Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.11.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 25, 2002 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the November 25, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, and Osterling Absent: Commissioners: Bojués, Keighran, Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The following changes were noted to the minutes of the November 12, 2002 regular meeting of the Planning Commission: - Item #9, page 9, second paragraph should read “Are you willing to meet with your neighbor Commission gave direction to the neighbors to meet to resolve this issue and come back to the Planning Commission,” - Item #9, page 9, second paragraph insert “the Peninsula Conflict Resolution people could help you craft an agreement which could be the basis for addressing the problem on an on-going basis. The neighbors indicated they would be willing to go to Peninsula Conflict Resolution.” IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that items #6, 716 Concord Way, #8 808 Edgehill Drive, and #10, 1755 Bayshore Highway, were continued to the next meeting and would not be heard this evening. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 512-516 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LANDSCAPING VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW EIGHT-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: what characteristics of the site justify a variance for front setback landscaping; could the applicant explain why they decided not to revise the 10 foot plate heights and 9 foot ceilings. Commissioners noted that Housing Element Implementation Subcommittee has discussed reducing the front landscaping requirements to allow for delivery truck access. 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 7:19 p.m. 2. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT- RE-DEFINE HEALTH AND BEAUTY SPA AS PERSONAL TRAINER AND ASSESSMENT BUSINESS AND BEAUTY SHOPS AS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 2 CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted a concern with elimination of the word “spa” from the code, and asked how will a business that does hair, massage and make-up be defined, would it help to add “personal health” to the proposed term instead of “personal assessment.” CP Monroe responded that most spa activities will meet the definition of a “beauty salon” and the term “health” is not used because health services are already defined in the code and are prohibited in the Burlingame Avenue subarea and some portions of the Broadway subarea. This item was set for the next available regular action calendar. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m. 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. 3a. 26 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HUGO CURLIONIS, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3b. 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, #310 – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B- APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH SERVICE (MARRIAGE/FAMILY THERAPIST) (ROBERTA ANDERSON, APPLICANT; HENRY HORN & SONS, TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3c. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 –APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED 1.0 FLOOR AREA RATIO, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO VARY FROM THE PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE-STORY MEETING ROOM SPACE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL (PAUL ZEN, TODAY’S III, INC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GUMBINGER/AVRAM ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Acting Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:26 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 4 MARIPOSA COURT – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HEDGE EXCEPTION FOR A 12’ HEDGE (GRACE AND ROBERT DUMMEL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 11.25.02, with attachments. Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff from what City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 3 point is the height of the hedge measured. Staff responded that the hedge is measured from the highest adjacent grade, which in this case is the sidewalk. There were no further questions of staff. Acting Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Grace Dummel, property owner and applicant, was present to answer questions. Commissioners asked: have you looked into alternative ways to cool the house, such as swamp coolers or shading windows; have you had a landscape professional visit the site to evaluate what area of the roof a taller hedge will shade and would it make a difference in the temperature of the house; what is the current height of the hedge. The applicant responded that she had looked into alternatives, but they were expensive; a landscaper had not evaluated the hedge and its shade patterns, but she would be willing to have an evaluation; house gets very hot and is uncomfortable for her husband, who is in poor health; any additional shade is helpful in cooling the house; there was a tree in the central courtyard which was cut down at the neighbors request, she did not realize how much a difference the courtyard tree made to the temperature of the house until it was gone; hedge is currently about 9 feet in height. Jim Carey, 931 West Angus, San Bruno, and Sheila Kermani, spoke on behalf of the property owner at 7 Mariposa Court. There are many other alternatives to cooling the house that the neighbor could investigate, such as an insulated roof, ceiling fans, reflective panels and awnings, they submitted a letter and several brochures detailing some of these alternatives; attempts have been made to work with the neighbor regarding the hedge and they have failed; in the past their mother had paid to have this hedge trimmed each year. Commission asked: if the hedge is cut to regulation height, is there a view of the bay or is it just a view of the roof at 4 Mariposa Court. It was noted that there is a view of the bay from the sunroom at 7 Mariposa Court if the hedge is 5-7 feet in height. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: granting a hedge exception requires a physical hardship on the property and there doesn’t appear to be a hardship for this property; hedge exception findings state that the hedge shall not be injurious to neighboring properties, where in this case the view enjoyed by some neighbors is materially damaged by the over height hedge; not convinced that the hedge, even if allowed to grow to 12 feet, will cast sufficient shade to cool the house; and feel that alternative methods can be found that will be inexpensive and also more efficient at cooling the house. C. Auran moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 5. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ONE ATTACHED GARAGE AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO, NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 11.25.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that hey are concerned with the effectiveness of the backflow devices proposed as mitigating measures, and asked if their function and effectiveness could be addressed. CP Monroe noted that the devices were recommended by the Public Works Department and are designed to prevent sewage from flowing back into the houses; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 4 while they are activated sewage does not flow from the site. Commission asked for an explanation of the bond process. CA Anderson explained that a bond is not required for this size development by either City ordinance or state law. Contractor bonds filed with the state are minimal. If the Commission chooses to impose a bond for the protection of the trees, the amount would be based on the construction costs of protecting the trees, so that if necessary, an outside party could step in to enforce the protection measures. Another type of bond could be used as a penalty levied against the owner for the value of the trees if they were damaged. A qualified arborist would determine the value of the trees. Acting Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney 219 Park Road, represented the applicant, Otto Miller, property owner, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the sewage problems existing in the neighborhood will be there whether or not three lots are developed at 1537 Drake; studies have shown that the new houses will not have a measurable impact on the capacity of the sewer, and the backflow valves would at least offer some improvement to the backup problems experienced by some of the neighbors; the mitigation measures for the trees will be followed by the applicant and he is willing to post a bond to ensure that the workers under his supervision follow the correct procedures during construction; in terms of design, the two proposed dwellings are well-designed and quality materials will be used in their construction, the applicant has worked with the design review consultant to modify the house on Lot 9; the design review consultant recommends approval of the project, stating in his recommendation that the proposed designs provide variety and will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Commission asked: what do you think would be a fair amount for a bond to protect the trees. Mr. Hudak responded that he estimates it would cost $10,000 to implement the mitigation measures, so a multiple of this, such at $25,000, would be more than sufficient if someone else had to do the work. Do not feel a bond should be required because it sets a dangerous precedent and should be imposed on all future development which has species trees; if the mitigation measures are followed and for some reason a tree still dies, the owner will be penalized for an act of nature. Janet Garcia, 1531 Drake Avenue; Ann and Mark Thomas, 1520 Drake; Natalie and David Taylor, 1566 Drake; Monica Hugazi, appraiser; Bob Baird 1510 Drake; Mr. Dorage, 1544 Drake, commented on the project: how can the proposed project be an improvement to the neighborhood if a majority of the neighbors oppose it; the trees are priceless and with the current development proposal, it is impossible to implement the separation required for the tree protection measures outlined in the arborist report; applicant has gone through design review but still made very few changes to the mass and bulk of the proposed houses; the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not adequately address the issues of the sewer, the trees , and the traffic problem in the neighborhood; the two houses proposed and the third schematic design show that the houses are in excess of the average existing floor area in the neighborhood by 500-1000 SF; a shared driveway design was never explored by the applicant, when it would prevent three curb cuts which would eliminate several on-street parking spaces in the already congested neighborhood; sewer function is a major problem that the City and the Planning Commission have ignored repeatedly; sewer now backs up onto street and then flows into the creek; any additional plumbing connected to the main will only aggravate the existing problem; the backflow devices proposed will not prevent the main from backing up or prevent sewage from spilling into the creek; the proposed application is a subdivision and it will degrade the quality of life on this block; believe the proposed development will enhance the property values in the neighborhood and that some of the neighbor’s concerns may be expressed out of fear of change; neighbors are not scared of change, just want to make sure it is the right kind of change; thought that the design review process was supposed to help improve neighborhoods, do not see that process working in this application; would be willing to explore having the neighbors pay for an independent study of the trees and sewer to verify the information stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; the sewer issues should be fixed before City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 5 any additional development is allowed in the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission asked staff if condition #31 ensures that the neighbors have the option to have the developer install the backflow devices at his expense. CA Anderson responded that yes, it is important that neighbors understand they can choose whether or not to have the device installed and also determine the type of device to be installed. Commission discussion: resent implication that the Commissioners have not read letters submitted by the neighbors; the Commissioners have devoted a lot of time and deliberation to this very important project; noted that based on professional experience, the Redwood trees on site are young and vigorous, can bear some construction and the monitoring program proposed will ensure their health; there are three existing legal lots on this site and the owner has a right to build three houses; the two houses designed for Lots 9 and 10 meet all the code regulations, they are within floor area ratio maximums and do not require any variances, if a house meeting the regulations still appears too large, then the regulations themselves should be changed; this owner has the right to build, within the specified requirements, on the subject property, just as any owner in Burlingame enjoys the same right. Commission continued: in Burlingame Municipal Code sections 26.24.030 and 25.285.090 there is clear distinction between subdivisions and development done to a single lot by a property owner, this distinction places more stringent standards on subdivisions; individually, each of the houses is elegantly designed, however with three new houses, all built within a short period of time, the Commission is evaluating a subdivision and it must conform to the higher standards that have been imposed by the citizens of the community through the subdivision code design standards; the proposed houses do not match the character of the neighborhood, they are larger than the neighborhood average in both floor area and number of bedrooms; troubled by the apparent inconsistencies between the neighbor testimony about the sewer and the information presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, not convinced that the sewer issue is adequately addressed by the proposed mitigation measures; and in the event of an approval of the project, would strongly support a condition requiring a bond to be posted by the owner for the protection of the trees. Further Commission discussion: a memo from the Public Works Department notes that there was an apparent maintenance problem with the sewer, it is now on the City list for frequent maintenance, and feel satisfied that this will help solve the existing sewer issues. C. Brownrigg moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Acting Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote, and the motion failed on a 2-2-3 roll call vote (Cers. Osterling and Auran dissenting and Cers. Bojues, Keighran and Vistica absent). C. Auran moved to approve, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report and an additional condition to require a bond from the owner for the tree protection measures, the amount to be determined by the City Arborist. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: how do fellow Commissioners resolve the discrepancy between the proposed floor areas and the average FAR in the neighborhood; have experienced development around my own property that was built to the maximum, but the design ensured that the development blended into the existing neighborhood; development is progress and allowing property owners to build within the stated regulations keeps Burlingame a viable and desirable community; feel that even if these houses were on separate individual lots for development, would still have major issue with the fact that their mass and bulk City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 6 doesn’t fit in with the averages for the neighborhood; if the developer were to propose a single-story, 1800 SF house on the third lot at this time, the purchaser of the property could come to the Planning Department at any time and request to add beyond the neighborhood averages; feel that the sewer is an issue to be resolved by the City, not by the property owner who wants to develop the lots. Acting Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote, and the motion to approve, by resolution, with amended conditions failed on a 2-2-3 vote (Cers. Brownrigg and Keele dissenting and Cers. Bojues, Keighran and Vistica absent). A tie vote is no action and the application is denied. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:43 p.m. Acting Chair Osterling called for a 5-minute break. The Commission reconvened at 9:49 p.m. 6. 716 CONCORD WAY- ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHARLES AND SUZANNE SAUL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GEORGE SKINNER; ARCHITECT) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER This item was continued to the December 9, 2002, meeting. 7. 535 ALMER ROAD – ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE- STORY, FOUR-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GLUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (103 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN a. Condominium Permit b. Tentative Condominium Map Reference staff report 11.25.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-six conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked staff: can the required tree protection report by a qualified arborist address the maintenance of the oak tree and initial pruning; does condition #11 ensure that the Black Acacia tree will be removed, it appears that the neighbors would like it removed and the City Arborist has indicated that he thinks this species of tree holds little value. CA Anderson noted that a tree removal permit was previously issued for the Black Acacia tree the conditions could be modified to require initial pruning of the oak tree and to suggest future maintenance measures for this tree as well as to require the removal of the Black Acacia, if this is agreed to by the owner. Acting Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Glush Dada, designer, was present to answer questions. She noted that based on the Commission’s last comments, the project was redesigned to eliminate the setback variance, this revision required that one of the extra parking spaces be removed and the remaining area was used to provide storage areas for the units. The owner intends to remove the Black Acacia tree. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in order to eliminate a minor variance, the applicant has removed one parking space and made another space more difficult to access, seems like this is an unfortunate trade-off for an area in the community that is so impacted by parking; feel that trade-off is necessary, no required spaces were eliminated and in any case, there did not appear to be justification for a variance on the lot; it has been noted that on-site parking for newer condominiums has been more than adequate, so this should work as well. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 7 C. Keele moved to approve the application for a condominium permit, 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 October 15, 2002, sheets A.1, A.5 through A.7 and C-1 (Boundary and Topographic Survey), date stamped November 1, 2002, sheet L-1, and date stamped November 18, 2002, sheets A2, A2a, A.3, A.4, and A8; with 1,595 SF of common open space and a 16'-1" front setback; and that the landscaping, including trees, shrubs, ground cover and vines shall be planted as shown on the revised Landscape Plans (sheet L-1), date stamped November 1, 2002; 2) that a wooden fence, with a maximum height of 7'-0" above highest adjacent grade (6' solid with 1' of lattice), shall be installed along the south property line (rear property line between 535 and 525 Almer Road); 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 conditions of the City Engineer's November 6 and October 23, 2002 memos, the Chief Building Official’s September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 9, 2002 memo, the City Arborist’s October 2, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist’s September 9, 2002 memo shall be met; 5) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 67.66' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Almer Road (32.66') for a maximum height of 35'-0", and that the rotunda at the front of the building which rooftop access shall have a maximum elevation of 72.33', or 39'-8" from average top of curb, and that the rotunda shall not exceed 5% of the rooftop area; 6) that the finished grading of the garage floor, the finished slab of the garage floor, the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the construction and framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage finish grade shall be 25.25', the garage floor finished floor shall be elevation 26.41'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 35.24'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 45.24'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 55.24; and the top of ridge elevation shall be 67.66'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that incursion into the side setback for the basement vent grate and the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 7) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 8) 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; 9) 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; 10) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 11) that the applicant shall remove the 32-inch Black Acacia tree at the rear of the lot and that a Tree Removal Permit will be required from the City before its removal; 12) that the amount of impervious surfaced area within the dripline of the existing oak tree in the adjacent common and private open space shall be determined by an arborist’s report and approved by the City’s Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit and the root zone of the tree shall be protected during construction based on an arborist’s report as approved by the City’s Senior Landscape Inspector; and the paving of impervious surface in the rear common and adjacent private open space shall be not expanded without an amendment to this condominium permit; and that the arborist’s report shall also address initial pruning and enhancement of the oak tree and that the owner shall comply with the recommended measures; and that the arborist’s report shall recommend future maintenance measures for the oak tree; 13) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 14) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City’s water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 15) that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 8 underground parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and that no portion of any parking area and/or egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities, there shall be no storage of automobiles, boats or recreational vehicles within assigned or guest parking stalls; and that the none of the parking spaces shall be rented, leased or sold; 16) that the guest parking shall not be assigned to any unit and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use of all visitors to the site; and that ‘guest parking stall’ shall be marked on the guest parking space and shall be located in a code compliant parking stall; 17) that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association; 18) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 19) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 20) 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; 21) 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; 22) that 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; 23) that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition; 24) that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame for structural stability; 25) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 26) 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; 27) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on- site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 28) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 29) that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 30) 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; 31) that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 32) 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 - City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 9 contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 33) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 34) 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; 35) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 36) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 37) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 38) that the met hod of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 39) 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 local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 40) that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 41) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 42) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 43) that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 44) 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; 45) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; and 46) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica absent). C. Keele moved to recommend approval of the tentative condominium map to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the tentative condominium map. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 8. 808 EDGEHILL DRIVE – ZONED C-R – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW, THREE- STORY, DUPLEX ON EDGEHILL DRIVE AND AN ATTACHED SINGLE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE (MIKE JALILIE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CJW ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN This item was continued to the December 9, 2002, meeting. 9. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 10 Reference staff report 11.25.02, with attachments. Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked if the City’s construction hours permitted construction on the weekends. CA Anderson noted that weekend construction is allowed by the City, but that the Commission could modify the City’s standard construction hours. Acting Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Tim Kobe, Eight Inc., was present to answer questions. The Commission asked: will there be additional signage along Park Road in the blank space beyond the display window; is the color of the brick the same yellow that is shown on the photo boards; will this color compliment the city’s designated color for the sidewalk improvements, will there be automated displays in the display window; why was the brick color changed from black to tan and were any other colors considered; would the applicant be willing to forego construction on the weekends, which is the biggest shopping time for Burlingame Avenue. The applicant responded that the proposed signage was meant to be minimalist; the color of the proposed tan brick is very similar to the bricks seen in Council Chambers and the color will compliment the color dictated by the City for the sidewalk; Apple has a design team that creates displays for the window on Park Road, the designs may be automated and will be changed frequently to coincide with advertising campaigns; there did not seem to be overwhelming support among the Commissioners for the black brick so the color was changed to tan, red-tinted bricks were also considered; and applicant would agree to construction hours imposed by the Commission. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern about restricting the construction hours, think it would be better for the merchants on Burlingame Avenue if the construction was completed as quickly as possible. CP Monroe noted that condition # 13 should be modified to clarify the City’s standard construction hours and to prohibit heavy equipment operation or hauling on weekends. C. Brownrigg 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 November 15, 2002, sheets A0.01 through A3.1 and C1.0 through C6.0, with tan-colored brick, a brick soldier course below the parapet and above the windows on each elevation, and a recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display window along Park Road.; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the project shall obtain Planning Commission commercial design review approval before demolition of the existing structure (except for asbestos removal or reconstruction) or construction of the new building takes place on the site; 3) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Department; and that the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the permit; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope or approved of building, 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 commercial design review; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s, Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's July 29, 2002, memos and the conditions of the City Engineer's August 6, 2002, September 10, 2002 and October 28, 2002 memos shall be met; 6) that the demolition and construction on the site shall follow the construction logistics plan date stamped June 29, 2001, and the memo and diagrams regarding construction staging and date stamped September 4, 2002, and demolition and site construction plans date stamped October 22, 2002; 7) that the debris box in the alley shall be limited to a 10' x 24' debris box, and shall only be in place for a two week period during demolition, and the alley and fire lane shall not be completely blocked, there shall be adequate space for a vehicle to maneuver around the debris box; and that flagmen shall be available for traffic control while the debris box is in place; 8) that an encroachment permit shall be obtained from City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 11 the Public Works Department for the scaffolding in the public right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road; 9) that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not block any on-street parking spaces; 10) that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J; 11) that truck access to the site shall not use Burlingame Avenue or California Drive, trucks shall access the site from Howard and the City Hall Lane alley, access from US 101 to the site shall be via Carolan Avenue; 12) that no construction that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffolding, pedestrian barricades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occur between November 3rd through January 5th; construction solely within the building may occur during this time as long as the public alley and right of way are not impacted or blocked; 13) that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and to the limits on hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling shall be permitted on weekends or holidays; 14) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building does not exceed 45 dBA; 15) that the contractor shall submit the “Recycling and Waste Reduction” form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan; 16) that the contractor shall prepare, have approved and shall implement a plan that insures that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 17) that should any cultural resources 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; 18) that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and 19) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: Commission appreciates the hard work and cooperation of the applicant. Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m. 10. 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY – ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF THREE NEW WALL SIGNS (ALAN FORD/MARCO ACOSTA, SIGN RESOURCE, APPLICANTS/DESIGNER; SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER) (17 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER This item was continued to the December 9, 2002, meeting. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 1384 HILLSIDE CIRCLE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIM AND NANCY LOCKE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, AIA, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 12 Acting Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Ellis Schoichet, architect, was present to answer questions about the project. He noted that the proposed design allowed the applicants to expand the existing house, as well as to correct some existing problems with roof drainage. He also stated that there had been a miscommunication with the Building Department in determining if an egress window was required for the proposed lower floor, the window is not shown on the original plans, but he submitted into the record revised 8 ½ x 11 size drawings for the Commission to review the proposed window. The Commission asked the applicant why a special permit for height was needed The architect responded that the existing house had several additions done at separate times and the roof over the additions drained into itself, resulting in water damage, the proposed roof is the easiest way to resolve the existing problems and still maintain the existing roof pitch, the added height will not be visible from the street and does not impact any neighbors. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar on the next available agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Acting Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:44 p.m. 12. 2990 ARGUELLO DRIVE – ZONED R-1 –APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVE AND LORI TAPIA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Alan Olin, architect was present to answer questions. He noted that there is an error in the table in the staff report: the existing right side setback is 11’-10”, the same dimension as the proposed right side setback. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: regular action calendar may be appropriate because of the variance request, the variance is consistent with the existing setback of the house and the addition is modest, well within the required FAR, feel project can go to consent calendar and be pulled off if there are concerns, although Commission has made it a practice to require story poles for construction in the hillside area, in this case the topography of the neighborhood is relatively flat, the project has been noticed once and no neighbors have spoken against it, so do not feel that story poles are necessary. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the next available consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Acting Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:51 p.m. 13. 15 RAY COURT – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROB AND LEANNE UHICH, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Robert Uhrich, owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, were present to answer questions. The owner noted that the family plans to live in the house for many years and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 13 they have worked closely with the designer to have the proposed changes fit into the neighborhood. The Commission asked: what are the “shading devices” shown on Sheet 1, has the owner considered changing the garage doors, since they are so visible from the street. The applicants responded that the “shading devices” are required by the Building Department for Title 24 requirements and are not trees, but things like curtains or shades. It was noted that the garage door was recently replaced. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the next available consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Acting Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:58 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of November 18, 2002 - Approval of 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar CP Monroe reviewed the proposed meeting calendar for 2003 and noted the Commission could defer approval of the calendar until a time when all Commissioners had the opportunity to review their schedules. - FYI on approved design review for 1204 Cabrillo Avenue CP Monroe noted the memo on changes to the front door and the roof material. The Commission had no comments. - FYI on approved design review for 2000 Davis Drive CP Monroe noted the memo on changes to windows, the rear balcony, and the roof configuration. The Commission had no comments. XI. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 11:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Acting Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES11.25.02