Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.07.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 9, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the July 9, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Dreiling, Keighran (arrived at 7:08 p.m.) and Vistica. Absent: Commissioners: Luzuriaga, Osterling. Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 26, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. C. Keighran arrived. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE OF USE (JAN HASEMAN, APPLICANT; BASIM AND LINDA AZAR, – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION PROPERTY OWNERS) Commissioner Auran recused himself from the discussion on this item because he was the leasing broker. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: the applicant noted that they are happy to provide sales tax information, that only provides part of the picture, could the applicant provide invoices from the business for the last twelve months to get a better picture of what is taxed and not taxed; what is the prediction of actual number of customers who will come to the building; provide profile of what the track record has been as far as types of products which customers ordered based on last year; concern with what has happened in San Mateo with offices replacing street level retail, what has San Mateo's response been to this kind of change in use; would like to see a calcu lation for what the parking space variance would be, how many spaces are required, need to provide dimensions on floor plans in order to calculate. 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 7:18 p.m. 2. 1832 & 1860 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AND FOR VEHICLE PARKING IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR AN INCREASE OF OFFICE SPACE [GARCIA/WAGNER & City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -2- ASSOCIATES, C/O PACIFIC BELL, APPLICANTS; AMVALL INC. (1832 ROLLINS ROAD) AND ART MICHAEL (1860 ROLLINS ROAD), PROPERTY OWNERS; GARCIA/WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT] CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: concern with runoff from paved area, the original approval for the paving of the drainage easement required installation of filters in the storm drain system on-site inspection did not see any filters, and condition required that the property owner is responsible for maintenance of system; would like to see maintenance records, what is the filter system, and how is it inspected and maintained now, and how will it be maintained in the future. 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 7:23 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. Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 3A. 1373 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NENAD VUKIC, PROPERTY OWNER) 3B. 1419 MONTERO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STELLA HUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) 3C. 1131 OXFORD ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (LEONARD AND ANNA HEYMANN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) 3D. 1555 CYPRESS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 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) C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and with the approval of each resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran . Chairman Vistica called for City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -3- a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 1700 HILLSIDE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JOHN AND CAROLYN LEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN LEUNG, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 7.9.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. John Leung, property owner, and Patrick Au, friend, represented the project, noting that they would answer questions. Commission asked about the retreat area off the master bedroom and the windows and French doors serving this long narrow area because they cause a complicated roof structure, applicant noted that this proposal was a consensus arrived at with the design reviewer, effort to maintain Spanish style; discussed the metal railing on the second floor balcony noting that with this style house wood or solid railings are more appropriate, also railing on house does not match metal gate at driveway or iron gate at front of house; stairs in to the house at the front are misrepresented on the plans so can’t tell how the iron gate will work, will there be 2 steps or 6; applicant noted wanted exterior gates and fences to keep small children in the yard because Hillside is a busy street. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that this project has made a lot of progress from where it started, concerned about the iron gate at the front, know that Hillside is a busy street and there is a safety need, move to approve the application with conditions in the staff report by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Comment on the motion: overall this project has definitely improved, but concerned about iron balcony rail and gate, need to soften or eliminate the front gate feature it does not fit the design of the house or the neighborhood; this is a corner lot without much back yard so can understand the fence, the upper balcony is off the retreat in the master bedroom, such an open railing will provide no privacy in that part of the narrow room, suggest a solid rail which would blend better with architecture as well; need to address front elevation problem on plans, recommend changes to plans as discussed and returning the project on the consent calendar. C. Bojués maker of the motion and C. Dreiling second agreed to amending the motion to continue the item, bring it back on the consent calendar and to direct the applicant to revise the plans showing a solid railing on the second floor balcony, correcting the plans at the front entrance, changing the iron gate to better fit the style of the architecture of the building and to make all the gates and perimeter fencing consistent. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item to the consent calendar so that revisions and corrections could be made and reviewed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 ( Cers. Luzuriaga, Osterling absent). This action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -4- 5. 1719 EASTON DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL V. DILLON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CAROL WOODS, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 7.9.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Sam and Susie Lehey, 460 Second Avenue, Redwood City, and Mike Dillon, property owners, represented the project. There were no questions of the applicants and none from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the floor area ratio variance was justified by the odd shape and small size of the lot, the applicant has listened to the design reviewer and to the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and made the changes suggested; moved to approve the project by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 28, 2001, sheets A-1 through A-4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 4) that the railing at the front porch, shown on sheet A-2 of the June 28, 2001, plans, shall be built so that the rail hits the porch post on each side; and 5) 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. Auran. Comment on the motion: Commissioner noted that this was the first assignment to the new design reviewer and he wished to compliment him on the quality and coherence of his review. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a voice vote 5- 0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga, Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. 1424 CASTILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION WITH A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (ALBERT SHILAIMON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ARIS RUIZ, ARIS RUIZ & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 7.9.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Albert Shilaimon, property owner, and Aris Ruiz, architect represented the project and noted they were available for questions. Design has changed a lot, good things; an area on the second floor roof is out of proportion, the area where the void is shown on the second floor plans (part of the old balcony); suggest a sloped roof which extends over the closet and void to reduce the size of the second floor wall, could put a window in the closet and in the family room to break up the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -5- mass of the wall on this elevation; applicant noted that this wall is 2’-6” from property line, did not put windows in this wall for privacy. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Dreiling moved approval of the project with the added condition that the second floor roof above the closet and void be modified with a sloped roof which extends over this area and reduces the size of the vertical wall below, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 22, 2001, sheets DD- 1 through DD-7, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, with a change in the second floor roof on the north elevation to extend the sloping roof over the void over the closet area to a maximum ridge of 6 feet above the finished second floor or within the declining height envelop which ever is less; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s January 29, 2001 memos shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: these changes seem minor enough that the applicant can make them as a part of his building permit submittal; Planning Commission should be FYIed as a part of building permit review to confirm that the appropriate changes have been made. Area of change is so small that it will not have a major impact on the design. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with additional condition. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga, Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 7. 2000 CARMELITA 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 (NADINE LEWANDOWSKI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 25, 2001 P.C. MEETING) C. Bojués noted that he lived within 500 feet of this project site so he would abstain from any action. He stepped down from the dais. Reference staff report, 7.9.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Palo ma Avenue represented the project; Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands also commented. He noted that the applicant was unable to attend the hearing. He felt that the bulk issue had been addressed by lowering the eave line, applicant has agreed to paint the building a rich earth tone in keeping with the architectural style, would not have a declining height envelop exception if the window in the dormer were larger, want smaller because of the interior use of this area (bathroom), this is a corner lot so FAR is 250 SF smaller than other lots on the block; want to use the basement area as a recreation room and do not want people using it to have to travel through the house, want to be able to exit directly into the yard; were not able to complete the arborist report in time for this meeting, but would agree to a condition that compliance with such report, as approved by the city, be required or wait and put this on the consent calendar later with the report. The doors at the top and bottom of the stairs to the basement are required as a part of Title 24 compliance for this site because City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -6- of the different heating zones within the structure; this is not a spec house, as demonstrated by fact the applicant has been attentive to the size, use and details of every room; if commission is concerned about the basement exit issue could that item be separated out in the action as a separate vote because only four members of the commission are present and able to vote on this item tonight. There were no questions of the applicant. There are two beautiful trees on this site, a large double trunked Redwood and a large cedar, neighbor is concerned that the basement construction is too close and will damage these trees, how are they to be protected. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: am concerned about the trees but they look fairly removed from the construction; opposed to the exterior staircase from the basement area, could be used by some future owner as an in- law unit, especially with the doors at the stairs which separate the basement from the rest of the house and the exterior stair can be used as access, a window well with egress ladder meets exiting requirement and would resolve this separate use issue. Concerned about the safety of using window well egress ladders, if use in basement changes in future can code enforce; was concerned about the mass and bulk of this structure but a house centered mid-block is at least 250 SF larger; for trees it is best to put off final approval, as applicant suggests, until can review arborist's report; stair in basement connects house to yard; personally have no problem with basement area being used as second unit, would allow increase in density without a change in neighborhood traffic. C. Dreiling moved to approve by resolution this project with the additional amendment to condition 5 that the trees be protected during construction as recommended by an arborist report approved by the city and that the site be inspected for compliance with the protection requirements during construction by the applicants arborist with reports submitted to the city arborist, failure to comply and damage to the tree should result in the applicant being fined for the value of the tree or tr ees as determined by the city arborist; with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 3, 2001, sheets 1 through 5 and G-1 and date stamped June 1, 2001, sheets 6 and A, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal’s, Chief Building Official’s March 19, 2001, memos and the City Arborist's June 7, 2001 memo, shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 5) that, because of the importance of the trees on this lot to the character of the neighborhood, a report shall be prepared by a Certified Arborist and approved by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit, the report shall address the current condition and measures for protection of the two substantial trees existing on the site, a cedar and a redwood both on the Bernal Avenue side of the site; this report shall detail the protection of these two substantial trees during construction and measures to reduce stress on the trees during and after construction; the report shall include mitigation efforts concerning root zone compaction, root cutting, and post construction measures necessary to insure the continued maintenance of the trees in good health; the applicant’s arborist shall inspect the trees and sit e for compliance with the construction protection requirements when the foundation trench is located before digging commences, the after the foundation has been poured and before final inspection is scheduled, all reports shall be submitted to the city arborist and approved before foundation framing inspection and final framing inspection; failure to protect the trees shall result in the property owner being fined based on the value of the tree or trees lost as determined by the city arborist and in the event of loss the replacement of a tree or trees the size and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -7- species selected by the city arborist prior to final inspection and installed before issuance of an occupancy permit for the construction; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirement s of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve this project with an amendment to require additional protection for the two major trees on site. The motion passed on a 3-1-1-2 (C. Keighran dissenting, C. Bojués abstaining, Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1504 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BARRY AND MONICA EHLERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ANTHONY K. NGAI, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Barry and Monica Ehlers, applicants and Tony Ngai, architect, were available for questions. Commissioners asked for clarification on front elevation, dormer on front is more than 7'-6" above finished floor height, how will that work. The project architect noted that the living room has a sloping roof, this would be clerestory to provide light well to sloping area of living room. Commissioner asked why was galvanized metal chosen for the roof material over the cantilevered area on the south elevation. The architect noted that the intent was to make it look like a bay window, and the hardi-slate material used for the rest of the roof would not work for that small an area., this roof section will be copper. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there are a lot of little things that need adjustment on this plan, applicant has understanding of issues, project should come back on regular action calendar. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when revisions have been made. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The commission noted the following items to be addressed: ➢ on west elevation, the entryway is a large item on the house, need to address its scale; ➢ the living room window is a candidate for a transom; ➢ proportion of windows on east elevation is good, look to that example for the sides; ➢ the two windows in master bath on the front elevation are small, might want to make them bigger; ➢ on south elevation, there is no sensitivity in window patterns, might want to look at the window patterns from the interior. ➢ on the north elevation, don't see the level of articulation on roof forms seen on front and rear; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -8- ➢ the fireplace on the outside wall should be expressed on wall as a vertical component to add articulation; ➢ special permit exception for declining height envelope on north elevation might be justified if it enhances the architecture, could provide a pop out, it is not balanced, needs more windows; ➢ need more information on the windows, what is the trim package proposed, will it be traditional stucco mold. Comment on motion: if applicant wants to file an exception for declining height envelope, needs to add that application with Planning Department, the item will be set for hearing when the submittal is complete. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. 9. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING (MEYRICK JONES, APPLICANT; AVTAR JOHAL FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER; ROB AERTS, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners noted that there was a note on the plan indicating building permit submittal, has the applicant submitted for building permits. Planning staff noted that these plans had not yet been submitted to the Building Department for plan check. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. He noted that the purpose of the scoping meeting was to point out environmental issues that are of concern. Don Watts, representing Apple Computers, Tim Kobe, Eight Inc., and Sidney Scarboro, Gensler Architects project manager, were available for questions and comments; noted that Apple had discovered that its product was not being properly marketed, wanted to pick up walk by traffic, have opened two stores so far, propose to open 100 to 300 stores nationwide; customers can purchase computers and see what Apple has to offer, educational software, "genius" booth for answers to technical questions, large screen for demonstrations. The proposed building is oriented to Burlingame Avenue with a display window on Park Road, interior will have display areas, shelves for software, children's area, demonstrations and a projection theater; back of house space on first floor will consist of stairway, elevator and projection area; on second floor will have stock room and offices; the exterior will be off-white stucco with matte black panels and transparent glass with frosted upper band, there will be no signage other than white Apple logo on either side of the entry; concept is to provide local resource for technology. Commissioner questions: Notice doors are ten feet tall, how tall is average customer, is this the standard prototype for these stores. The applicant noted that there are many ten foot high doors in the Burlingame Avenue area, there is no standard Apple store prototype, although some elements are consistent, attempt was made to be consistent with other buildings in the area. Commissioners asked how much analysis was done on the existing building, was the quality and desires of the local community a factor in the decision to build new. The applicant noted that to keep the existing building extensive seismic retrofit would be necessary, this building has unreinforced masonry, the basement is 7' clear which does not meet current code, the economic evaluation determined that it was easier and better to build new building same size City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -9- without basement, feel aesthetic aspects of new building are consistent with the neighborhood; there are structural complications in the ability to have display windows on the Park Road side and in the ability to fit the retail program into the interior space without columns. The commission asked if the applicant had looked into providing code compliant parking. The applicant noted that the proposed footprint replicates what is there now, adding six parking spaces difficult; looked at providing parking off the alley with one to four parking spaces, in doing that gave up retail area, have to keep the "back of house" area; this site is similar to site in Palo Alto in size, there was not a parking issue there because it was an existing building with retail use and no additional parking was required. Commission asked if public parking spaces along the streets and alleys would be impacted during demolition and construction. The applicant noted that the contractor has put together a demolition and construction plan that has all trucks accessing the site through the alley, they will construct pedestrian tunnels on Burlingame and Park Avenues and put large gate across back during demolition and construction, leaving the Avenue frontage free of impacts. The applicant stated that the elements of this design which are critical to branding are the display window, the doors and the perimeter frame; the materials, awning and height can vary; the interior space on either side of display window is critical for product display space. Commission discussion: with regards to environmental scoping, aesthetic considerations are a primary concern, building is a big block with no respect for the pedestrian on Park Road; appreciate the modernist vocabulary, but scale of the building is not appropriately handled for Burlingame Avenue, on the Avenue there is generally a lot of ins and outs at the entrances, corner buildings tend to have series of windows that wrap around the corner to allow the pedestrian to see what is happening inside; this is a main intersection that is critical to Burlingame; concern with the demolition of the existing building, could give more consideration to reuse, the existing basement provides great opportuni ty for storage, there are a lot of issues that should be addressed in a subcommittee. Public Comment: Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, noted that she was branch manager of Bay View Bank at this location until 1986, presented historical information on the building, it was built in 1916 as a hardware store, in 1927 became Bank of Italy and in 1932 changed to Bank of America; building was updated in 1977 when it became Western Federal Savings, may be some of original façade under the stucco; should look into the idea that this is an historic resource under CEQA, like to see use on street, but need to respect the building's history. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: don't see a problem with the use, the scenario is sensible for an urban street; but the market in the Bay Area does not need a "shiny mall" look to entice them; personally not concerned with parking, we should be walking anyway, would like the environmental study to look at the proportion of total landfilled in County from demolition each year and what is Burlingame's contribution to that total with this building's demolition and what proportion of Burlingame's annual demolition material this material will constitute; regarding cultural resources, aim at character of the street as designated in design guidelines with respect to the scale of buildings; should be human scale based on pedestrian nature of the street; should look at option of revamping original building back to style of Bank of America era; look at that entryway; because there is a lot of pedestrian traffic, don't necessarily need six parking spaces, if project were made to fit in aesthetically, could compromise on that issue; concerned with setting a precedent in granting a parking variance. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -10- The commission concluded that the project should be reviewed by subcommittee, but environmental review should run concurrently, the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee was assigned to review the project, and C. Bojués was appointed as an alternate to that committee for this issue. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:48 p.m. 10. 1160 BROADWAY – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING (RAYMOND LEE, APPLICANT; BONANZA/LAMB PARTNERS LIMITED, PROPERTY OWNER; SPEAR DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Glickberg, Spear Design Associates, 121 Spear Street, San Francisco, was available for questions and comments. Commissioners asked if there were any permits for the exterior freezer in the service area shown on the survey. The applicant noted that this exterior freezer is on the Stanaway plans, there will be no freezer equipment in the new store. He also noted that he has spoken with John Cimino, the neighbor to the north with an assisted livi ng facility, and he has written a letter of support. Commissioner questions: how much of the architectural concept has to do with brand identification for the tenant. The applicant noted that Walgreen's does have a prototype, very little of it was used in this case, because the design is driven by keeping the existing building; will be similar to the grocery store, propose to use windows at the entrance. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted the following direction: ➢ one of the problems with chains is that they are more concerned with their needs inside the store, not concern for the neighborhood; regardless of applicants needs, the needs of the community must be respected; ➢ large blank walls discourage pedestrians, could have shorter display racks inside to accommodate larger windows which allow pedestrians to see activity in store; ➢ could look at Goodwill building on California Drive as an example, it was an old auto shop with a curved roof, plenty of windows used, minor alterations were made to the entry; also look at the Earthbeam building; ➢ could take the architecture that is there, concrete arches with a strong horizontal plane, and use that to define the building so that it fits Broadway and is not like every other Walgreen's; the arch in the existing building is a prominent feature that was overlooked in this design, it should be highlighted; ➢ should look at rest of block and blend in using criteria in commercial design guidebook; ➢ look at the side of the building adjacent to the parking lot it needs pedestrian oriented windows as well, there is a large expanse of blank wall there; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2001 Page -11- ➢ don't need the strong physical identity like a 17' high parapet on a pedestrian street, needs to fit to neighborhood scale; ➢ should be components of the storefront which provide human scale and the ability to see in with real windows; ➢ do not have a problem with the door location or its angle to the street this was existing, it is the adjacent edge conditions which need work; C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item on the to a design review consultant with direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of July 2, 2001 CP Monroe reviewed items acted on by the Council which related to Planning. There was also a discussion about design review project backlog and how to address it on the July 23, 2001 Planning Commission agenda. - Review of Feedback Report from June 23, 2001 Housing Needs Workshop. The Burlingame Community Workshop for Housing Needs Feedback Report was distributed to the Commission. This item will again be discussed at the July 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES7.09