Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.02.08REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 8, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the February 8, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal Absent: None Staff Present: Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher MINUTES The minutes of the January 25, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as presented. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved with continued items (#3, 1405 Mills Avenue; and #9, 1400 Alvarado Avenue; noted. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 820 MAPLE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MICHAEL FROELICH, APPLICANT AND JOSEPH SZUECS, PROPERTY OWNER) Planner Brooks reviewed the request and the Commission asked: to clarify the trim color, should be dark brown, and requested there be no pastel colors on the stucco, it should be a light buff or white color; concerning window treatments, the stucco and trim should be the same as the existing window treatments, and there should be a horizontal band on part of the structure to diminish the overall height; requested revision to the design elements at the rear doorway on the diagonal leading to the stairway and suggested a window could be placed next to the doorway to improve the wall and bring light into the stairwell; require clarification on the site plan, what is existing and what is proposed, show existing landscaping and what is; to be removed; show landscaping to be placed on trellis and add landscaping along house to mitigate high vertical walls. There were no further questions and the commission asked that the item be set for public hearing and action on the consent calendar for the next meeting, February 22, 1999. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8. 1999 APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 18 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1. (KEN HALL, APPLICANT AND TOM CONDON, PROPERTY OWNER) Planner Brooks reviewed the request and the Commission asked: further justification for the floor area ratio variance, can see no grounds; there is a boat and a. car parked in the front setback, is that permitted; is there an encroachment permit for the fence and hedge along the sidewalk; explain what was approved by 1995 permit, and explain why it isn't complete; asked applicant to provide a landscape plan. There were no further questions and the item was set for February 22, 1999, provided the responses are submitted to the Planning Commission in a timely manner. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1405 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JACQUELINE FOSTER, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 25, 1999 Staff asked that this application be continued to the February 22, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, additional information required. Commission took comments from the floor: Madeleine Cantrell, 1409 Mills Avenue, and Guy Kravitz, nephew; concern that the fence along the adjoining side property line would be removed, would like the applicant to consider leaving the fence where it is or have a survey done to determine location of the property line, would prefer fence be retained. Commission noted a survey is required if the accessory structure is proposed on the property line, but is not required if structure is one foot away from property line, and noted the neighbor's concerns would be passed on to the applicant. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 817 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN MATTHEWS, APPLICANT AND GARY AND WENDY DORAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (76 NOTICED) APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2714 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN BUTTE, ALDEN HOUSE II, APPLICANT AND PETER AND SALLY BECKER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (50 NOTICED) C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1260 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND RICHARD MEDEGHINI, WILLIAM R. AND M.A. MEDEGHINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (51 NOTICED) Planner Brooks reviewed the request and noted that an issue had been raised regarding the existing non -conforming lot coverage on the site and whether that required a variance. CA Anderson elaborated: it was determined since it was not noticed for a lot coverage variance, the public hearing would have to be continued to February 22, 1999. The commission had no questions of staff and asked the applicant to comment. Ken Ibarra, 600 El Camino Real, San Bruno, architect for the project asked why this concern was not raised before, the structure was built over 40 years ago, was considered non -conforming. CA Anderson explained the non- conforming requirements of the code and explained that a determination from the City Planner was required. Commissioners noted project is a reduction from the previous proposal and if it is determined a variance is not required the item can be placed on the consent calendar. C. Coffey moved to continue the hearing to February 22, 1999, and to place the item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C.Key and the motion passed on a 7 - 0 vote. APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1359 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-l. (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND JERROLD & JANICE SC:ATTINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, applicant representing Janice and Peter Scattini, 1359 Columbus Avenue noted that he was available for questions and would like the opportunity to respond after public comment. Commission asked: if the storage area was part of the original garage construction, applicant noted that the storage area was put in after the garage was built but matches the original style. Owner noted that neighbor says storage area has been there at least 20 years. Ralph Osterling, 1361 Columbus Avenue and Mark Hale, 1346 Columbus Avenue spoke in favor of the project, noting it is a beautiful colonial; appearance will not change from the front; the storage area is not visible; minimal additional square footage proposed; it will not impact the neighborhood; in support of leaving the storage area, will allow garage to be used for parking. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved approval of the Design Review and Floor Area Ratio Variance application for the reasons stated by the commission, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report, adding a condition that french doors be installed in the family room below the balcony, as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 Department date stamped December 3, 1998 Sheets 2-3 and date stamped January 29, 1999 Sheet 1 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 first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a window(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the City Engineer's December 7, 1998 memo regarding roof drainage shall be met; 4) that french doors shall be installed in the wall of the family room below the balcony; 5) that the 637 SF in the detached garage with storage area located at the rear of the site shall not be removed to allow additional square footage to the main structure, and that this site shall always provide a detached two car garage; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Commission discussion: agree with neighbor's comments, storage area has been there for more than 20 years, the addition blends with the house and is located in the rear. Comment on motion: proposal in keeping with the character of the home, addition is to the rear, providing two -car covered parking even though not required, minimal variance, in support without adding french doors; project doing the right things, if storage area removed, what would be accomplished; condition should to be added that the variance is tied to always providing a two -car garage and storage as a part of the project so that the house cannot be expanded by this square footage in a later remodel that would require only one covered parking space; maker and second agreed to added conditions. Motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR LEFT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FORA FIRST STORY ADDITION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION AT 466 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JENNIFER BURROW, LYNN/LAINE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND PATRICIA FISHER, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jennifer Burrows, applicant, was present and responded to concern about window type and trim, it will match existing; regarding chimney height, the existing chimney will be removed. Commission questions: how determine the style of guardrail; applicant noted they would like to duplicate style of the guardrail at the front of the house, but it does not meet current code, want something similar which will meet code. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: project has been a difficult one, applied under different rules, not sure what to do in terms of the design, roof as yet unresolved, not a good fit; rear and sides are better resolved, but have trouble with roof; view differently, existing ;Front facade is charming, thinks new design works better, applicant done more than her fair share, view favorably. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 C. Luzuriaga noted the side setback exception exists, it would be ludicrous to tear down and relocate the wall, consider that a hardship. He then moved approval of the variance and design review; for the reasons stated by the commission, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 25, 1999, Sheets A.0 through A.14; and 2) that any future changes to the size or envelope of the second floor from the plans shown and approved, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, or changing exterior materials and windows shall be subject to design review; 3) that the applicant and designer shall use the same window types, roof materials, railing design, eaves design and stucco finish on all sides of the structure to integrate the addition with the existing structure; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Comment on the motion: need to refine design guidelines, for future projects work with review; maybe not quite there, been through two reviews, design improved. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1400 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TORIN KNORR, AIA, APPLICANT AND DAVID M. & REGINA A. MCADAM, PROPERTY OWNERS) (51 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 25, 1999, REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 22, 1999 Chairman Deal left the dais, Commissioner Coffey became Chair. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE -CAR GARAGE AND WORKROOM AT 1516 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1) (CHRIS & JAN KEELI:, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON JANUARY 25, 1999 (74 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission commented: at previous hearing, condition was considered regarding future additions, the location and size of the existing garage cannot be used as a hardship when considering future additions to the house. Acting Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Chris Keele, 15116 Forest View Avenue, applicant noted that the project has been redesigned to meet commission's concerns. There were comments about the relevance of the findings. CA Anderson noted that findings are made on the basis of each property. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. -5- +� t February 8. 1999 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the conditional use permit and special permit applications amending condition No. 3 to change utility connections to water and sewer connections, added condition No. 4 requested by staff that the roof drainage from the accessory structure shall drain to the front street, and condition No. 5 that the location and size of the garage shall not be used as a hardship when considering future additions to the house, by resolution, with amended conditions in the staff report as follows: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 28, 1999, Sheet G-1, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 23, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the accessory structure shall never be: used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional water and sewer connections and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that the roof drainage from the accessory structure shall drain to the front street; 5) that the location and size of the garage shall not be used as a hardship when considering future additions to the house; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Key. Commission discussion: nature of conditional use permits and special permits not as stringent as variance, directed to move garage and was done, in favor of project. Acting Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. Chairman Deal returned to the dais and took over the gavel. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO A RETAIL BUILDING AND CONVERSION FROM AUTOMOBILE REPAIR TO RETAIL USE AT 1212 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (AL.AN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT AND DAY FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (85 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission questions: are there any uses which would not require a parking variance when converting from auto repair; most C-1 uses fall into the category of retail or offices, both would require more parking, the existing auto repair use is non -conforming, if discontinued for six months it could not return. Commission asked if the building were torn down, could it be rebuilt as retail use to meet current parking, staff noted that theoretically it could. Commission asked if the front facade were pushed back to provide patio space adjacent to the sidewalk and the building were extended in the rear to provide the same floor area, would a larger variance be required. Staff noted that if the roof were to remain, the front porch would count as floor area since it is covered and a larger variance would be required; if 2 feet or less, would be considered roof overhang and would not be counted as floor area. Commission asked if there was a permit for the mezzanine, applicant to respond during testimony. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, OW Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Bruce Day, 353 Sylvan Avenue, San Mateo, Brian Day, 646 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, Alan William Coon, architect and Brett Baron, Capital Realty, 1200 Howard, property manager, represented the project. Noted that building had been built by grandfather, automotive use is no longer appropriate, would like to upgrade to retail, make it affordable and accessible to small business; issue is parking, parking study notes there are spaces available during peak hours, discussed actual parking versus perceived parking problem, need to use objective criteria such as parking study; lots of interest from potential retail tenants; noted 41-foot wide lot precludes standard parking, angled parking would have to back on to street; mezzanine was built long ago, no record of permit, been there since the 20's. Commission asked how much back up is needed. CE Erbacher noted that 24' is required and 20' depth for standard stalls, there would not be enough room to maneuver in 40' . There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: parking variance out of sync, there is not a great deal of parking available, intensity of project is too much, could start over, better ways to approach it; parking study done a year ago, might be another way to look at it; would be a hardship coming up with a project incorporating on -site parking, auto repair is out of character, like to see retail, any use would require more parking, in favor as long as it stays one-story. CA Anderson notes a condition could be added that ties the variance to the existing building, if building is demolished variance goes away. Further comments: project provides overflow space for smaller merchants, will lessen traffic congestion since there will no longer be a driveway, preservation of the building is an important issue, expect increased pedestrian usage; should keep existing building, don't like mezzanine, would prefer if project did not extend building or parking demand;; looks like amount added minimal, would not reduce variance if square footage reduced. C. Vistica made a motion to approve the variance since existing conditions preclude other uses without a variance, add a condition that if applicant chooses, the entrance can be recessed with same square footage. C. Vistica moved approval of the parking variance for the reasons stated by the commission, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report amended as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 2, 1999, Sheets A-1 and A-2; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer (memo dated November 16, 1998), and the conditions of the Fire Marshal and Chief Building Inspector (memos dated November 30, 1998) shall be met; 3) that the applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a sign permit prior to erecting any signage at project site; 4) that the retail tenants shall not use the rear patio area for storage of retail materials, fixtures or arty other item, except for placement of trash and recycling cans and bins placed and managed in accordance with the Burlingame Fire Department requirements; 5) that, if applicant chooses, the entrance can be recessed with same square footage; 6) that the variance is granted for the use of the existing building to be expanded as shown on the plans date stamped February 2, 1999 and if this building is demolished, the variance shall become null and void; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 as amended by the City of Burlingame. -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the variance, conditional use permit and special permit applications amending condition No. 3 to change utility connections to water and sewer connections, added condition No. 4 requested by staff that the roof drainage from the accessory structure shall drain to the front street, and condition No. 5 that the location and size of the garage shall not be used as a hardship when considering future additions to the house, by resolution, with amended conditions in the staff report as follows: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January.28, 1999, Sheet G-1, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 23, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional water and sewer connections and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that the roof drainage from the accessory structure shall drain to the front street; 5) that the location and size of the garage shall not be lased as a hardship when considering future additions to the house; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Key. Commission discussion: nature of conditional use permits and special permits not as stringent as variance, directed to move garage and was done, in favor of project. Acting Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. Chairman Deal returned to the dais and took over the gavel. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO A RETAIL BUILDING AND CONVERSION FROM AUTOMOBILE REPAIR TO RETAIL USE AT 1212 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT AND DAY FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (85 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission questions: are there any uses which would not require a parking variance when converting from auto repair; most C-1 uses fall into the category of retail or offices, both would require more parking, the existing auto repair use is non -conforming, if discontinued for six months it could not return. Commission asked if the building were torn down, could it be rebuilt as retail use to meet current parking, staff noted that theoretically it could. Commission asked if the front facade were pushed back to provide patio space adjacent to the sidewalk and the building were extended in the rear to provide the same floor area, would a larger variance be required. Staff noted that if the roof were to remain, the front porch would count as floor area since it is covered and a larger variance would be required; if 2 feet or less, would be considered roof overhang and would not be counted as floor area. Commission asked if there was a permit for the mezzanine, applicant to respond during testimony. Ell City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Bruce Day, 353 Sylvan Avenue, San Mateo, Brian Day, 646 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, Alan William Coon, architect and Brett Baron, Capital Realty, 1200 Howard, property manager, represented the project. Noted that building had been built. by grandfather, automotive use is no longer appropriate, would like to upgrade to retail, make it affordable and accessible to small business; issue is parking, parking study notes there are spaces available during peak hours, discussed actual parking versus perceived parking problem, need to use objective criteria such as parking study; lots of interest from potential retail tenants; noted 41-foot wide lot precludes standard parking, angled parking would have to back on to street; mezzanine was built long ago, no record of permit, been there since the 20's. Commission asked how much back up is needed. CE Erbacher noted. that 24' is required and 20' depth for standard stalls, there would not be enough room to maneuver in 40' . There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: parking variance out of sync, there is not a great deal of parking available, intensity of project is too much, could start over, better ways to approach it; parking study done a year ago, might be another way to look at it; would be a :hardship coming up with a project incorporating on -site parking, auto repair is out of character, like to see retail, any use would require more parking, in favor as long as it stays one-story. CA Anderson notes a condition could be added that ties the variance to the existing building, if building is demolished variance goes away. Further comments: project provides overflow space for smaller merchants, will lessen traffic congestion since there will no longer be a driveway, preservation of the building is an important issue, expect increased pedestrian usage; should keep existing building, don't like mezzanine, would prefer if project did not extend building or parking demand; looks like amount added minimal, would not reduce variance if square footage reduced. C. Vistica made a motion to approve the variance since existing conditions preclude other uses without a variance, add a condition that if applicant chooses, the entrance can be recessed with same square footage. C. Vistica moved approval of the parking variance for the reasons stated by the commission, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 2, 1999, Sheets A-1 and A-2; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer (memo dated November 16, 1998), and the conditions of the Fire Marshal and Chief Building Inspector (memos dated November 30, 1998) shall be met; 3) that the applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a sign permit prior to erecting any signage at project site; 4) that the retail tenants shall not use the rear patio area for storage of retail materials, fixtures or any other item, except for placement of trash and recycling cans and bins placed and managed in accordance with the Burlingame Fire Department requirements; and, 5) that the variance is granted for the use of the existing building to be expanded as shown on the plans date stamped February 2, 1999 and if this building is demolished, the variance shall become null and void; 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 as amended by the City of Burlingame. -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 On the motion: will not support square footage beyond what is existing; in favor, no question it will have positive effect; automotive uses hazardous, limited to certain areas, mezzanine typically allows room for merchandise storage, small retail space needs storage space, location just off Burlingame Avenue, would draw from restaurant and other stores, won't impact parking; request condition added that the variance is granted for the use of the existing building to be expanded as shown on the plans date stamped February 2, 1999 and if this building is demolished, the variance shall become null and void; the maker of the motion and the second agreed to this condition. Motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed 4-3 (C. Boju6s, Key and Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO EXCEED THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT' TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN AN EXISTING BOAT AT 410 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (CHUCK GONG, APPLICANT AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA (STATE LANDS COMMISSION), PROPERTY OWNER) (18 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the parking variance and special permits application, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission commented: looking at application for parking variance, restaurant can be popular can we consider a condition to review after 18 months and determine if valet parking, or off -site parking is needed; concern about level of lighting, is there a city standard. Staff noted that there is no requirement in the building or zoning codes which sets a standard for parking lot lighting. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. George Corey, 700 El Camino Real, Millbrae, Robert Sherman, representing the applicant and Mr. Plummer, State Lands Commission were present to answer questions and spoke in support of the application; all conditions in staff report are satisfactory, if there is a requirement for valet parking, have applied to State Lands Commission for use of twelve spaces, may get that many, expect to get at least 4, location to be determined after the State Lands Commission completes its feasibility study for an adjacent proposed hotel; applicant believes proposed lighting will be adequate, lighting engineer will prepare lighting plan. Commission questions: where would the 3 parking spaces be placed if landscaping were removed; Robert Sherman pointed out the location of the spaces on sheet 6 of the plans dated stamped October 14, 1999; what improvements are to be made to the boat; lighting will be restored, boat will be blasted and refinished throughout. Commission asked Mr. Plummer, Regional Land Manager from the State Lands Commission to comment on the prospect of obtaining additional parking spaces; Mr. Plummer stated that there are now 50 unallocated spaces within State Lands parcel, can provide four parking spaces minimum, don't know how the hotel proposal will be laid out, so don't know where the spaces will be; market analysis for the hotel will be completed in 6 to 8 weeks, request for proposal by June. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 Commission comments: in favor of project, was concerned about parking variance but concerns have been addressed adequately, front setback landscaping is acceptable. C. Bojues moved approval of the application for the reasons stated by the commission, by resolution, with added conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 14,1998, Sheets I through 7, and date stamped January 8, 1999, Sheet 8; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 8, 1999 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 18, 1998 and January 7, 1999 memos and the City Engineer's August 17, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the restaurant and cocktail lounge may not be open for business except (luring the hours of 11:00 A.M. to Midnight, seven days a week, with no more than fourteen employees on site at any one time; 4) that the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and shall provide an 8-foot wide public access walkway suitable for disabled access from the sidewalk on Airport Boulevard to the leasehold boundary; 5) that the final design of the observation platform shall be subject to review and approval by BCDC; 6) that the offices located in the top deck shall only be used in conjunction with the restaurant and cocktail lounge and shall not be rented or leased for a separate office use; 7) that the parking issue shall be reviewed by city staff in 18 months to determine adequacy of parking, and if State Lands provides additional 4 spaces, the variance can be dissolved; 8) that the applicant submit a lighting plan to be reviewed by city staff prior to issuance of any building permits for remodeling work on the boat or site; and 9) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Comments on the motion: request that a condition be added that the parking issue shall be reviewed by city staff in 18 months to determine adequacy of parking, and if State Lands provides additional 4 spaces, the variance can be dissolved; also request a condition that the applicant submit a lighting plan to be reviewed by city staff. Both the maker and the second agreed to both additions to the conditions. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed 5-2 (C. Key and Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR REVERSION TO ACREAGE AT 410-480 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE LANDS COMMISSION, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (22 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. CE Erbacher and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Public Works Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Mr. Plummer, Regional Land Manager representing the State Lands Commission. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 C. Vistica recommended the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to Council, for the reasons stated, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) a lot combination map/reversion to acreage is required to be filed within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act. Action on this map should be considered as both the tentative and final map to facilitate processing; 2) all property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map; 3) all existing and proposed lot lines shall be clearly shown with bearings and distances; 4) all existing and proposed public and private easements shall be shown on the map; 5) all lease lines shall be clearly marked on the map to distinguish between lot lines and lease lines; and 6) the map shall show the width of the right-of-way for Airport Boulevard and Bayview Place, including centerline of right -of way, bearing and distances of centerline, and any existing monuments in the roadway. Motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the project to City Council. The motion passed 7-0. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (BETTY WAGNER, CALIFORNIA SIGN, APPLICANT AND HARBOR VIEW HOTELS INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (16 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.8.99, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal opened the public hearing. Betty Wagner, California Sign Company, and Coleman Conneely, Harbor View Hotels, applicant spoke in favor of the application; Crowne Plaza is changing to Sheraton Gateway; noted that all counted as 10' tall letters, all but the "S" and the "T" are 7'-4" high. Commission comment: Commission asked the applicant about inconsistencies on the color xerox representation and asked for clarification and the applicant explained; in favor, noted that the proposed sign looks neater with the crest on top, variance in square footage is justified by cleanliness of new presentation, calculation does not take into account lower case letters; need for visibility; does look cleaner, simple, better viewing, visible from the freeway, need height. C. Keighran moved approval of the sign exception application, for the reasons stated by the commission, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the signs shall -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 21, 1999, 11" x 17" sheets 9000801, 9001601, SHR30401, Site Plan and sheet A4.2, and date stamped January 22, 1999, sheet A4.1; 2) that any increase in the height, number or area of the signs on the primary or secondary frontages shall require an amendment to this sign exception; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - Planner Brooks reviewed briefly the planning related actions taken at the City Council meeting on February 1, 1999. - Planner Brooks reviewed briefly the general discussion of parking regulations. Commissioner comments: concerned about 4 bedroom homes only requiring one covered parking space, need to go back to requirement for 2 covered parking spaces for a 3 bedroom home, the key is to change code; also need to look at condominium and apartment parking regulation, add a requirement for guest parking and delivery; similar concerns, 5 bedrooms too much, but will see so many parking variances if require 2 spaces for 3 bedrooms, could look at maximum square footage for one parking space; for condominiums, one or two guest parking spaces not enough, need to revise code to establish requirement; today likely to have more cars, two people will have 2 cars, a 3 bedroom house should have a two car garage; going in right direction, if households getting more cars, won't be street parking available; need something for condominiums, perhaps base requirement on square footage, if over 1800 SF, need more parking, disagree on single family residence, can't design with 2-car garage, would ruin neighborhood, some neighborhoods it would work; square footage of home should take over requirement at some point; could agree that with 4 bedrooms, require two -car garage; look at differently if detached garage, long driveway has room for cars to park off the street; need options, two -car garages can't be done in some areas; determine areas where it can or can't be done, subcommittee can redefine. Discussion of parking requirements for single family homes, apartments and condominiums to be discussed at joint session of the Planning Commission and City Council on February 27, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. - Planner Brooks reviewed briefly the rotation of officers. C. Deal noted that although it is not formally recognized, the commission has traditionally elected its chair and secretary on a rotation basis. Would like to formalize this process, but leave option for person next in rotation -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 to decline. CA Anderson will bring back amendment to rules of procedure to propose formal rotation procedure, leaving the option to decline. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. MINUTES2.8 -12- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary