Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.05.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 14, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the May 14, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. SEATING NEW OFFICERS AND MEMBERS a. Rotation of Officers Chairman Luzuriaga announced that at their last meeting the Council had reappointed C. Bojués to a second four year term on the commission and appointed Tim Auran to his first term. He then noted that each year at the first meeting in May, the officers of the commission rotate. This year the position of Chair will be filled by C. Vistica, the position of Vice-Chair by C. Keighran, and the position of Secretary by C. Bojués. C. Luzuriaga and Chairman Vistica then changed chairs and C. Luzuriaga passed on the gavel. Chairman Vistica noted that it would be hard to follow C. Luzuriaga. b. Seating of New Commissioner Chairman Vistica welcomed C. Auran . He noted that while C. Auran was new to the Planning Commission he has sat on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for two terms, serving as their chair, he has been president of the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, a local realtor for more than 20 years and a city resident for 31 years. C. Auran responded that it would be difficult to follow C. Deal who has been his friend for many years and worked so hard for Burlingame; he would support C. Deal’s ideas; he commended C. Deal for aiding the commission through the difficult years with significant changes in the code including FAR and introducing the process of design review which has evolved to the current process, he supports that process despite what one reads in the newspapers, he has no plans to change it. Chairman Vistica noted that he looked forward to the commission continuing to work effectively as a team. He regretted that C. Deal could not attend this evening, but he was out of town with his daughter who was delivering his second grand child. When he is available, the commission will honor him with a resolution commemorating his many contributions to Burlingame. c. Reception Chairman Vistica then called for a brief break for cake in honor of the new officers and member. The reception ended at 7:30 p.m. IV. MINUTES The minutes of the April 23, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted the following changes to the agenda: Item 3, 1517 Burlingame Avenue is continued to May 29, 2001; item 5, 808-820 El Camino Real is continue pending resolution of an easement issue. Neighbors of these two properties will be noticed again when these items return to the agenda. Item 9, 1450 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 2 Howard Avenue, should be moved up to the first design review item because of the number of people interested. There were no other changes to the agenda, and the commission approved the agenda as revised. VI. FROM THE FLOOR Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal spoke from the floor requesting that the application at 1441 Bernal be removed from the consent calendar and that a public hearing be held. The Chairman noted that commission would removed 1441 Bernal and make it the first item on the regular action calendar. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VII. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1433 SANCHEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JENNIFER HAYDEN AND WILLIAM RYAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY LANGKAMMERER, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: comment in the application that you intend to include the same craftsman details in the accessory structure that exist in the house, but the plans do not reflect these details, need to add details for windows, eaves, trim type on plans; realize that a painting studio will need a sink, but the toilet should be removed, its presence can lend this to illegal use in the future; why are four windows on the eastern elevation necessary; during what hours will the studio and office be used; will the office be for home use only; why do you need larger than a minimum sewer connection; what is the zoning of the property, seems to be a discrepancy between the plans and the staff report; the FAR on the lot is not provided, please add it; why is the front of the new accessory structure buried, this will require grading what is the benefit; need landscape information, what trees, walkways and shrubs are on the site, these should be shown on the plans; what is the minimum head room for a parking stall, how is it measured, does this proposed area meet the minimum height given the location of the plumbing. There were no further questions from the Planning Commission. Chairman Vistica set this item for action at the May 29, 2001, meeting providing all the needed information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for them to plan check revisions, prepared a staff report, and there is room on the next agenda. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. VIII. 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. Chairman Vistica noted that item 2a had been requested to be placed on the regular action calendar for public hearing. He asked if anyone else in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any other item off the consent calendar. C. Auran noted that since he did not attend the previous Commission meeting which addressed these items he would abstain from action on the consent calendar. There were no additional requests for items to be removed from the calendar. C. Dreiling noted that he lived within 500 feet of the project at 1337 Paloma Avenue so he would abstain from action on that item. C. Vistica noted that he would like to add a condition to item 2B, 1337 Paloma Avenue, that the downstairs basement space shall not be used as sleeping quarters or bedrooms. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 3 2B. 1337 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW ONE- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ALEXANDER AND GLORIA HIDCHENKO, PROPERTY OWNERS) 2C. 313 CHAPIN LANE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS L. HAMACHER, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRUCE HOMER-SMITH, PROPERTY OWNER) 2D. 1464 CORTEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Keighran moved approval of items 2B 1337 Paloma Avenue, 2C 313 Chapin Lane, and 2D 1464 Cortez Avenue with the amendment to the conditions of approval for 1337 Paloma Avenue suggested by C. Vistica, and with the findings and conditions in the staff report for each property. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion for 313 Chapin Lane and 1464 Cortez Avenue passed on a 6-0-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining) voice vote. The motion for 1337 Paloma Avenue passed on a 6-0-0-2 (Cers. Auran, Dreiling abstaining). This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 1441 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO APPROVED NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RALPH DOMENICI, APPLICANT; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER; LINDA FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER) SP Brooks presented the staff report and conditions of approval. C. Auran was noted as abstaining from this action since it was on the consent calendar and he had not been on the commission when the items was originally reviewed. There were no questions about the application from the Planning Commission. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal Avenue, who called the item off the consent calendar and commented that she was unclear about whether the occupancy permit had been issued to this property, but it was being shown for sale this week end, is this legal. The CA noted that there is no relationship between showing a property or selling it and the occupancy permit; this hearing is regarding corrections that may be needed to be made to the property. She expressed a concern that the curb cut was replaced and it overlaps two feet on to the right-of-way in front of her house. CE noted that he would have to look into this and report back about the situation. The chairman then recognized Ralph Domenici, 510 Almer Road, contractor and applicant for 1441 Bernal Avenue. He noted that the plans showed that the approach to the driveway would need to be replaced and the forms were installed and inspected by the Public Works Department; the area where the driveway approach is located is public right-of-way and the city has authority over what occurs there. He noted that at the last meeting he did not take the opportunity to apologize to the staff and Commission for not getting the paperwork on the changes to this project in before the work was done on the house. CE asked if the widening of the approach in the right-of-way was directed by city staff; the applicant noted that it was. CE noted that he would ask staff what the issues were. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 4 Commission comment: feel that if something is encroaching in front of a neighbor’s property Commission should at least review the circumstances by continuing the item 2 weeks so staff can look into it. CA noted that it is possible that a change was required in the curb cut to meet city requirements since it was being installed on city property. Feel that the plans are now complete and would be comfortable acting on them; would be willing to proceed if this were a regular project, but this one was changed without proper approvals, would like to wait until we see if the approach and curb-cut is OK or needs to be changed. C. Bojués agree that we need to get the information on the driveway approach and curb cut from the City Engineer so we have all the information before commission acts, move to continue this item for two weeks to the next Planning Commission meeting, May 29, 2001. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the Motion: are the property line monuments clear on the site, feel we should continue this item in order to get all the information. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item for two weeks in order to get more information from the City Engineer. The motion passed on a 6-0-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 3. 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAY BRAYER, BRAYER CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROY AND JANE BORODKIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (CONTINUED TO MAY 29, 2001 MEETING) At the request of the applicant 1517 Burlingame Avenue was continued to May 29, 2001 meeting. 4. 1870 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (PRIME PACIFIC GLOBAL, APPLICANT; PRIME PLAZA LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5/14/01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. C. Luzuriaga noted that he will be abstaining from action on this item because he owns property within 500 feet. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Dave Ziegel, broker of record for the property, noted that the applicant does not use 3000 SF for real estate use, there is a small office for meetings and a broker office, Prime Pacific is a trading company, there are 25 employees, but not all are real estate. Commissioners noted that the applicant needs to look at definition of real estate use, it goes beyond just licensed brokers; CA noted that some of the employees may also fall under the financial institution definition, that should be confirmed as well; C-1 district is protective of these kind of uses and requires conditional use permit; should also look at hours of operation, application should reflect all hours that employees will be on site; application not clear as to use, need to clarify and come back to the Commission. CP Monroe noted that this is a code enforcement item, and should be brought back at the next meeting. Commissioners noted that the office is currently being used inappropriately, should resolve this issue; they need to have accurate information in order to make decision. C. Vistica closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 5 C. Keighran moved to continue this item to the May 29, 2001 meeting so that accurate information can be provided to make a decision. C. Osterling seconded the motion. Commissioners recommended that the applicant speak to the City Attorney and the Planning Department to determine what is and is not allowed, and what uses require a conditional use permit. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 5. 808 – 820 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP (ALEX NOVELL, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME TERRACE, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) At the request of the applicant, the item was continued. The item will be renoticed when it is rescheduled. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1419 MONTERO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STELLA HUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) SP Brooks briefly presented the project description, and noted that front setback is shown incorrectly on site plan, the structure will be moved one foot back to meet average front setback, will be corrected when plans are resubmitted. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mike Anderson, 1415 Montero Avenue, noted that he had submitted a letter and wanted to reiterate his concerns; concerned with the proposed deck on second floor, would like to see it removed or see trees planted to screen; concern with overall height especially since this is a high point on the block, and concerned with the elevation of the driveway. Chi Hua and Stella Hung, applicants, were available for comment, noted that they had talked to neighbors, regarding the driveway, it will be further away from neighbor than it is now, discussed with the neighbor the concern with deck, will remove it, are not proposing the maximum FAR. Janice Brodsky, 1423 Montero Avenue, noted that her house had been added on to in 1983, have no objection to proposed height, could look at plans for her addition for reference. Commissioner comment: $ applicant is asking for 40'-4" height, must find hardship to do with the property; if the height is between 30' and 36', a special permit standard having to do with design and neighborhood compatibility are required over findings for a variance with even harder standards which must be met, very concerned with height, site is already being excavated for a basement, can it be excavated more to bring height down; the overall design of the house is nice, but need to respect neighborhood; would like to know the height of the surrounding houses; because this is on a hill it will seem taller, understand lot is perched up, could be grounds for variance, but the style chosen has the highest type of roof ridge, could choose style with flatter roof; $ would like to see what is the neighborhood height pattern, can have a surveyor shoot the heights of other homes on the block; if everything is lower, this is not appropriate, could place story poles to show actual ultimate height, location of ridges; however, story poles may not be appropriate at this time if the design changes; a subtle adjustment to the roof pitch could achieve lower overall height; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 6 the gable on the front is the primary height, the rest of the roof slopes back; would like to see it dropped; $ not as concerned with height because it sits on a hill, would like more information on drawings, there is no representation of adjacent grade shown on elevations; first floor is shown as 1 ½ feet above grade, is actually 3' above grade, need to get the finished floor at the front to drop closer to grade; $ the landscape plan shows small plants, would like to see larger size shrubs to mitigate the size of the house; $ regarding the dormers on the side property line, a house with a steep roof is done to reduce the bulk, these dormers are large, seem tall with big windows, need to fine tune the scale of the dormers; $ would also like to see how this proposal impacts the views from 1424 and 1426 Benito, on the block above, $ not appropriate to do story poles now, maybe after redesign, would like to see a longitudinal section through the site to show the slope of the driveway and how the house sits. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. Commissioners noted that there are a few things to be addressed needs to come back; have seen others with this level of adjustment that were not sent to design review, this could be sent back to the designer to address issued identified and come back to study, applicant is familiar with what we are trying to do, will be able to respond to comments and bring back information. C. Bojués made a motion to bring this item back to design review study when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: reduce the overall height of the design, reduce scale of dormers on side elevation; provide heights of adjacent houses on block and houses behind on Benito. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to bring this item back to the design review study calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 7. 400 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROSMA GRUZZI AND STEVE MENDENHALL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DUNLAP DESIGN, DESIGNER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Steve Mendenhall, 400 Burlingame Avenue, applicant, noted that they had spent two years working on this design and feel it fits in with the neighborhood. Commissioners complimented applicant on design, nice addition to the neighborhood, comment that the oak tree in the rear seems crowded, hope it can survive. The applicant noted that they have not intention of removing the oak tree. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. Commissioners noted: $ that the house is well designed, concern with porch design, it is essentially a stucco enclosure with an arch, not compatible with style, sense that posts with cased opening would reveal more City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 7 of porch, seems all wrapped in stucco, need some relief; $ on the left elevation there is a lot of blank wall, attic vent would help articulate, another window could be added for balance; $ there are some inconsistencies on the plans between the left side and the rear elevation, on the rear elevation roof returns around edge, it is not shown the same on left elevation; $ windows should match existing with traditional stucco mold trim; $ the chimney stack with the required extension will be a focal point on the front elevation, would like to see more detail at top of stack. Applicant spent two years designing, it shows, addition is carefully integrated to existing house, concerns are minor and could be brought back to consent with corrections; want to compliment the designer. C. Luzuriaga made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked including: change the design of the porch, add windows and/or attic vents on the left side elevation; correct the inconsistencies on the left side and rear elevations. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 8. 1555 CYPRESS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; J. KURT STEIL, PROPERTY OWNER) SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. C. Luzuriaga noted that he had to recuse himself from the discussion because he has a business relationship with the applicant. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. James Chu, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer, and Kurt Steil, 939 Shoal Drive, San Mateo, property owner, were available for comment, and noted that the proposed project fits in with the neighborhood, where there are diverse styles. Commissioner comment: $ the front porch is a little shallow, could it be made deeper so two people could stand on it; $ concern on left elevation, bulk is pulled back from property line, but the impact would be less if eaves pulled down as well; $ fascia on rake section is very large, like to see fascia and eaves smaller, create a thinner, lighter edge. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment to the floor: Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue, Diane Condon-Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenue, and Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, commented on the proposed design; what type of snow load is expected to require steep slope; height is taller than others in area, should attempt to blend in, area has small lots, there are no other houses on the block with wood shingles, why the need for additional four feet of height above limit; this house would be a lot higher than others in neighborhood, would like to see story poles to see what the effect would be, this is the oldest neighborhood in Burlingame; all houses in neighborhood have prominent front porch, don't think this reflects style of neighborhood, the height is almost as tall as the condominiums on the corner. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 8 Applicant response: not here for variances, right side setback is 5'-6" instead of 4' minimum, left side setback is ten feet; regarding the special permit for height, would be willing to clip the top of the roof so height would be reduced to 30', have looked at other styles, but this is the style the applicant wants, has never built a Tudor, notes that plans were reviewed with neighbors on left and they had no concerns, presented plans to neighbor on right and received no comments. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. Commissioner comment: in certain circumstances, the Tudor style can benefit from steep roof, in this context only small slice is above height; could consider using arts and crafts style, would be acceptable to neighborhood, it would have a lower roof line; can still build Tudor style and comply with 30' height limit if applicant wants Tudor style, this is a quaint neighborhood, since neighbors are concerned, should build new that looks old, applicant has done design for other projects that are quaint and would fit nicely in this neighborhood, would like to see something that fits and abides by 30' height limit; house is well designed and articulated nicely, roof does not constitute a lot of mass, additional height is being used as intended, support project; understand neighbor sensitivity, bigger than most, but considering what could have happened before design review, much improved; great job with design, compatibility with neighborhood questionable, could do a craftsman that would be more compatible, need to listen to neighbors as well, like to see redesign; issue is house more in harmony with neighborhood. C. Bojués made a motion to bring this project back to design review study calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: $ the project should be redesigned to a style which is more compatible with the neighborhood such as the arts and crafts style; $ porch should be larger; $ height of house should be within the 30' height limit to blend with existing structures. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Comment on motion: would like to note that the floor area proposed is under the maximum, is fine, more concerned with the mass and how it fits in to neighborhood, the setbacks proposed are fine, clear that house is well designed, but overriding factor is neighborhood compatibility, since you have a choice, building to sell, should choose another style. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to bring this item back to the design review study calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6 -0-1 with C. Luzuriaga abstaining. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. The commission took a 15 minute break and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. 9. 1450 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-3 AND C-1, SUBAREAS A AND B – SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED GROCERY STORE/DRUG STORE BUILDING (RICHARD S. ZLATUNICH, APPLICANT, DAVID BOWLBY, SAFEWAY INC., PROPERTY OWNER, AND JEFFREY BENNER, BENNER STANGE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) Commissioner Auran noted that he does not own or manage property within 500 feet of this site, but may have written leases for properties within 500 feet, he will step down on this item at this time pending further direction from the Fair Political Practices Commission. Chair Vistica noted that this is a scoping session for the EIR and discussion will be limited to those issues which should be addressed in the Environmental City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 9 Impact Report for the project, comments should be geared to those issues. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description noting that the project now being considered has been revised from the 1998 submittal so is being reviewed, with the agreement of the applicant, as a new project. Commissioners asked staff to explain the sequence of scheduling for the project. CP Monroe noted that it would take a couple of months to complete the Draft EIR, then there is a 45-day review period where the document is circulated to the public and agencies for comment, during that time a public hearing is held on the Draft EIR, after the 45 day review period, consultant will prepare final EIR, once that document is complete, the public hearings on the project with the EIR can start; the project will require Council action because of the rezoning involved as well as the land transactions. Commissioner asked about the need for the hold harmless agreement for the box culvert, and asked about the condition of the box culvert. CP Monroe noted that there is a large box culvert which now runs through the current Safeway store and if, in demolishing the structure, damage should occur to the structure, the applicant would be responsible for repair. CE Murtuza noted that the City does not own the culvert or the easement, it has not been maintained, some portions downstream have been inspected and it appears to be okay, culvert was constructed in 1930's or 1940's, there is no documentation of ownership or what are the rights/responsibilities of the City or the property owner. Commissioners asked if this project could be reviewed by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee as has been done on other major projects, and could that happen concurrently with the environmental process, and can citizens participate in subcommittee meetings. CA Anderson stated that this could be done concurrently, could discuss how it is done at a subsequent meeting. Commissioners clarified that even if Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee reviews project concurrently with EIR, there may not necessarily be a project approved at the end of process, environmental process could result in no project if there are significant effects which cannot be reduced identified, might be appropriate to wait to discuss design issue until significant effects identified. Chairman Vistica opened the meeting for public comment. Sam Malouf, 1426 Burlingame Avenue, Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, Diane Condon-Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenue, Wendy Mcardle, 1720 Ralston Avenue, Cliff Woods, 234 Primrose Road, Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue, David Kinkead, 124 Lorton Avenue #2, Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue, Joanne Mcardle, 1720 Ralston Avenue, asked that the following issues be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report: $ with proposed project the public parking lot in the northeast corner of the site would cater to Safeway, would like to see public spaces moved closer to Primrose so they could be used by all in the area; public parking should be reconfigured so that it is not just for Safeway's benefit but for all Burlingame's benefit; recently completed parking study concluded need a parking structure, could go across Primrose on the Wells Fargo site; $ the back of the building faces Primrose, will be a dead space; orientation of store should be towards Primrose, not El Camino, would create an opportunity for store not to be a destination in itself, but encourage shoppers to also visit rest of downtown; $ concern with loading; how many trucks and what times of day will they be travelling down Primrose and Fox Plaza Lane; Fox Plaza Lane is narrow how will trucks maneuver; $ examine the Wells Fargo building as an historic resource; $ site at corner of Ralston and El Camino Real is a California Landmark, de Anza campsite of the Portola expedition, was marker in parking lot removed in the 1970's, it should be replaced and properly marked; $ should address heritage trees on site, eucalyptus trees on El Camino were planted in 1880's by McLaren, planted as windbreaks, this is an historic resource and needs to be addressed; $ concerned with right turn only exit onto El Camino, when drivers realize can't make left turn onto El City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 10 Camino, will have to make circuitous route through downtown Burlingame or through adjacent residential areas to go south on El Camino; $ how will access point at Ralston Avenue affect traffic flow on El Camino; $ proposed structure will be about 70,000 SF; of that 56,000 SF will be Safeway store compared to 30,000 SF now, should examine increase in number of large and small trucks and traffic/parking impacts; other Safeway stores in this area are about 40,000 SF, why does this one need to be this big; need to keep it in scale with the town; $ how does the change from Subarea A to Subarea B affect the restrictions on uses allowed; $ great to have improved store, but this is a pedestrian oriented walking town, this size store is not suited to this site, back of store faces downtown; building is a box alone, does not integrate with downtown; $ oak tree on Primrose is still being removed, should be retained and integrated into design; $ this project may be constructed at the same time as the proposed parking structure across Primrose, displacing all this parking could have a major parking impact on adjoining residential areas; and $ what will the effect be on traffic by adding a signal at Howard and Primrose; concern that need for signal is based on truck traffic, would signal be needed if truck route doesn't use that intersection, truck access should not be so close to downtown; will trucks queue on Primrose as far as Howard? Chairman Vistica closed the public comment and opened the commission discussion; he noted for the record that representatives of Safeway were in the audience to hear the comments. Commissioner Dreiling also noted he was submitting a letter expressing his concerns. Commissioner comments: Landscaping $ like to see more trees on the site with larger scale, will help minimize mass from El Camino; $ oak tree on Primrose is rather magnificent, should look at relocating trees perhaps as part of historic landmark; $ setback on Howard ranges from 0' to 4', how will landscaping fit in such a small amount of space, with building right at street, will Howard lose its open feeling and become a tunnel; Traffic $ concern with access on El Camino Real; safety issues with sight lines, where do drivers go when they can't turn left; can cars make left turn onto site from El Camino, if so need to study queuing on El Camino; there is not a clear sight line at this exit have to look beyond eucalyptus trees to see if it is clear, this is not justification for removing trees; $ drivers making left turn from Howard may block traffic, need to look at queuing on El Camino; $ like to see clear analysis of number of vehicle trips generated by existing stores in area versus proposed project; $ pedestrian crossing at Howard and El Camino is awkward; concern about pedestrian safety and widening of Howard near El Camino, Howard is already wide; $ project pays no attention to public transit, acknowledge bus stop on El Camino, what can be done to encourage people to use mass transit to site; Parking $ public parking as designed does not lend itself to patrons who want to go to Primrose or Burlingame Avenue, don’t want to block opportunity to deck public parking lots; Safeway employees will be parking in City lots, will affect parking residents wanting to visit other merchants; like to see City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 11 percentage of city lots used, how many employees will there be, public parking at El Camino will benefit Safeway not the community; $ need analysis of existing parking and projected ratios (three years out) and what is proposed for new store, include a factor of efficiency of use; $ they are looking for parking variances and exceptions, what kind of structure can they build where no variances are needed, how do these requests compare to others that have come before us; Public Facilities $ who will maintain box culvert if don't know who owns it, will it collapse, if it is relocated does it give the site greater flexibility for more parking, opportunities for decking or going underground; $ look at impact on landfill of demolition waste, what percentage of annual solid waste will this project contribute, will it impact the landfill facilities; $ need to look at increased demand on sewer and water facilities; $ look at "sustainability" of project, use of materials, see if it conforms to the "LEAD" index for use of resources, concern with the amount of unshaded paving; Truck Loading $ like to see truck traffic scheduled to eliminate impact; how many semi- and bigger trucks will there be, loading on Primrose is a problem now; $ concerned with use of Fox Plaza Lane as loading dock, will have an adverse effect on delivery access to other businesses fronting on Burlingame Avenue which back on to Fox Plaza Lane; Aesthetics, Mass and Bulk $ how does size of this proposal relate to other Safeway stores in this area, is this the size that is best for Burlingame or size best for Safeway, this will be a landmark change, would like to see it blend and work with existing downtown; this is proposed to be bigger than Safeway in other nearby cities, but Burlingame is the smallest city in area; $ can't take "cookie cutter" suburban store and cram it into downtown Burlingame; exterior has been prettied up but still a suburban box that turns its back on downtown Burlingame; will look like a mall, large structure in sea of parking, new building will be pushed back, there will be an even larger sea of parking than there now; how does it fit into Burlingame, it is far removed from feel of "village"; find it offensive to have a corporate formula applied to the detriment of the city; does not orient at all to existing commercial fabric in downtown, no strong connection; $ concern with size, shape and depth of proposed retail space on Primrose, will it work it should be compared with existing small retail spaces on Burlingame Avenue; $ should study shadows cast by structure on Primrose and Howard; $ what is impact of simulated facades on actual streets, need to study, this proposal is painting of a nice town on a warehouse, looks like Disneyland, may look pretty on surface but what will its affect on street use and street life be; would like to see Safeway's architect look at streets in Burlingame and make the building or buildings fit with the neighborhood; $ like to see a graphic analysis of the scale of this use as compared with independent businesses in area; detailed elevation of actual street locations in Burlingame, need visual analysis of how project will look from storefronts on Primrose, both sitting and standings; $ does the single story structure need to be 30 feet high, treatment of façade looks pasted on, like Las Vegas, windows used are not real, not appropriate to downtown Burlingame fabric. Economic/Compatibility with Downtown $ we already have florists, bakeries, delis, photo processing in downtown Burlingame, why are these City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 12 activities included in Safeway; do need Safeway but not all of the amenities proposed; $ need to look at economic effect on current merchants; $ look at impact of "big box" retail on pedestrian environment, and the economic impact on the character of downtown, look at what has happened in other cities, $ need a geographic and demographic analysis of this facility and who shops there, where are they from, how is this expected to change, will the change be a benefit to Burlingame residents; Alternatives $ look at alternative projects such as: no build, modernize existing stores; distributed use with total floor area spread over four sites; alternative with maintenance of neighborhood pattern with individual retail spaces along Primrose and Howard street frontages. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. Staff was directed to pass the comments along to the EIR consultant and applicant. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 7, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions taken by the City Council at their May 7, 2001. She noted that copies of the ordinances approved which affected zoning were put at the commissioners desks; and asked that the commissioners insert them in their code books. She noted that the sign code revisions were effective immediately. - Discuss story poles for projects requiring Hillside Area Construction Permits. Commissioners discussed the purpose of story poles, noting that it is important to make it clear to the public why they are being required, when they are required. Some kinds of story poles, such as envelope webbing can be difficult to install and maintain in our windy environment and may not be necessary if the object is to determine view obstruction. Experience has indicated that documenting new ridge lines and extensions of structure to the rear or sides can be helpful to neighbors in determining view impact. It was noted that story poles have the advantage of being fixed so everyone sees the same thing. The consensus was that story poles as now required work pretty well, but the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee might want to discuss this further. - Discuss Floor Area Ratio on sloped lots. A recent application in the hillside area raised the question about how to count lot area when large portions of a lot are too steep to be buildable so the allowed FAR is forced on to the limited flat area of the lot. Several members noted that many jurisdictions use a sliding scale for FAR in these cases. It was suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee might also want to consider this. Staff noted that they would add this issue to the file for items to be considered with the next bi-annual update to the Zoning Code. XII. ADJOURNMENT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 13 Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES5.14