINT/T- MOBILE, APPLICANT; MSA ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING, INC., ARCHITECT; 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Ask the applicant how they will address the exposed conduit up to the upper roof and down to the equipment, provide a letter describing how this would be handled, painted to match the wall, concealed, etc; • Color photo shows screens to be 1.5 to 3 feet projections, but in visual simulation not in scale with wall projection, document wall projection and relationship between screens and this wall, revise photo simulation; • Would like to visit a location where these same screens are installed, provide location in this area so can see them in place. Chair Brownrigg set this item for the consent calendar with commission concurrence. He noted it should be brought back when all the information has been provided, checked by staff and there is space on an agenda. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 1731 ADRIAN ROAD #11, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR GROUP INSTRUCTION (TRAINING FACILITY) (TODD PAWLOWSKI, VIRGIN AMERICA, APPLICANT; GEORGE S. AVANESSIAN, ARCHITECT; ROBERT J. MANTEGANI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Conditional use permit should be specific and limited to this use; • Bussing should be required and because of the limited number of parking spaces available to this suite on site, busses should be limited to small vans, large buses should not be brought to this site or parked on the street nearby. Chair Brownrigg set this item for the consent calendar with commission concurrence. He noted it should be brought back when all the information has been provided, checked by staff and there is space on an agenda. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 3 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 he would have to recuse himself for the consent item at 1535 Vancouver Avenue because he lives within 500 feet of the project. He asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call 3066 Hillside Drive item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 4a. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MIKE MA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIMI SIEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted that he did not want to call 3066 Hillside Drive off the consent calendar but he would like to amend the conditions of approval to require: • that the applicant retain the original front porch without a clear-story, triangular window over the front door - which the applicant indicated he was willing to do; C. Auran moved for approval of the consent item at 3066 Hillside Drive with the amendment that the originally approved porch without a window over the front door be included in the project. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote to approve the consent item at 3066 Hill side Drive with the addition of one condition regarding the front porch. The motion passed on a voice voted 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Chair Brownrigg then asked if the applicant for item 4b, 1535 Vancouver Avenue, was in the audience. He was. The Chair noted that at this time there was not a quorum of the Commission present to act on this project, however, C. Osterling who had a work emergency would arrive later in the meeting so that the commission could act on this item tonight. For this reason he would continue the consent calendar until C. Osterling arrived. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5. 1315 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN SCHLENKE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ELISEY SOKOLIK, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the FAR shown for this project includes the detached garage? Staff noted that it did and the bonus is up to 400 SF, if the detached garage is smaller than 400 SF, applicant only gets the amount actually in the garage. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Schlenke, architect; Elisey Sokolik, daughter, Alex Sokolik property owner, represented the project. This is a single story house because the applicant is unable City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 4 to climb to a second story. Property owner noted that he has health problems and needs a room the size proposed so that he can get around with a cane, the other rooms in the house are too small. Needs the separate bath and room for privacy and independence when there are visitors in the house. Commissioners asked if the applicant lives by himself. Applicant noted that he did. Commissioners noted that they need to think about the impact of this construction in the next 20 years and this approval goes with the property, would like to approve but this is a large request, seems to be space which could be saved by consolidation of the bathrooms for example, and other ways to reduce the floor plan and lot coverage; appears this addition could easily be converted to a second unit, this would be harder if the two bathrooms were consolidated into a single larger bathroom; cannot find the exceptional circumstances on this lot, might be for less given lot size if the footprint were reduced, asked for change at study and none was given; Commissioner noted that the property is zoned R-2, if did create a second unit there is no place for the on site parking. Applicant noted needed space for an exercise machine. Other comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Question of code compliance comes up a lot from older residents who want to add to their houses so that they do not need to move, if applicant can reduce lot coverage to within a point or two, commission can tie future development on the property into that, require removal if want to expand later. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: CA noted that could add a condition which would not allow FAR to increase on the lot over what is present and that the envelope and foot print cannot be changed, so would need to return to the Commission to make any change to the structure; uncomfortable have recent experience, do not want to commit future Commission, could see a request for 43% lot coverage not being a special privilege since 41% is a minor modification, this is a substandard lot and commission does need to consider what people want. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted he agreed that there is some justification for a smaller exception to lot coverage and made a motion to deny without prejudice this application for 46% lot coverage, with this action the applicant can come back with a reduced project. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Commission comment on the motion: willing to consider an overage of lot coverage, but not to the extent requested, can revise and return with this motion; CA noted with an FAR limit the applicant could not add a second floor to this footprint, could be granted to address this applicant's special needs, would need to come back to the commission to remove later if want to expand, however, cannot remove the applicant's right to petition the commission in the future. Commissioner noted that he would not mind seeing a couple of alternatives at study if the applicant wishes to resubmit. Chair Brownrigg called for a denial without prejudice on the request to increase the floor area to 46%. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica absent). City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 5 6. 1601 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARGARET JENSEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Margaret Jensen, 1601 Howard Avenue, applicant, noted that the way Crescent Avenue curves, all of the houses have varying setbacks but match the curve of the street, this house follows that pattern so it lines up with the others. Commissioners asked: has applicant considered putting tile instead of stucco molding at the top of the roof edge, it would go with the Spanish style of the house. The applicant noted that Styrofoam molding with stucco applied over it is proposed, molding would go below the existing metal cap on the roof to provide a softer line at the upper edge. Would applicant be willing to add a chimney to the gas fireplace to make it look like a true fireplace, it would add aesthetic value. Yes. Original plans showed shutters removed, asked that they be put back but not shown on the drawings, would applicant agree to a condition requiring that the shutters be installed that mimic the existing ones in size and shape? The applicant notes that will agree to put on shutters; the ones that are there now are 30 years old and will be replaced. Commissioners noted that the French doors shown at family room are proposed to open out and an 8-inch drop is shown to the patio, building code requires that the drop to the patio be less if the doors open out. The applicant notes that the patio will be raised or the door swing could open inward. Would like to see tile on parapet, it is typical to use Spanish tile to define the roof edge. Commissioners asked why the parapet with flat roof was not carried through for the addition to match the existing structure. The applicant noted that originally there were pitched roofs on certain details of the house, rather not have a tar and gravel roof on the addition, there have been leakage problems with the existing flat roof. C. Osterling arrived at 8:15 p.m. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: Would like to see tile added at the top edge of the roof, would enhance the charm of the house, should add shutters to mimic what now exists, replace with same size shutters; don't have a problem with the pitched roof, agree that tar and gravel roof can be a problem, they have a tendency to leak, roof as proposed is okay; variance can be justified because of the placement of the existing house on the lot this is the most logical place for the addition, a chimney should be added to the fireplace to add charm. 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 date stamped June 9, 2006 (Sheets 1 through 10 and L-1) and the plan submitted to the Planning Department stamped July 12, 2006 (Sheet 11), with the following changes: that tile shall be added at the top edge of the roof to visually cover the flashing; that the existing shutters shall be replaced with shutters of the same size and shape; and that a chimney should be added to the gas fireplace on the exterior of the house; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 6 the Chief Building Official’s May 26, 2006 memo, the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal’s and NPDES Coordinator’s May 30, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist’s May 31, 2006 memo; 3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that 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; 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 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 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; 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. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Osterling abstaining and Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS (Consent Calendar continued) Chair Brownrigg noted that C. Osterling had arrived, and that the commission would now act on the remainder of the Consent Calendar. He reminded the audience that he had to recuse himself from action on this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project. Chair Brownrigg left the chambers. Vice Chair Deal took over as Chair. Vice-Chair Deal asked if the applicant, any Commissioner, or anyone in the audience want to remove 1535 Vancouver Avenue from the Consent Calendar. Pat Giorni, a resident, asked to have the item removed from the consent calendar because this house is almost the same house as 1443 Balboa, and that house had not required a height exception, so why did this one? 4b. 1535 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 7 Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff how height was measured. SP noted that height is measured from average top of curb at the front of the house; lot slope has the greatest impact on height measurement. There were no further comments from staff. Vice Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, and Gary Partee, contractor, represented the project. He noted that the reason the house at 1433 Balboa was 30 feet tall is that the pitch of the roof was different; also the second floor layout was different. Knew neighbors on Vancouver did not want a Colonial, this time tried for a style which would satisfy the neighbors, invited them all to see the plans before they submitted, only three came, but felt that they were happy with this design. Additional comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, this is essentially the same second floor as the house on Balboa, with a bump out on the left side at the master bedroom, an increase in the slope of the roof and a French style. On Balboa they reduced the height to 30 feet because the neighbors opposed it; this lot is only 100 SF larger, it is flat; should be able to meet the height limit. Applicant noted that the layout is directed by what people want in a floor plan, this layout is not identical to Balboa. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted: the height issue is minor, it is a 2'-5" wide by 13'-4" long area which extends over 30 feet by a maximum of 2'-5" at the ridge, the impact on the total mass and bulk is minimal, certainly within the range for a special permit since it contributes to the consistent and overall architectural style of the structure; not reviewing 1433 Balboa this evening, it is not relevant, most houses in the city have similar layouts because the majority of the lots have the same configuration, long and narrow. C. Auran noted that the special permit for height was needed to complete the architectural style which is allowed in the design guidelines and consistent with the intent of a special permit and moved to approve the project at 1535 Vancouver Avenue 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 June 21, 2006, Sheets A.1 through A.7 and L.1; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s and City Engineer’s June 9, 2006 memos, the Fire Marshal’s June 8, 2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator’s and Recycling Specialist’s June 12, 2006 memos are met; 3) 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; 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; 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 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 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 8 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 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 and that all construction debris boxes shall be kept on site for the duration of the work on this project; 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. C. Osterling seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: last thing want a designer to do is to clip a roof in order to meet the height limit, the flat portion of the roof not only hurts the architectural character of the project but is can be a maintenance problem; the applicant did a good job on this design. Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed on a 4-0-1- 2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. C. Osterling left the dais and the meeting at 8:35 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 9 7. 1505 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (MICHAEL AND AMY GONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN STEWART, AIA, ARCHITECT) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present, but several residents were in the audience wishing to speak regarding the project. Commissioners decided to hear the public testimony, comment on the project, and then continue the item until a time when the applicant could be present and address any issues raised. Christina Habelt, 1509 Balboa Avenue, James Cacciato, 1600 Adeline Drive, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, asked how would the style of the proposed house be described, not sure what defines the style; at last meeting, the Commission asked for more articulation, not sure what that means, only changes can see that were made are that one window was added and another was taken away, will see a huge mass of wall, there is a similar wall on a new house at 1464 Vancouver, it is massive, still have concern about design; met with owner, had discussed modifications to the fence along the shared property line, don't see that change on plans; the fireplace as proposed is massive, concerned with size and coverage of proposal, understand that it falls within the zoning code limits, but it is still too big; this is a spec house, owner has built others in Burlingame, will not live there, have a few suggestions: if front setback were increased to 20 feet and house were pushed back it would not be so imposing, will tower over the one-story house next door, could have better siting; the porch entryway extends into the front setback, appears to bring the building closer to the street, that is another reason to set it back, would not be so massive if it was set back; chimneys are overly large for a gas vented fireplace; and since this is a five-bedroom spec house, should have less floor area to reduce mass and bulk. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CA Anderson advised the Commission that comments can be made at this time and staff will pass them on to the applicant to address before the project comes back to the Commission for action. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: • Reducing the mass of the house by burying it is inappropriate, house looks buried; concerned with submerging property by 2 – 3 feet, not a good solution to the height problem; creates other problems; • Don't like the idea of a flat roof, not the proper solution, if this is to be a Spanish style house should propose something different; • Rafter spacing is shown as 36", is that the intent? • Like to see the tile details on the drawing, as it is currently drawn, it looks like a composition shingle roof; • Concerned about the rear element, facade will be massive; • Concerned with massing on right side of front elevation; • Front elevation of garage shows curved wall on sides, looks flat on the side elevation, like to see how much curve there is, tile is not drawn in on garage roof, is that the proposed material? • What material will be used on the roof of the house? • There are a few areas where the materials are not called out, need to show on plans, what is the material on the awning; • There should be a tile roof on the bays, consistent with the Spanish style; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 10 • Clarify what is the logic on which downspouts have ornamental leader heads, should be carried throughout; • Not enough articulation on the right side elevation, elements appear tacked on; and • Concerned about the mass of the two chimneys, two are one too many, it creates an industrial feel; Commissioners requested that the applicant bring in response to these items; the project will be brought back at a time when the items are addressed. C. Terrones moved to continue the item until a time when the applicant has addressed the Commission's comments and there is space on an agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:57 p.m. 8. 1840 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR A NEW, 4-STORY, 45-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH TWO LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING (ALEX NOVELL, BURLINGAME HILLS MANOR, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER AND TOBY LEVY, LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty conditions were suggested for consideration, including the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Ward, 792 Willborough Road; Toby Levy, project architect, 90 South Park, San Francisco; John Hickey, 60 South Market Street, San Jose; and Alex Novell, property owner represented the project, noting that this project provides an opportunity to fulfill the objectives of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to provide high density housing and transit oriented development within walking distance of the Caltrain and BART station. The project architect reviewed the changes made to the plans to address the Commission's design comments, gave a lot of thought to the issue of the front "build-to" line, revised the front to have a 30" high stoop with a 2'-6" railing, total will be 5'-6" high, working with the intent of the requirement and compatibility with neighboring properties, residential building to the north still has a long life, is set back 15', the office building to the south will most likely be replaced using the TW regulations, this project will provide a transition between the two; living spaces on the first floor need some separation from the street for privacy, the porches will provide a semi- private area for bedrooms that are facing street, the activity at the stoops will enliven the street. She presented a materials board, noting that the design has been revised to incorporated stone rather than brick, will provide more texture and richness, and more vertical elements were added to complement the stone, the copper being used will keep its color, the cedar planks will only be used as railings for the porches, there will be a 6" recess for the windows to give depth, they will be edged with a thicker material, mechanical equipment on the roof will either be in a well or it will be screened; the landscape architect added a sink and bathroom near the courtyard, and the planting was modified to carry the curve of the planting to the front of the street, a bench was incorporated along the street. The architect continued, noting that have incorporated many energy efficient and sustainable elements, will not be full LEEDS compliant, but will embrace the concept where possible, the stone is manufactured in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 11 Napa, will use low VOC, non-toxic paints, the transformer will be housed in a Cedar enclosure, increased the guest parking by having only one assigned space for each one bedroom unit, ask that condition No. 11 be modified, it now states that the designate spaces can only be assigned to owner, would like that revised to include “occupants,” in case the units are rented. Commissioners asked: The stone finish proposed, will it be stucco stone? Yes. Looking at the fascia detail, note that the top of the fascia will be painted with a vented wood soffit, could that soffit be made of Cedar? Yes, it is not specified but could use Cedar. Like the change from brick to stone, nice palette proposed; where will the kids play, there are nearby schools but would have to cross busy streets to get there, should have some amenities for children on site. Hoping that the courtyard space will be used, there are only a few units facing into it, not meant for activities such as soccer, meant for quiet play, the grass area and the area under the trellis would be likely play areas, hoping residents will use the private decks and porches, on the south the patios extend over to cover the parking area, are fairly large, the courtyard area was not intended to include playground, but as an area for hanging out with kids, usually play yards are provided in projects with more units, the insurance the condominium association would require for the playground makes it infeasible for smaller projects such as this one, see this as an intergenerational project, will be some kids in the three- bedroom units, but generally see a lower number of families with children in this type of project. Commissioner's questions continued: Would the applicant be willing to consider having the affordable units run for 30 years rather than the 10 years required? The applicant noted that the issue of the inclusionary housing is a big one because of the cost, made the decision when application submitted not to propose 30 years because it was not financially viable, understand it is important, would be willing to propose 15 years as an option, it will add to the cost of the project, each suggestion made on its own is great, but they all add up and add to the project cost, willing to have the five units deed-restricted for 15 years, at this point, plan to retain the units as rentals, but want the option to be able to sell as affordable units if market conditions warrant. Appreciate that a restroom was added near the courtyard and the change in materials, could applicant explain the area where the side setback variance is required? The area where there is an encroachment in the side setback is limited to an area over the parking garage, could have left it open and not required a variance, but wanted to add deck to make it more desirable both for the neighbors and the residents. Concerned about the front setback conforming to the plan, Sunrise project was required to bring their building forward to comply. Commissioners noted that there is an opportunity for activity on these decks as well as to provide privacy from being directly on the street for these units, with the three distinct sets of steps, it will provide a connection to Ogden, units will be more desirable because of the buffer, and have two points of access, one from inside and one from outside. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the applicant had done a good job addressing the Commission's comments, like the addition of a Cedar soffit under the fascia, would amend condition No. 10 to extend the affordability to 15 years, think the project has addressed the issue of the build-to line, the wall proposed creates a private space for the units, variance is reasonable because if this area were left uncovered, it would be a detriment to both the neighbors and the condominium residents; valid use of conditional use permit for lot coverage, are providing more open space in exchange for the added lot coverage, the environmental document adequately addresses the potential impacts of the project and provides mitigation, would like an amendment to Condition No. 11 that the assigned spaces be for unit owner or occupant, would also like to state that the vehicle shall be registered to the occupant and be operable. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 12 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 date stamped June 22, 2006, sheets A0.0 through A6.1, L1, L2, L2.1 and L2.2, and that the soffit material shall be Cedar; 2) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 100.93'' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Ogden Drive (54.93') for a maximum height of 46'-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 second level garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 38.10'; garage level one finished floor elevation shall be elevation 46.93'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 57.43'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 67.43'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 77.43'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 88.93'; and the top of ridge elevation shall be no more than 100.93'. 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; 3) 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; 4) that the backflow prevention device shall be placed on the side of the courtyard where it will be hidden from both the street and project residents; 5) that the project shall incorporate the following features to comply with general environmental planning principles: a) the glazing on the south side of the building shall be minimized; b) overhangs and recesses shall be provided for the west facing windows; c) the materials for the stone finish shall be manufactured in Napa; d) the paints and interior finishes shall be low VOC; e) native plants shall be used for plant materials to the extent feasible; f) all appliances shall have energy star ratings; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 24, 2005, memo, the Chief Building Official's July 29, 2005, memo, the Fire Marshal's July 31, 2005, memo, the NPDES Coordinator's August 15, 2005, memo and the Recycling Specialist’s August 1, 2005, memo shall be met; 7) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 8) 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 $14,685.93, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 9) 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 $14,685.93, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 10) 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 five below market rate units required as a part of this project; the affordable units shall be retained as affordable for a period of fifteen years; the applicant shall also submit a below market rate housing plan which shall describe in detail the applicant's proposal for meeting 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; 11) that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the eight 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 eight guest parking stalls, 85 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 or occupy a unit on the site; and that the vehicles shall be registered to the occupant of a unit and shall be operable; 12) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the eight guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 13) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 14) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 13 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; 15) 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; 16) that any security gate system across the 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; 17) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 18) 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; 19) 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; 20) 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; 21) 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; 22) 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; 23) 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; 24) 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; 25) 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; 26) that the applicant shall implement feasible control measures for construction emissions of PM10. Using the methodology outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, for projects with less than 4 acres per day of ground disturbance during construction, basic control measures such as watering, covering loose materials during transport, and sweeping would be sufficient to reduce PM10 to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 below would reduce potentially significant localized dust emissions to a less-than-significant level; 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; 27) that the applicant shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and implement protective measures if identified. 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 14 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; 28) that the applicant shall implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The City shall ensure the project applicant incorporates the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor; a) maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and minimize backing movements of equipment; use quiet construction equipment whenever possible; 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; prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; 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; the project sponsor 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; 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; 29) that the applicant shall implement measures to reduce construction vibration. The City shall ensure the project applicant incorporates the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor; the project sponsor 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; 30) that the applicant shall conduct protocol and procedures for encountering cultural resources. The following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources: 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; 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.; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 15 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; 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; 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 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 with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no design review items for review. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006 16 X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS The commissioners present discussed several issues raised as the Subcommittee continues its work on the El Camino North zoning district. Several of the issues affect the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The impact of the existing subdivision pattern and ownership on the planned development in the area was discussed along with how this pattern would affect the character of El Camino and the change anticipated to establish the northern part of El Camino Real as a gateway to the tree-lined portion of the street to the south. The group decided to put this item back on the agenda at a meeting when the full commission was present. Staff suggested that the Subcommittee would not be meeting again immediately, so would target to discuss this item further at a Commission meeting in August, before the Subcommittee's next meeting. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of July 17, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of July 17, 2006. - FYI: 1718 Escalante Way - changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Commissioners agreed to the change in roofing materials, although it was noted that some of them felt that this should have been noted on the original plans because the roofing material contributes significantly to the appearance of the house. - FYI: Summary of Planning Programs for the El Camino Corridor. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the number of programs currently focusing on the El Camino Corridor. She noted that awareness of these as the City enters into planning for the downtown area is important since the remaining blocks on El Camino not planned for and where the most change is likely to happen, are in the downtown area. Possibly the city could consider doing an El Camino Corridor study along with the Downtown Specific Plan. Adoption of a C/CAG corridor plan would enable the City to apply for TOD funds for residential development within the corridor. - Chair Bownrigg noted that he had received a message from the City Planner informing him of her intention to retire in the Spring of 2007. He wanted to pass on this information to the Commission while acknowledging that she would be fully engaged, no lame duck, until her last day with the city. He noted he was looking forward, with her help, to a busy year for the Commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Acting Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved 07.24.06.doc