Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 10.12.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLIrvGAME APPROVED MINUTES Tuesday, October 12, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Vistica called the October 12, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker and Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 7, fifth bullet down from top of page; revise to read: `Ys there emergency lighting within the storage area; also be certain to ensure that the area is not blocked as it serves as emergency egress. " Page 14, vote for 1321 El Camino Real; change "Chair Terrones" to "Chair Vistica". Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Expressed concern that some developers build projects without seeking approval of amendments in advance of making changes; referenced project at 1441 Balboa Avenue. Referenced a letter sent to the Community Development Director and Commissioners. ■ Was confronted by the property owner at a recent meeting. She expressed a willingness to work for a compromise. ■ Since that time, a communal hedge was removed from the property; she requested that the matter be brought before the Commission for review as soon as possible. ■ The applicant has signed a contract with the City, must abide by that agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1345 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 100, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (GARY L. FLICKINGER, APPLICANT; DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; GREEN BANKER LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated October 12, 2010. Commission comments: ■ Provide clarification regarding the parking variance; it appears that the parking count is focused on only the area occupied by the applicant. Are the other tenant spaces included in the required parking calculation? ■ The Chief Building Official's requirement for accessible parking does not appear on the plans; is this included in the variance request; will the parking lot be altered to provide the accessible parking? ■ Provide more information regarding the use; is it accurate that only two classes are held during the open hours? ■ What is the level of private lessons that will be provided? ■ Would like to see the signage proposal. (Meeker — the Commission would not see a signage proposal unless some type of variance from signage requirements is requested.) ■ Why did it take so long for this code enforcement matter to come forward; how did the code enforcement violation come to be? ■ How was the parking for the adjacent use (Gold Medal) addressed? Will this become problematic given that other parking variances have been granted in the vicinity? ■ How will traffic turn around in the parking lot? ■ Will classes get out at the same time as the adjacent use? ■ Could parking space 8 be eliminated to permit traffic to drive through to the adjacent parking lot? 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 7:22 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon 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 Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2. 1024 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 — APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (E. GARY SCHLOH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEBORAH MARTIN AND BILL KNOWLES, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1124 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANDREW PENG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. Phillip Boyle, P. O. Box 181, Oakland; Hector Estipona, 880 Mitten Road; and Grace Wang, 1124 Bernal Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Thanked the applicant for reducing the garage to a one -stall garage. ■ With respect to the rear door; it doesn't appear large enough. (Estipona — is a small access door.) ■ Disappointed with the choice not to provide divided lights, or simulated true divided light windows; would like to see them provided. ■ The changes that have been made, with the exception of the lack of window grids, are an improvement. ■ On the left side elevation, on the blank wall consider providing a window or some other treatment to eliminate the blank appearance of the wall. (Estipona — will try to address this issue.) ■ The windows would be enhanced by providing grids. (Boyle — appreciates the input, however, from a cultural perspective, the applicant opposes the grids.) ■ The lack of window grids is not a deal breaker; appreciates the more prominent window sill. ■ With respect to the arched window above the porch; is it recessed like the living room window, or is there something else that can be done to dress it up; provide a similar shadow line? (Estipona — will set it in similar to the living room window, or provide a similar shadow line.) ■ More work needs to be done at the arched window behind the toilet on the second floor; may need to be obscured in some manner; provide some decorative feature to obscure the window. Could perhaps provide an iron grill over the window to help obscure the window, rather than a recessed window. ■ Would the homeowner be open to providing grids on the living room window? (Boyle — is not the preference of the property owner. There are cultural preferences that make this problematic.) ■ Could an octagonal window be provided in place of the window over the porch? (Boyle — have agreed to the recessed window.) ■ What is the cultural significance of not having window grids? (Wang —just wants a clean window without the grids. Boyle — feng shui encourages the free flow of energy through the building; the grids impede the flow of energy.) ■ Could consider the iron grill treatment over leaded glass in the window above the porch, or some other form of obscured glass. (Boyle — the recessed window and some form of obscured glass, not necessarily opaque, would be acceptable.) 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The window above the porch should be recessed with some form of obscured glass. Can accept not providing grids on the windows; it is unfortunate that the applicant doesn't want to go a step further and provide the iron grill over the arched window at the front. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: window to be recessed with a heavy shadow line as an FYI. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 29, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-5, SF-1, Landscape Plan and Topographic Map and Boundary Survey; 2. that the bathroom window located above the entry on the front elevation shall be recessed with a heavy shadow line; the design of the window shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 31, 2010 and July 31, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's August 6, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 2, 2010 memo, the Park's Supervisor's September 1, 2010 and August 2, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 29, 2010 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 9. 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; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. 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 Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Often encourage grids in the windows with this type of architectural style; is not a deal breaker, but need to discuss this on a case -by -case basis with applicants Leave it to the applicant's discretion if they will provide an iron grill over the window. Bad design, cannot support the motion; is not a cultural preference. The Commission has demanded divided light windows in past instances. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 ■ The house doesn't fit into the neighborhood. ■ If the homeowner truly wanted windows without grids, could have chosen a different style of house. ■ The Commission's intent is to guide towards a cohesive design for a neighborhood. ■ Would have liked to have seen more compromise on behalf of the applicant. Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Auran opposed, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi left the meeting at 8:03 p.m. 4. 1501 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ANDREA VAN VOORHIS, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Fence in front looks like it is six -feet tall with a two -foot additional of lattice; is this possible? (Strohmeier — will need to be revised to have only one -foot of lattice.) Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. Andrea Van Voorhis, 1510 Ray Drive; represented the applicant. Will reduce fence to five -feet with two -feet of lattice. The neighbor at 1505 Cortez Avenue wanted windows removed on right side; are willing to remove them, though the design reviewer would not agree to this change. The windows will be frosted glass and is willing to provide fixed glass windows. Commission comments: ■ Having fixed glass windows on the right side windows will limit circulation; would not suggest removing the windows. The windows are obscured and the placement minimizes impacts upon the neighbor. (Van Voorhis — noted one window in the bedroom on the second floor that is a genuine privacy problem.) ■ Can accept removal of a window in the bedroom. ■ Likes the changes made to the design, doesn't feel additional changes should be made to the windows. ■ If the bedroom window on the right were eliminated, could provide a high -sill leaded glass window at this location. Could plant significant landscaping at this location. (Van Voorhis — the neighbor did not want landscaping, it would make the area dark. The neighbor was not willing to accept the transom windows at this location.) ■ Complemented the design revisions. ■ Appreciates all of the work with the neighbor. ■ Appreciates the details of the gable vent; is this really a three-dimensional design feature? (Van Voorhis — yes it is.) 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 ■ Encouraged a wood gable vent material, rather than a metal vent; wood would add more dimension. (Van Voorhis — is amenable to providing a wood vent.) ■ Need to provide notes on the material sizes. (Van Voorhis — provided details.) ■ Refreshing to see an entirely new plan proposed for the neighborhood. ■ Will the existing tree survive? (Van Voorhis — arborist will re-evaluate when the demolition occurs. If it must be removed, it will be replaced.) Public comments: Chris Donelan, 1505 Cortez Avenue; spoke: ■ Remains concerned regarding privacy issues. Why should she, as the neighbor, be required to keep her windows closed to maintain her privacy? ■ If the applicant is willing to remove the windows on the right side, should be acceptable. (Commissioner — understands concerns regarding sight lines into the neighbor's home, but removing windows from the upper floor guest bedroom and adding high -sill windows in the family room could be a solution. The windows in the gable are important to the design.) ■ Could accept transom windows on the lower floor flanking the fireplace; leaded glass would be acceptable. (Van Voorhis — frosted glass is preferred as the manufacturer only provides frosted glass. Leaded glass would also not match the design of the house.) ■ Opposed to keeping the windows at the stairway will only be seen from her property. Should consider impacts upon the neighbor. (Commissioner — the applicant is giving up too much; has been very accommodating to the neighbor.) ■ If the entry had continued to be on Cortez Avenue, perhaps the floor plan could have been oriented differently. (Commissioner — the rear of the new house actually abuts the side of the neighbor's house.) ■ The applicant can accept removing the windows from the right elevation; is better with the windows, but is willing to remove them for the neighbor's purposes, only visible to the neighbor. (Commissioner— The upper window in bathroom should stay but be inoperable; remove windows in bedroom, add transom windows in family room with high sills.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Has difficulty understanding precisely what will be changed with the project; it's not clear what the applicant is asking the Commjssion to consider. Public hearing reopened: Van Voorhis — are keeping the windows in the gable, removing the window in the guest room, providing two transom windows in the family room, and willing to remove the windows at the stairwell but left it up to the Commission, even though those windows were encouraged by the design review consultant. Public hearing closed. Chair Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following design changes: Retain the windows under the gable on the west elevation. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 Remove the window in the guest room on the west elevation. Provide two high -sill, transom windows in the family room flanking the fireplace, in place of the single window shown on the west elevation to the left of the fireplace vent. Eliminate the windows in the stairwell, as shown above the rear door on the west elevation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: The project was reviewed by design review consultant; the Commission is now suggesting changes that are contrary to the recommendation of the design review consultant; the applicant is being too accommodating addressing the neighbor's concerns; can agree to obscured glass at the stairway windows as an alternative to their removal. The neighbor's home is only two feet off of the property line; the applicant's home is at a six-foot setback. The following are the amended conditions of approval: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 29, 2010, sheets 0 through 7; 2. that windows shall be retained under the gable on the west elevation; the window for the second floor guest room, as shown on the west elevation, shall be removed; remove the single window to the left of the fireplace vent on the west elevation (the family room), and provide high -sill, transom windows flanking the fireplace; the stairway windows above the rear entry on the west elevation shall be retained, but shall be of obscured glass; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 23, 2010, July 7, 2010 and May 17, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's June 2, 1020 memo, the Parks Supervisor's July 13, 2010 and May 21, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's May 20, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2010 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. 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; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. 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 Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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. Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:44 p.m. 5. 1505 SHERMAN AVENUE (TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH), ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AFTER -SCHOOL TUTORING BUSINESS OPERATING AT AN EXISTING CHURCH SITE (SHERMAN TUNG, APPLICANT; TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 Reference staff report dated October 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. No one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker indicated that though the Commission could take public testimony from anyone present wishing to speak to this item; the Commission cannot take action on the item without first providing the opportunity for the applicant to present his case to the Commission; a continuance was recommended. Public comments: Kenneth Aron, 1600 Sherman Avenue and Dorian Alvarez, 1519 Sherman Avenue; spoke: ■ Is this an appropriate means for the church to be making income? ■ Hard to assess what the potential impacts are to the neighborhood. ■ Has no idea who the applicant is. ■ Is the applicant contractually bound to the hours in the staff report? ■ Have assurances to comply with the conditions of approval come from the church? ■ What is the relationship between the applicant and the church? ■ What are the church's obligations? ■ Is the approval open-ended? ■ Can the approval be reconsidered at some time in the future? ■ How much revenue will be realized by the church? ■ Appears that there would be a limit to the number of students and traffic. ■ Students at the current facility have already been involved in activities that impact the neighborhood. ■ What is the limitation on the number of students? ■ What if a private institution and not a church had applied for this type of use in the residential neighborhood? ■ What is the parking calculation; is the church exempt from the standards? ■ The church is no longer a neighborhood church, but will impact the neighborhood while benefiting those from outside the neighborhood. ■ Read letter from Nancy McGee expressing concerns regarding lack of parking and circulation. Have been attempting to work with the traffic engineer regarding possible solution. Already feel the impact of the use of the property. ■ Has had vandalism to her vehicle. ■ Not against the church's activities, but can't determine when the day care activities have occurred at the location. ■ Concerned about having 30-40 children at the location, is bad enough with the smaller number of children currently on the property. ■ Has been patient with the caretakers of the children at the center regarding the excessive noise emanating from the property. ■ Has had items thrown at her home. ■ It is not a good thing for the neighborhood. Chair Vistica closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the public hearing until Monday, October 25, 2010. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Lindstrom absent). The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Auran indicated that he would need to recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 6 (303 Primrose Road), as he has a business relationship with the property owner. He left the City Council Chambers. 6. 303 PRIMROSE ROAD -APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT (ELIAS JWEINAT, APPLICANT; JONATHAN WARD, CHESTNUT COMPANY, ARCHITECT; AND UMLAND TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 12, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: ■ Asked if there would be chairs on the sidewalk? (Meeker — would need an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department.) ■ Does awning comply with restrictions for projections over public sidewalk? (Meeker/Stohmeier — described the standards and indicated that the existing awning is in compliance.) ■ Will the bathroom need to be made accessible? (Strohmeier — suspects that an accessible bathroom will not be required. Meeker — will clarify.) ■ Will bathroom be used by both tenants? Chair Vistica opened the public comment period. Elias Jweinat, 303 Primrose Road and Jonathan Ward, Corte Madera; represented the applicant. Will be a vegan market with coffee and pre -made sandwiches. Clarified that the floor of the business will be brought down to the sidewalk grade for accessibility purposes, at the request of the City's Building Official. The existing awning will be "re -branded" with the new store identity. Commission comments: Will the restroom be accessible from both spaces? (Jweinat — will be granted access to it by the landlord.) Would the applicant consider using bronze or anodized aluminum for the window? Not necessarily happy with the aluminum and glass window approach, could consider a more high -quality approach. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 ■ (Jweinat — will do what the Commission requests.) ■ Be careful regarding elimination of the step into the tenant space; there could be a "surprise" in the area; perhaps plumbing under the existing step. ■ Should a hose -bib be required? (Meeker — explained that there is no landscaping adjacent to the business; the policy in the past has been to require hose bibs on Burlingame Avenue. This is problematic from the City's standpoint, however, as it encourages public use of water provided by the private property owner.) ■ Consider moving away from the brushed aluminum look for the windows; provide a warmer material. ■ Confirmed that the existing roll -up door will remain. (Jweinat — had to reduce the opening into the tenant space to meet health department requirements. What is proposed is what is being required of him by that department. Will be allowed to leave doors open until complaints are received regarding flying insects into the space.) ■ Could provide a window system out of wood; would provide a warmer pedestrian experience. (Ward — perhaps metal frame with wood cladding. Aluminum is not inconsistent with the existing storefronts in the building.) ■ Leave it to the applicant to propose either a wood storefront or other treatment (color) than the brushed aluminum. (Jweinat — could be powder -coated metal as well.) ■ Perhaps look at an earthtone color that is compatible with the brick. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2- 1 (Commissioners Cauchi and Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Auran recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:28 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meetings of September 20 and October 4, 2010: 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 12, 2010 The City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan at its meeting of October 4, 2010. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — September, 2010 requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Vistica adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Vice -Chair 13