Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.10.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA October 22, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Keighran called the October 22, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Mink, Osterling and Keighran Absent: Commissioners Key (arrived 7:05 p.m.) and Vistica, Acting Chair Keighran noted that Chairman Vistica was absent because of a recent death in his family. Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 9, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved with addition to the item on 131 Loma Vista Avenue, page 4, paragraph 4, line 18 following: …allowed height; the applicant has shown no respect for the community by disregarding planning regulations and Planning Commission requests; line 20, insert: and the Commission believe; line 22 insert: such as installing less insulation with a revised Title 24 Report and changing the roof material from Spanish tile to standing seam metal. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1224-1228/1225-1229 PALOMA AVENUE, 1225-1229 LAGUNA AVENUE, AND 1224-1228 CAPUCHINO AVENUE B ZONED R-1 B APPLICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND REZONING FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) TO R-2 (DUPLEX DWELLINGS) (JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT; JERRY DEAL, MARGARET JOSCHER, BELINDA AND NICHOLAS CAIRUS, ALDO AND LOU ANN GHIOZZI, MARK AND TERESA DASZYNSKI, ELENORE LINDQUIST, RON AND DAVINA DRABKIN, AND ALBERT A. MEYER, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: page 2 of the staff report indicates that this area is identified in the General Plan as a “stable urban area”, will the rezoning comply and will the area remain stable after rezoning, please clarify; is the noticing radius 500’ or more? General Plan requires newspaper publication in addition to 500’ radius, will also post a notice at the site and on surrounding light poles; the surrounding zoning is described, but noticed some duplex dwellings in the surrounding R-1 zone; there are duplex dwellings scattered in the R-1 zone, they were built before the current zoning was put in place; pleased that spot zoning has stopped, in favor of general move to R-2, this is an appropriate transition zone location, near transportation, we need housing; Have neighbors been notified at this time? Notification to neighbors is not required for the study hearing, will send out notices to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 Page –1- property owners within 500’ of the subject properties 10 days before the public hearing; applicant obtained consent l from six of eight property owners, rezoning will come back to the Planning Commission as an action item, Commission then makes a recommendation to City Council. This item was set for the regular action calendar at the November 13, 2001, meeting provided all information requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 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. Acting Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 1225 CABRILLO AVENUE B ZONED R-1 B APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GUSTAVO KUBICHEK, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JAMES C. AND MICHELLE FOWLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2b. 1408 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 3 B ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 B APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (MICHAEL NILMEYER AND MCGUIRE REAL ESTATE, APPLICANTS; AC VENTURES ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff repo rts, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 1225 Cabrillo Avenue and 1408 Chapin Avenue, Suite 3 and the motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 451 CHATHAM ROAD B ZONED R-1 B APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (NANCY SCHEINHOLTZ, SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FORD AND CINDY SIBLEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 10.22.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a licensed survey is required when a detached garage is located close to a property line; CP noted that a survey is only required when a structure is located within 1’ of a property line; Commission noted the window on the second floor at the west elevation was supposed to be moved to the left so that the walls on either side are more proportional, letter from applicant noted unsure of commission direction about moving the window if moved it would leave no place to put furniture in the room. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 3 Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Nancy Scheinholtz, architect, and Ford Sibley, property owner, were present to answer questions. Thought that after explaining why the window could not be moved at the previous meeting the Commission was in agreement, and that is why it was not changed, thought that the Commission seemed to agree with the reason, if the window is moved will not be able to fit in a bed, this window is a required egress window from the bedroom; wanted to respect the neighbor’s privacy, felt that moving the window would encroach into the neighbor’s privacy. Commission noted that design review looks at all of the building elevations, not just the front, feels the window can be moved and still fit furniture in the room, prefer moving the window to achieve a better exterior balance; applicant noted that the rear of this lot faces Burlingame High School, this portion of the house will not be seen from the street, side is covered by a trellis, neighbor has several windows opposite this side elevation. Architect noted that if the window had to be moved it could be done, need to look at interior architecture, if the window is moved approximately 2’ and centered under the exterior gable, the window from the interior would be off center; this is not a big impact on the building elevation since the wall is 7’ away from the property line; this is a small room and the size relates to the usability. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: have no problem with the window location, moving the garage back will make it more useable. C. Auran moved to approve the application, 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 October 12, 2001 Sheets A-1 through A-4, including revisions to garage location toward the rear of the lot and removal of one master bathroom window from the previously submitted plans; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s memo dated October 16, 2001, and the Recycling Specialist memo dated September 10, 2001 shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacin g or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 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. Mink. Discussion on the motion: in regards to the variance for the driveway width, the existing driveway width is 8’-0”, to demolish a portion of the existing house to provide a 9’-6” wide code compliant driveway would place an undue burden on the property owners since the present configuration provides adequate access to on-site parking with the garage relocated further to the rear of the lot. The second agreed. Further discussion: appreciate applicant setting the garage back for better maneuverability, more likely to use the garage for parking; the window in the bedroom is a possible privacy issue with neighbor and would like to keep the window location as shown on the plans, need more interior room to fit furniture, exterior elevation will not be enhanced substantially if the window is moved. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. Acting Chair Keighran called for a 5-minute break. The commission reconvened at 7:35 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 4 `4. 325 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE B ZONED R-1 B APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FORBAIRT, L.L.C., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 10.22.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner noted that there is an error in the project data table, the existing number of bedrooms should be 3 and the proposed number of bedrooms should be 5. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer, was present to answer questions. He noted that he met with the design review consultant several times to the address the Commission’s concerns with the project and is pleased with the result; the neighbor to the south made a special request to have two Acacia trees removed along the left side property line, met with the City Arborist and is in the process of filing for a permit to remove the trees, previous plans mistakenly labeled these existing trees as Redwoods, they are in fact Acacia trees. The staff report indicates that 7, 24-inch box size California Redwoods will be planted, Commission felt that these Redwood trees will become enormous and that 7 is too much for the site, suggested that the landscape architect consider planting smaller scale trees. Commission asked the applicant if he considered different options for the gable on the south elevation; applicant noted that the master bathroom tub has a corner window and he preferred the windows centered in the dormer. Commission asked applicant to address the consistency in the gable vents and belly band; applicant noted that originally he failed to add the belly band on the south elevation, it has now been added to be consistent with the north elevation. Commission asked what were the important design review criteria that caused the structure to exceed the height limit; applicant noted that the resolution with the roof line, the change from 5 to 3 gables on the front elevation, and the roof peak maintaining the architectural design of the house, caused the house to exceed the height limit, only a small portion of the roof exceeds the maximum height limit, could flatten the peak of the roof but it would not be consistent with the architectural style; this is an issue of need versus wants, the applicant wants a certain pitch and façade, do you need it? Applicant noted that aesthetic balance is important, if the roof pitch is lowered it will change the English Tudor style, Commission has preferred a steeper pitched roof in the past; concerned with all of the iron work on the front elevation, especially on the second floor balcony above the entry door; applicant noted that this is a good way to crown the front entry, design review consultant agreed the front iron work was compatible. Frank Kelly, 321 Occidental Avenue, noted that he was pleased with the project and that it will be compatible with the neighborhood, designer has done a nice job, suggested that the acacia trees be removed, appreciate staff and applicant addressing the issue with the City Arborist. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the designer did a fine job, normally would not permit a building to exceed the height limit, but in this case only a small portion extends above the height limit and the height maintains the integrity of the design. He moved to approve the application, 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 October 15, 2001, sheets 1 through 6, and sheets 1.1 and 1.2, 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, Chief Building Official’s, and City Recycling City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 5 Specialist's August 20, 2001, memos 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 the approval of Building Department demolition and construction permits shall be subject to a Certified Arborist's report addressing the condition of the two substantial Black Acacia trees existing in the side yard on the site and to the approval of a Protected Tree Removal Permit Application by the Parks Department; and 6) 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. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: need to clarify that the removal of the two acacia trees is addressed in condition #5. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 5. 1208 CORTEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (NANCY KUX, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 10.22.01, with attachments. Acting Chair Keighran noted that the applicant and property owner would not be able to attend tonight’s meeting, but had called her to request that the Commission act on the project this evening. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the new detached garage is located far enough away from the existing Redwood trees. Staff noted based on the scale of the plans, the proposed garage is located 1’-6” from the trees; the rear wall of the proposed garage will be located in the same location as the rear wall of the existing garage, the front of the garage will be extended an additional three feet. Commission noted that the foundation footing detail shows no footing along the rear of the garage, would like to see an arborist’s report to ensure the roots will be adequately protected both from damage during construction and from damaging the garage in the future. Commission clarified with CA that if the arborist’s report shows that the structure cannot be built in its proposed location, the project would have to be reviewed by the Commission. There were no other questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concerned with the Redwood trees being so close to the garage, Redwood trees may destroy the foundation, garage may need to be moved further forward, arborist’s report needs to address the effect of trees on the garage as well as the effect of construction on the trees. Commission suggested that a condition be placed to require an arborist’s report which should address the impact of the foundation on the root system and the impact of the roots on the proposed garage foundation, since these substantial trees are so close to the garage. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the added condition requiring an arborist’s report to address the impact on the Redwood trees and their impact on the detached garage, and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 27, 2001, Sheets G-1 and G-2, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that the conditions of City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s October 1, 2001 memos shall be met; 3) that the approval of Building Department demolition and construction permits for the detached garage shall be subject to a Certified Arborist's report addressing the impact of the new garage foundation on City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 6 the two existing Redwood trees and the future impact of the existing Redwood trees on the new detached garage structure. If the arborist’s report indicates that the detached garage cannot be built in the location as shown on the plans date stamped September 27, 2001, Sheets G-1 and G-2, the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 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. Key. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 6. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE B ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN OFFICE USE (JAN HASEMAN, APPLICANT; BASIM AND LINDA AZAR, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 10.22.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Auran recused himself since he was the leasing agent for this site. He stepped down from the dais. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, representing the applicant, 216 Park Road; Jan Haseman, London Road Design; and Basim Azar, property owner, were present to respond to questions. In their presentation it was noted that this is a difficult location within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial area for pedestrian oriented activity, code would like to link Howard and Burlingame Avenue but it is not a reality, California Drive is too busy to be pedestrian friendly, use is in the middle of auto related uses, next door is an auto repair which parks cars across the sidewalk as a part of their business; other sites in the area are vacant or have low day time activity, Christy’s restaurant is the only draw on the block; if the code were applied strictly this site would be vacant. London Road Design is upscale, has a good list of clients, is a low impact business in which 4 employees walk or use public transit to work. In fact there are 8 full time employees, one part-time and occasionally a customer generated by this business, don't know why need to provide 15 parking spaces; there are many 5,500 SF sites in the area which generate far more parking demand such as La Piñata; this business generates $1 million in taxable sales a year, so is not just an office but also retail and internet business. A central issue of debate is the use of the mezzanine, when purchased the property two years ago the mezzanine was an office use, provided photos of the area taken before the area was remodeled by London Road, City staff report 1999 inspection which noted merchandize for sale on mezzanine, this was not a formal inspection but a shopping trip, don’t know why one trip should justify concluding a change in use. Opposed to conditions of approval proposed which would limit the number of employees on site, restrict the uses within the building or suggest blocking off space in order to meet the parking requirement and avoid a variance, and restrict the hours of operation, this is giving the wrong message to businesses; it is also unfair to have a condition which restricts the tenant from subletting the storage area. If the Commission would determine that the mezzanine area was indeed office space previously, only a one space parking variance would be required; if a different, mixed use parking requirement of 1:350 SF were used because this is an office/retail use the applicant would be only a fraction of a space over the number of parking spaces required for the previous retail use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the previous use was retail, the tax which London Road Design pays is not a sales tax it is a tax required of corporate direct mailers, not the same; at a previous meeting C. Auran had mentioned that potential tenants should see an attorney about code compliance before taking a lease; concerned that retail space is cheaper than office space, so if can use retail space for office applicant is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 7 home free, that is the real issue and this action creates a precedence and is a mistake. The staff report points out that to grant a variance there must be exceptional circumstances on the property; this was undisputedly a retail store, variances are required in the code for good reason, and staff must require them; a business based on computers can get a lot more people within the space, and can expand a lot within this space; this parking variance will go with the property into the future, it is hard to approve because it is a bad precedence. If property owner wanted to open a restaurant here it would have a greater impact, see this as innocuous, can variance be limited to this user. CA Anderson noted variance cannot be limited to a given tenant or use. Once the variance is in place growth within office use could be unlimited. CA Anderson noted that variance could be conditioned to defined the number of employees, hours of operation and by other factors which would reduce the effect of the use within the context of the issues in the area affected. Commission discussion continued: Agree that this is a low impact business, also that there is not high pedestrian use in this area, need to find a way to wordsmith to regulate number of employees and hours of operation to make this fit better, it is a change in use that could set a poor precedent. CA Anderson noted that Commission could limit the future growth by conditions on the use on the site as has been commonly done before in such circumstances. If the city had tried to design a bad intersection and street configuration, no one could have done better than what we have here; if apply conditions to establish number of employees and hours of operations the applicant may always come back and ask for adjustment and the change can be evaluated in the context of what is going on in the area at that time; these concerns need to be addressed now, if as proposed they do not work someone will complain, if it is OK may ask for more later; for now we need a place to start and these are numbers proposed by the applicant. Findings for a variance need to be based on facts, and the fact is that the area is improperly laid out for pedestrian oriented retail use, the tenant, landowner, and city are stuck; we need to get the best for all, support the conditions in the staff report. Agree and to add to findings this is a high trafficked area, cars speed on California, this business does not have a lot of pedestrian customers, been to the site to inspect three time and there have been no customers on site, would like the conditions to address the number of employees and customers because of parking problems in the area. Would approval set a precedent for all of C-1 zone. CA Anderson noted no, this site is in Subarea B, to avoid broad precedent need to make findings which address this specific site or property which make it different from any other place in Burlingame. Given the use and low pedestrian traffic not need restriction on business hours, people could be locked inside working on computers on internet, not time dependent for customer service. CP Monroe noted that for retail customers a single parking space is used about eight times a day; for an office worker a single space would be used once all day, thus the impact of office workers on parking is greater, and has a part icularly negative effect on the peak retail usage times which, in the Burlingame Avenue area, are lunch time and early evening; she also noted that after the recent downtown parking study the Council has discussed a policy of requiring in lieu parking fees for new parking variances in order to facilitate construction of additional parking to meet the increase demands created by changes in uses in the downtown area. C. Mink made a motion to approve the three space parking variance with the conditions in the staff report based on the findings stated in the discussion and on the fact that the vehicular traffic load and the off Burlingame Avenue position of the building requires the City to make a mature decision about what to do with the site, by keeping the conditions as proposed and limiting the number of employees the city establishes a way to keep contact with the business and landowner and with the effects of the use, the motion is taken by resolution with the following conditions of approval: 1) that t he office use on this premise shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 23, 2001 (two 11 x 17 sheets), that the retail portion of the business shall not exceed 497 SF, that the office portion of the business shall not exceed 3,978 SF, and that the storage portion of the business shall not exceed 1,283 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 8 SF; and that any storage space will only be used for the business on site; 2) that there shall be no more than 12 employees on site at any time, including the owner; 3) that the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., noon, on weekends; 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that any expansion of the office or retail areas within the premise shall require an application to the Planning Department and review by the Planning Commission; and 6) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October, 2002) and upon complaint thereafter. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comments on the motion: to add to the findings would note that the orientation of this side of the street makes it difficult for people passing by to see store fronts, this is compounded by the awkward configuration of the public streets in the area; suggest that the hours of operation could be extended, since the time change for international work will affect the hours of operation, suggested 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 12 noon on week-ends, maker of the motion and second agreed to the proposed change. It was also noted that this location is near parking in the CalTrain lot, city lot on California and other nearby city lots. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to grant a three space parking variance for a change in use from retail to office use at 247 California Drive. The motion passed on a 4-1-1-1 (C. Bojués dissenting, C. Auran abstaining and C. Vistica absent) Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. C. Auran took his seat on the dais. 7. 1160 BROADWAY B ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA B APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING (RAYMOND LEE, SPEAR DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BONANZA/LAMB PARTNERS LIMITED, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 10.22.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Weisberg, property owner; Dave DeBenchenzi and Todd Morgan, Regional representatives of Walgreen’s, together represented the project. The applicant noted that after the commission approval they went back to Walgreen’s to discuss the 18 inch sill height for the four windows along Broadway. Walgreen’s was unable to arrange their floor plan without putting the backs of the cashiers to the windows, causing serious operational security issues. In response developer has come up with two options: install the 18” sills and place 2’-6” high display window above the sill in three of the four windows, the fourth window would be left open to the sill; or install benches on the outside of the building in front of three of the four windows, these 6 foot long benches would extend into the public right of way about 6 inches. The back of the bench would be no higher than 2’-6” above the 18” window sill. Walgreen’s would be happy to have the Burlingame Historical society or local schools place materials in the windows on a regular basis. Commissioners asked: purpose of the low sill was to make the store more pedestrian friendly on being usually open, can the cash registers be relocated; applicant noted store is smaller than typical Walgreen’s, if relocate cash registers to other side of door would need to reorient shelves across store rather than down City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 9 length, that would limit traffic flow through the store to the Pharmacy and out, also could not offer the normal product selection, to serve customers need to get basic departments within the smaller store. If you put in display windows how often would the displays be changed? Also like the idea of school art work, could support that if rotated on a regular basis. It would be interesting to see the photo processing area from the outside. Applicant noted that Walgreen’s is willing to work with local community members on the windows. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commission: Since the entry door is at an angle to the street and full length glass, it offers the opportunity for people to look into the store as they pass by, so loss of three windows has less impact, leaving the window by the photo processing open to the 18” sill will also help to visually open up the interior to the pedestrian passing by. The plan diagram shows the bench sticking out into the sidewalk 6 inches, that’s going to be a knee buster in the public right of way. C. Osterling made a motion by resolution to approve Alternative 1, 2’-6” high display windows to be placed in three of the four windows with 18 inch sills along the Broadway frontage of the store as shown on the last sheet of the plans, page 2B; with the added condition that Walgreen’s manager would contact the local schools and Burlingame Historical Society to provide displays in the windows which will be changed at least four times a year and Walgreen’s management shall be responsible for creating in one of the windows, and maintaining in that window a community bulletin board for civic and Broadway commercial area events working in cooperation with the Broadway Merchants Association as represented by the Broadway Improvement District, and including the conditions of the original approval as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 12, 2001, Site Plan, Proposed Floor Plan, Proposed Roof Plan, Proposed Elevation Section with a window sill 18 inches from grade and three display windows inside the store at a maximum height of 2’-6” above the sill so that the over all height of sill and display do not exceed 4’-0” above exterior grade of the sidewalk at the front of the structure, the three windows to have displays shall be those closest to the building entrance, the window glazing shall remain intact from the 18 inch sill and the displays shall be installed so that they can be removed in the future without affecting the integrity of the window; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the Walgreen’s manager shall contact the local schools and Burlingame Historical Society to provide displays in the windows which shall be changed at least four times a year; and Walgreen’s management shall be responsible for creating and maintaining in one of the windows a community bulletin board for civic and Broadway commercial area events, and shall be responsible for working in cooperation with the Broadway Merchants Association, as represented by the Broadway Improvement District, in providing this community service; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s July 2, 2001 memo, and the Fire Marshal’s June 29, 2001, memo shall be met; 5) that an application for a parcel map to merge the three lots shall be processed and granted before the final inspection is scheduled; and 6) 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. Key. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the action on the project at 1160 Broadway to retain the 18 inch window sill height for the four windows on the Broadway frontage of the store but to allow three of the four windows at the front of the store to have 2’-6” display windows installed inside the store to provide security for the cash registers and money handlers. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 10 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1509 LOS MONTES AVENUE B ZONED R-1 B APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, F.R. STRATHDEE & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Hurin presented the project description, noting that a neighbor had submitted a letter requesting that story poles be installed before the action meeting since there has been a design change and there is a view issue for him. There were no questions by commission of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Fred Stretched, designer, 147 Leslie Drive, San Carlos, and Ron Grove, property owner, represented the project. Since commission last reviewed the project, at commission direction they have worked with a design reviewer, this proposed project is a reduced size, it has been moved on the lot to increase the side yard, the height was lowered, and the architectural style was changed to be more compatible with the neighborhood, wood siding was added. The house is a spec house, noted that there is an error on the plans and the finished first floor is one foot lower than shown on the plans. It was noted that the height of the existing structure is close to 30 feet. Neighbors Jay Smith, 1515 Los Montes, Susan Smith 1515 Los Montes, Pamela Keys 1505 Los Montes, and Peter Keys 1505 Los Montes, also spoke. They noted the proposed house is too big, most of the houses in the neighborhood are post-war ranch houses; this proposed addition would block sun in back yard, on deck, and into second story, it would look into the rear bedroom and family room; most of the other second stories on the block have no windows on the shared second story side to insure privacy for adjacent houses; would like to have applicant install story poles, took picture of last poles and all he could see from his house was the second story of the new house. Revisions increase the setback of the house on our side, added a row of trees along the shared property line which was good, but the modifications did not change the architectural style enough for the new house to be compatible with the neighborhood; would like to see story poles which reflect the actual dimensions so better able to judge impact. Concerned with the detached garage; all other houses on the block have attached garages, the detached garage at the rear immediately next to the fence will cause fumes in her backyard; also concerned about drainage from the garage, have had drainage problems in the area in the past. If commissioners have been to the site it is clear that the proposed design is not consistent with the neighborhood, nor is the detached garage. Applicant commented that they included a detached garage because that is the city’s preference; reduced the size of the house 300 SF, stepped the design down toward the street, other houses in the area have two stories. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners noted in their discussion: would like to see story poles of the kind that demonstrate height, width and depth of new house so can see the whole box; should prepare a set of elevations which impose the outline of the existing house onto the elevation of the proposed house (front, both sides and rear), so can determine extent of change in size; should prepare a cross section of the proposed house and the houses on either side so can evaluate the scale of the proposed change; design reviewer should assist them in addressing the bulk of the house, it looks massive; especially the front façade and the southwest elevation; reduce the number of windows on the sides; and consider a three car garage or reduce the size of the house, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 11 this house has 7 bedrooms, there is very little parking in this area, none on Hillside and very little nearby on Los Montes. C. Bojués noted if garage were attached, the apparent size of the house would be greater, feel that should continue this item to the next meeting to allow the applicant to provide more information showing how project being proposed relates to the mass and bulk of the existing house. He then moved to continue this item to the next commission meeting after the applicant had submitted the following: ❑ A set of elevations which impose the outline of the existing house onto the elevations of the proposed house (front, both sides and rear) to demonstrate the extent of the proposed change; and ❑ Prepare a cross section of the proposed house and the houses on either side of that the commission and neighbors can evaluate the scale of the proposed new structure. The object being to have a better idea of what the proposed house would look like compared to what is present on site now, story poles should be installed at a later date after this information has been reviewed by the Commission and neighbors. The motion was seconded by Acting Chair Keighran. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the submittal of additional information. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of October 16, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related items on the October 16, 2001, Council agenda. She noted that the Council had scheduled a Joint meeting with the Planning Commission on November 7, 2001, at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. to discuss organization of the Planning Commission and the content of the Specific Area Plan for the North End of the City. Commissioners acknowledged their attendance at the November 7 meeting; two noted that 7:00 p.m. would be a better start time for them. Staff promised to pass this on to the City Council. - Discussion of Specific Area Plan for the North End of Burlingame. CP Monroe reviewed her staff memo noting that before staff could proceed on preparing an RFP to send out to consultants for preparation of a Specific Area Plan for the North End of the City, Commission needed to define the Study Area and the project’s scope. Because of the location of the Millbrae BART station near north end of Burlingame, it seemed two existing developed areas of the city would be most affected: the industrial (M-1 zoned) area along Rollins Road north of Broadway to the northern city boundary between US 101 and the CalTrain track; and the area on the west side of the CalTrain tracks bounded by Dufferin/Davis on the south, Marco Polo/Ogden on the west and the city boundary (Murchison) on the north. After some discussion, Commission directed that the best approach for a planning study might be an incremental one, where the areas were studied and their development potential evaluated the various planning options identified. In the second phase, the land use plan could be refined along with the details of implementation to match the refinement, including the level of detail expected in design guidelines. Staff noted that they would put together a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2001 12 summary of Commission’s ideas for the November 7, 2001, joint meeting with Council where the Specific Area Plan would be discuss further. In addition, staff suggested that following November 7, the Commission might consider appointing a working group to work with staff in refining the RFP. XI. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joseph Bojués, Secretary MINUTES10.22