Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.02.22REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 22, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the February 22, 1999, regular meeting of the 'Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Coffey, Keigh.ran, Key, Luzuriaga (in @ 7:09) Vistica and Deal Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the February 8, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with the following corrections; page 5, 1516 Forest View Avenue, "C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the vafianee, conditional use permit and special permit applications; and page 7, 1212 Donnelly should have an added condition as follows: "if applicant chooses, the entrance can be recessed with same square footage. " APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved, noting that the applicant on Item #12 should read Mansa Construction Corporation FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO LENGTHEN AN EXISTING GARAGE WHICH IS WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT AT 1336 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JOE LA MARIANA & THERESA BALDOCCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: the roof is called out with a 3:1 slope but it does not seem to be drawn that way; don't think pitch of roof is a problem just nomenclature shown as a 3 inch rise over a 1 inch run clarify; concerned that the addition to the garage does not match the existing architectural style of the garage, looks "stuck on" should add a condition that the rear of the garage should match the architectural style of the garage. There were no further questions from the commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 C. Vistica suggested that if the project complied with the suggestions it should be put on the consent calendar for action; C. Key agreed. By unanimous voice vote the commission agreed with the suggestion and set the item for public hearing on March 8, 1,999. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE TO EXPAND SEATING AREA AT 1318 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (WORLD WRAPPS, APPLICANT AND SHIRLEY KING TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: does the applicant plan to keep the two tables and chairs at the front of the business in the public right-of-way; this is an increase in 112 SF of seating area, could the applicant overlay the existing and proposed plans so commission could see exactly what the change in the configuration of the uses on the site are; what is the rational for the need to increase the seating area by 35 % and the number of seats by 50 %; how did they arrive at the maximum number of people on site being 49; notes that owner and employees will park in metered parking, at what location; seems this proposal would increase usage, increasing seating from 28 to 42, why so few additional customers with more seating and good business, observation is that the place is often packed with people. There were no further questions from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing on March 8, 1999, providing all the information is given to Planning staff in a timely manner. APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA OF SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FRONTAGES AND FOR PROJECTION INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY AT 1200 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (NEON SIGN SYSTEMS, APPLICANT AND BRUCE C. KIRKBRIDE, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: would like to see the palate of colors for the sign program; how will the "open" sign work, will it flash when the store is open or change to closed when it is not; how will the projecting sign be lit, also how will the clock be illuminated; could see this sign being reduced by 3 SF so it would not need an exception for size; open neon tubing is inappropriate for this period of sign, explain why it is needed; will the stripes of neon tubing on the site be removed along with the signage; why need florescent lighting for the sign, why no use indirect lighting it is the more traditional way to light such signs. There were no further comments and the item was set for public hearing on March 8, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA OF SIGN AT 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND WEIMAN SYNDICATE, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: is this a similar sign to that on other Molly Stone's, would like to see a picture and the color, how is the tomato lit and presented; sign on primary frontage is OK but the sign facing; the city parking lot is designed as if it were to be viewed from a street, because it is at eye level it will also create glare at the public parking lot access driveway, should be at a different location and reduced in -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 size; need a stronger justification for the exception than "balance"; a picture at night of a similar sign might address "white glare" issue; seems the applicant is asking for more than allowed, understand two signs on primary frontage and Chapin, what is the justification for so much signage on the parking lot. Item was set for public hearing on March 8, 1999, if all the information can be provided to staff in time. APPLICATION FOR LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AT 820 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED O-M. (HARVEY HACKER, HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND JOHN MONFREDINI, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: could the action packet include a copy of the original staff report and conditional use permit with conditions; need to provide information on the number of rental transactions and customers before they moved to SFO; are there any rental cars on site; why do they need 80 parking spaces if there are no rental cars on site and why then can they not meet the landscaping requirements; need a table showing the number of cars rented each during the day and each day of the week; understood Enterprise is not transferring to the airport, have they transferred; the conditions of the original use permit were tight, especially about the addition of personnel and the impact of the use on the site, now want to add more people to write more rental contracts will increase the impact, explain; have received complaints about this site in the past regarding loading and unloading of vehicles on the street, how will that be addressed now; indicate that they have 81 on site parking spaces but cannot count tandem parking spaces, except: as previously approved to use as car storage, how much car storage will be needed and how many actual parking spaces will be provided for the new office use; would like a picture of existing landscaping and fencing on site; if fleet cars are parked here are the customer contracts written in Burlingame for these cars; what is the number of cars in the fleet rented from this site; what is the relationship between the operation of this business in Burlingame and the new parking garage at the airport; confused adding 5000 SF of office to process rental contracts but show an increase of 5 cars per day rental, how does this work; present permit indicates a maximum of 14 employees on site at once, but indicate that there are 20 employees on site now, why are they violating their current conditional use permit; if compare original permit with information in this staff report there are more areas of noncompliance, explain. The item was set for public hearing on March 8, 1999, if all the information is available to staff in a timely manner. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION ANDIOR 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. Regarding Item #6, 1405 Mills, Commission asked if the project review could include the garage being as it would in a major remodel. CA responded the building permit has already been issued so if want could consider whether the architecture of the remodeled house matches the proposed garage. The garage itself cannot be reviewed as a part of the remodel of the house -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 because a building permit has been issued for that structure. A commissioner asked how the public works conditions would be applied. CE Erbacher responded that these items would be reviewed when the building permit is issued. 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 AND FEBRUARY 8, 1999 C. Deal has a working relationship with the applicant and therefore will not comment or vote on this project. C. Coffey moved approval of item #6, 1405 Mills Avenue on 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. Key. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining.) Appeal procedures were advised. 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) CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 8, 1999 and 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) C. Coffey moved approval of items #7, 1260 Bernal Avenue and #8, 820 Maple Avenue on 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. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EVALUATING WIND AND RECREATION AND TRAFFIC EFFECTS IN SAN MATEO FOR A MAJOR OFFICE OR OFFICE/HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (CARL DANIELSON, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GOLDEN CROWN LAND & INVESTMEN T, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the recirculated draft environmental impact report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. CP Monroe and CA Anderson reviewed the purpose of the meeting, to take comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR for the proposed office project at 301 Airport Blvd. The commission should take testimony on the two items addressed in the Recirculated document -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 wind and recreation and traffic impacts in the City of San Mateo, comments on the previously circulated DEIR taken during its circulation period, will be addressed in the Response to Comment Document. Chairman Deal open the public hearing. The following persons spoke: Richard Lavinstein, property owner on Beach and Lang Roads, Burlingame; William Robberson, 1230 Clay Street, San Francisco; Peter Thomer, 390 Alcatraz Ave, Oakland; Dr. Mark Tischler, 1204 Rembrandt Drive; Lev Belov, 280 San Benito Way, San Francisco; Edward Penrose, 468 Littlefield Ave., South San Francisco; Karina O'Connor, 915 Ashbury, San Jose; Ken Poulton, 884 Los Robles Ave., Palo Alto; Mark Showen, 133 Valdeflores, Drive, Burlingame; Bob Whitehair, 1530 Edinburgh Street, San Mateo; Doug Gottschlid, 595 Mr. View Ave., Mountain View; Suzanne Suwanda, One Bay Road, Fairfax; Clement Wang, 906 Hyde Ave, Cupertino; Andre Volant, 1238 Shelter Creek Lane, San Bruno; Noel Mackisoc, 3000 El Sobrante Street, Santa Clara; Byron Wilson M.D., 834 Viewridge Drive, San Mateo; Stephen Hile:y, 2004 Pierce St., San Francisco; Kathleen Doerr, 3731 Fillmore St., San Francisco; Dianne Thomas, 325 Avila Road, San Mateo; Peter Birch, 272 Cumberland St., San Francisco; Dick Rayner, 714 Esther Lane, Redwood City; Geraint Owen, 3265 Greer Road, Palo Alto; Robert Dow, 3729 Red Oak Way, Redwood City; George Haye, 1191 Compass Lane, Foster City; Mary Firentze,1210 Patlen Drive, Los Altos; Jaime Cordera, 1210 Patlen Drive, Los Altos; John Bateman, 585 Kelly Ave., Half Moon Bay; Beth Krasonic 1429 Bernal Drive, Burlingame; Dan Farmer, 2340 Perich Ct. , Mountain View. Appeared before the commission on the previous DEIR for this project, still concerned about traffic and mitigation B.10 and City of San Mateo's comments; impacts at Peninsula and 101 interchange and traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods in San Mateo; indicates that there will be an impact at the intersection, especially if it remains unsignalized, share the concerns of all property owners in the area about how this congestion problem will be addressed for this project and cumulatively; feel that the origin destination assumptions should be reevaluated since his observation today is that more traffic comes into the area from the south now and the origin destination was based on a 1987 evaluation, if traffic signal were to be installed in the Airport/Coyote Point/Peninsula Ave. area it would be in the City of San Mateo, how will it be installed and what will the impact of the improvements and/or signal will be. The remaining speakers addressed the wind and recreation portion of the recirculated DEIR. They were convinced that the wind study was done by an expert, but it did not address turbulence and "dirty air" that comes along with this type of development; convinced that further study and alternatives for this project need to be done; be willing to put time in at a future meeting with the developer and consultant to discuss in detail; people present represent the largest windsurfing organization in the United States; Coyote point :is one of the few water contact, access points on the bay; if consider how big these proposed buildings are, the amount of dirty air they will create and the wind sheer effect, afraid will devastate the area for wind surfers and San Mateo County park will lose a lot of revenue; concerned that the definition of significant impact is based on a 10 % reduction in wind velocity when wind velocity is only part of the equation, wind swirling and gusting up and down are also important since sails have only a narrow range of adaptation; wind velocity is useful when determining what people feel on their faces; have worked with wind tunnel studies, they are state of the art, but they measure the reduction in steady air speed; the people who did the study also have data on variation and increase in turbulence, they have recorded that data should analyze it and report on variation -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 found; wind tunnel measures mechanical, wind also includes thermal variation, don't know what effect that will have from wind tunnel, but thermal variation can increase wind shadow and can't be measured in tunnel; report was alright for what it did, but need more analysis; Coyote Point is unique, only place in San Francisco Bay which is safe enough for beginners and intermediates, with stable winds, the tall buildings will change that; only place in the mid -peninsula along the bay that does not have limited parking; attractive because place where you can bump and jump wind surf. Comments on the wind and recreation continued: safety is a key concern, experienced windsurfers use boards that do not float, if there is a lot of variation irk the wind people cannot get their sails up; if need larger sail to get out to open water, and need less sail out there, have a safety problem, wind surfer can be carried down wind and current or can "fly over head"; asked who windsurfs at Candlestick, candlestick is more a beginning, area, the water is flat compared to Coyote Point where the wind causes a swell that windsurfe:rs can jump off of, most premiere area is off Crissy Field, Coyote Point is second; at Candlestick the wind blows off shore, people can be blown out to sea, Coyote Point is one of the few spots where the wind blows toward shore; wind shadow will affect the beginner and intermediate more, Coyote Point is good for them because can practice without fearing that will be blown out too far; used to sail Coyote Point, not so much any more but it has the biggest and best amenities on the Peninsula; flaws in the study atmospheric stability was not addressed and other issues in the letter submitted from Mike Godse, local meteorologist; some users of Coyote Point are Burlingame residents, others come from though out the region and world; when designed the project no one thought that wind was an impact now aware and the project should reflect; wind is not affected much close to the shore but wind surfers need to make it all the way in and variation is in the middle area; opposed to project, buildings will make it harder to get in and out, need to look at height and layout, need to move the tallest structure to the back; there are 50 people here tonight who feel as I do, and 500 more who aren't here; this is a significant issue and there is no recognized standard of significance; from experience, when next to 20' buildings people have to swim or walk in; the wind shadow of a 20' building can knock you off your board, what will a 120' building do, significantly more than a 20' building; need to look carefully at the height and consider before grant variance, also before grant variance for width of the buildings; Coyote Point is a jewel for wind surfing in terms of facilities and being within an urban area, do all you can to save it; a wind surf board moves by wind moving in a steady stream across the sail, if it is not smooth the wind surf board will loose speed and will go down into the water; wind surfers pick the size of their sails carefully for the speed of the wind., not much tolerance for error; would also note that the traffic is pretty terrible on 101 from 92 north to Dore exit to Coyote Point, this project will not make it better; if Coyote Point is diminished it will affect business in Burlingame; began wind surfing in Foster City on lagoon, biggest problem was tall buildings which shut down wind and increased turbulence; wind surfing affects my health, in summer when can wind surf blood pressure lower; should limit all building heights to the height of city hall; wind surfing is a good advertisement for the bay area, especially for people arriving at SFO, it is a clean sport does not pollute the water, and it invites people to use the bay for many recreation activities; bought a house in Santa Clara just so I could be close to Coyote Point; relocated from the coast to San Mateo so could be close to Coyote Point; described the effects of changing wind conditions on surf boarder; one would not build a bicycle path with pot holes, this is the same idea; wind surfing here is premiere in terms of metropolitan areas in the no City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 United States; used to wind board in New Jersey, area used was affected by construction of single family houses, two story houses affected wind 1000 feet off shore; Coyote Point is used by hundreds of people on the best days; invaluable if lost no other area that would offer the same; the park will lose revenue. Comments continued: many wind surfers carry wind pagers that tell them where it is windy, so know that there are a limited number of places that are windy at any one time; Coyote blows steadily in the summer, if build buildings Coyote won't even be on the pager any more; born and raised in area, use Coyote Point in the summer, hundreds of sails are beautiful, city should maintain this beauty; know buildings will impact winds at Coyote point, its a complicated technical issue, but from personal experience surfing behind a barge know that not just slow, one slams into the water; if buildings go up wind surfing at Coyote Point will not be a viable option; came from New Zealand, the advantage of coyote Point is the on shore wind; the sheltered area close in is good for the beginners; not a good wind sailor, can tell you that turbulence and gusty winds are terrible for a poor sailor, the change in velocity will make it more tricky to use Coyote Point. There is access for wind surfing at other places in the bay, Chrissy Field an old military base where there are many development proposals, Berkeley Marina where there are problems with access, Candlestick Park where the property may be sold and there are real problems with parking, Flying Tigers lost access at north end of SFO although there is some limited access at high tide, Third Avenue in Foster City made improvements but reduced parking capacity, Coyote is also threatened by expansion at the airport, need to take the long view this resource is irreplaceable once it is gone, need access and use of water; people have been wind surfing at Coyote Point for 25 years; not going to have more bay; the photographs make the area look big, the swimming area limits launching, if increase windshadow will push in -bound traffic into out -bound traffic, with the cumulative impact on wind the area gets even narrower and pushes the in- and out -bound traffic even closer together, can't launch off the bulk head along Airport Blvd., Foster City put a ramp down the rip -rap but reduced parking by half so less access; if you move the launch north it is not good for beginners; 300 to 350 wind surfers park in the parking at Coyote Point Park, when it is full they park on the streets in Burlingame; with hundreds of wind surfers need a expanse of beach; the water is shallow along Coyote Point beach and is safer for learning to windsurf, too deep off Fisherman's park, would not be safe for beginners, have to swim in too far become hypothermic; people wait in line in water now to launch if sail area is narrower have to wait in line on the beach, space is important; proposed buildings A, B and C make a complete wind block, need some forethought about wind, there must be a way to solve: and still do the project. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. The Planning Commissioners then commented on the Recirculated Draft EIR: it should be made clear that the City is not undertaking this development, the property is privately owned, the city is not designing the project, the project is not a done deal, the purpose here is to review the Recirculated DEIR and the impacts and proposed mitigations it includes; the developer needs to hear your concerns; on the Peninsula land is scarce and something is going to be put on this site; concerned about traffic on south bound 101 at Poplar and north bound, did more study of these effects; concerned about traffic impact, it is hard to get to this site and see other property sold on bayfront don't know how cars will get in and out; would like a clearer explanation of the origin and destination assumptions of how traffic will get in and out of the site; need to -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 address traffic flow and the impact on the Broadway interchange; San Mateo study only reacted to their city streets, what about the impact on the Anza and Broadway interchanges; want more elaboration on the Broadway on ramp; where does the traffic come from north and south bound, how will it compare to what we see now; lot of words would like to see a map showing the location of the intersections in San Mateo that they were concerned about. There were no more questions from the commission. Staff noted that these comments would be incorporated in the Response to Comments document which, along with the DEIR and the Recirculated DEIR would compose the Final EIR. The closing date for comments on the Recirculated DEIR is 5:00 p.m. March 8. Following that the Response to Comments document will be finished and the document will be set for public hearing and acceptance before the Planning Commission. There were no further comments from the staff or commission and the item was closed. Chairman Deal called for a five minutes break at 9:25 p.m. for the members of the audience concerned with 301 Airport Blvd. to leave if they wished. 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 AND FEBRUARY 8, 1999 Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Torin Knorr, architect, commented that used commission's previous review to re-evaluate the entire project, new front elevation is a more compatible architectural design, redid the stair way so no longer a winder; reworked the bedroom on the corner and reoriented away from the street with a stop sign, reduced the windows on the front. Commissioner asked have a skylight which faces the street, concerned that it will be a beacon of light at night, would consider removing, like the skylight and based on review don't think it will affect neighbor, have installed such skylights in Portola Valley using smoked glazing to reduce reflectivity; concerned about the window above the three which make up the bay window, can you delete the triangular one above the bay because it looks as if it does not belong, that is the north side of the house where there is the least light, it is isolated from the neighbor because of the existing landscaping, want to keep to maximize the light inside; concerned about the general size of the project, the rooms are big, could you reduce the overall size, concerning massing look at elevation on Hillside, moved bathroom off 1.5 feet to improve appearance of elevation, project below allowable square footage, used extra square footage in redesign of stairwell which did not affect the bulk of the original design. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.. Commission comments: in favor of the project, concerned about the skylight, if can mitigate favor the project; has come a long way, can support but the skylight needs to be addressed; can put mini -blinds in the skylight operated by a sensor to close at night; will have to have a bubble for height in stairwell; condition one which addresses building according to plans submitted, plans show plate at 8 feet but will actually have to be 8'-1" to meet C]BC requirements, should Ef City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 plans be changed to reflect this requirement; CA Anderson noted that can give direction that plate height should be done to conform to CBC; concerned about the master bedroom window (bay with clear story), this is the dark side of the house, neighbor cannot see because of landscaping so no harm to anyone if top window is kept, not care about the shape of the window, but would like to keep it for light. C. Coffey moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report and the additional condition that upon complaint by a neighbor the skylight shall be required to be covered by a blind which is operated by a sensor at night to screen light. The motion was seconded by C. Key. On the motion: people who drive on Hillside will also be affected by the light from the skylight, not just the neighbors; would like to add a condition that the plate height may be 8'-1", the maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amendment to the conditions; think we should deal with the skylight right now, have seen too many beacons, bay window is not as important an issue, OK, if do not remove triangular window; CA Anderson noted that commission could make a motion to amend the motion on this issue. C. Luzuriaga moved to amend the motion to change the condition regarding the skylight to require installing photo sensitive blinds as a part of construction. The :motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the motion to amend: what would be the additional cost, a couple of hundred dollars; what if the battery goes out, who would know. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to amend requiring a condition to have photo sensitive blinds in the skylight to block light at night. The vote was 6 -1 (C. Coffey dissenting) in favor of amending the condition in the original motion. C. Luzuriaga then moved to amend the original motion to add a condition to remove the triangular window above the bay in the master bedroom. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the motion to amend: this window does not affect anyone, it helps the dark side of the house; not opposed to window, just to placement at the top of the bay. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to amend the conditions and add the removal of the triangular window over the bay in the master bedroom. The motion to amend failed on a 2-5 (Cers. Bojuds, Coffey, Keighran, Key and Vistica dissenting). Chairman Deal then called for a voice vote on the amended main motion, 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 February 10, 1999, sheets A 1.0, A2.1 and A4.0, and date stamped February 17, 1999. sheets A2.0, A3.0 and A3.1 except that the finished plate height may be at a maximum of 8'-1" in accordance with the California Building Code; 2) that the landscaping on the east side of the property shall be retained, and shall be protected during construction by employing a program developed by a professional landscaper and In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, 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; 4) that the skylight shall be fitted with blinds which are photo sensitive and automatically close during the evening hours; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS AND FOR HEIGHT OF A GROUND SIGN AT 212 EAST LANE, ZONED C-2. (ALI KAZEMI, SIGNS OF ALL KINDS, APPLICANT AND ALICE L. AHO & JUDITH A. SCHENKOFSKY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners commented that the information requested at study was not submitted, wanted to see how this application compared to signage on California Drive, staff noted could ask the applicant; the photos of the site requested were not included, understood that they would be brought to the meeting; there is extreme lighting projecting from the building over a recently paved parking lot, who installed it and does the city have regulations addressing it, yes the city has an illumination ordinance, do not know if permits were issued for this lighting, ordinance limits the cone of light to the site. There were no other questions from the commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, the applicant was present to answer questions. The signage requested for the Myrtle frontage will not be lit. The lights installed on the building on East Lane do spill over onto the JPB right-of-way, they feel this is necessary for security purposes because a lot of cars are stored on this piece of right-of-way. There have been no complaints. Do not know if a permit was issued for the installation of the lights, was handled by a manager who is no longer working for him. Commission asked: if service business is closed why need internally lit sign, much of profit in the car sales business is from the service need these signs to be lit at night for advertisement, especially since this location is on a secondary street; what is the height of the existing pole on East Lane, about 15'; the new pole is 16'; compare your property signage to that on California, almost every auto dealer on California has more than 600 % of the signage allowed under the sign code, it has been that way to support the automobile sales businesses, this request is far less than the facilities on auto row; the height of the existing pole sign is 20 feet and the proposal is 24'-6" why; the plans and the staff report materials do not agree on the type of illumination, is the pole sign internally illuminated or not, don't know will install this sign at a later date top portion will be internally lit; seems clear that this building does not need a taller sign than allowed by code and have signage for brand on California, applicant noted that dealership on California may be relocated to the Broadway area after 2001, so signage here is important especially if there is no sales on California; what are the hours of operation for the service business, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. could go as late as 8 p.m., the sign on Myrtle (partially residential) will not be lit at all. There were no WIZ City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 more questions from the commission or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key noted that auto dealerships have always received more signage than the code allows, this use is on a secondary frontage and Honda needs the exposure no matter if they move in 2001, they are in competition with others and they need the same exposure, the signs on Myrtle will not be lit which would require a change in condition number four, understand the need for lighting across East Lane for the railroad right-of-way storage area, security is an issue there. For these reasons move approval of the sign exception request noting that the conditions should be amended to allow no illumination of any of the signage facing Myrtle Drive. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Commissioners on the motion: cannot support because of the number of signs and the maximum height of the free standing sign, can only support if free standing sign lowered to 20 feet; feel the same; cannot support because assume this area is a part of auto row, this is a transition area between auto row on California Drive and a large residential area, to assume that it is auto row now is a mistake, signage here needs to be more subtitle; several problems, installed a couple of large, obnoxious lights on East Lane side without permits, been cited for illegal signs and asked to remove but have not; will find on Myrtle and Putnam on Anita and Peninsula same level of signage requested here next to residential, need to look at whole picture, there is the same benefit; not asking that much concession, operation needs more directional signage than other businesses, since auto row is just across the railroad tracks; favor the application since there is no lighting of the signs on Myrtle. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The vote was 3-4 (Cers. Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica, Boju6s dissenting). Chairman Deal noted that the motion failed. C. Keighran moved approval of the sign exception request noting that this site is not located on California Drive in auto row with the changes to the application that there shall be no illumination of the signage on the Myrtle street frontage and that the maximum height of the proposed ground sign on the East Lane frontage shall be 20 feet. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Commission comment: does this exception go with the property, CA Anderson noted that it was permissible to limit this sign exception to vehicle sales and service uses on the site; C. Keighran moved that the conditions be amended to include the condition that the sign exception shall be limited to vehicle sales and service uses on this site, C. Luzuriaga, the second, agreed. Not opposed to the 24'-6" height, but will support the motion, the applicant can always appeal; agree, but feel that the additional 4 feet will be just enough to make the sign visible from Howard Avenue and will contribute to the success of this use at this location. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the following amended conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 25, 1999, except that the free standing ground sign shall be a maximum height of 20' as measured from adjacent grade and none of the signage on the Myrtle Road frontage of the site shall be illuminated; 2) that any increase in the number or the -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 signs on the primary frontage shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that the placing of illegal private signs which restrict the use of public parking or any other illegal sign placed on this site shall cause this sign exception to be reviewed; 4) that the sign exception shall be limited to vehicle sales and service uses on this site; and 5) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote. The motion passed on a 5-2 (C. Bojues and Vistica dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT, AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. PROPERTY OWNER) ( NOTICED). Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. CE Erbacher and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Public Works Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key recommended the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to Council, for the reasons stated, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) a final parcel map for lot merger must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by Subdivisions Map Act and City's Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this map should be considered as both 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; and 5) the map shall show the width of the right-of-way for California Drive, including centerline of right - of way, bearing and distances of centerline, and any existing monuments in the roadway. Motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the map to the City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote Chairman Deal requested that the agenda be revised and the project at 38 Lorton Avenue be taken before the general plan conformance determination at 1775 Gilbreth Road since the applicants for 38 Lorton Avenue had been waiting a long time and there appeared to be no one in the audience for the Gilbreth Road action. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON HEIGHT OF BUILDING FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (STEVE BELLUOMINI AND MARK CASTELLUCL APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission asked: how did -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 signs on the primary frontage shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that the placing of illegal private signs which restrict the use of public parking or any other illegal sign placed on this site shall cause this sign exception to be reviewed; and 4) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote. The motion passed on a 5-2 (C. Bojues and Vistica dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT, AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) ( NOTICED). Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. CE Erbacher and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Public Works Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key recommended the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to Council, for the reasons stated, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) a final parcel map for lot merger must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by Subdivisiions Map Act and City's Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this map should be considered as both 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; and 5) the map shall show the width of the right-of-way for California Drive, including centerline of right - of way, bearing and distances of centerline, and any existing monuments in the roadway. Motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the map to the City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote Chairman Deal requested that the agenda be revised and the project at 38 Lorton Avenue be taken before the general plan conformance determination at 1775 Gilbreth Road since the applicants for 38 Lorton Avenue had been waiting a long time and there appeared to be no one in the audience for the Gilbreth Road action. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON HEIGHT OF BUILDING FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (STEVE BELLUOMINI AND MARK CASTELLUCI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission asked: how did this happen; height was a condition of approval, other jurisdictions require foundation survey -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 to see that this does not happen, such survey was required here; CA Anderson noted that the issue here was the definition of "de minimus", staff needs direction; were surveys required along the way of construction, yes. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Castellucci, property owner and developer spoke, building permit said could build a maximum of 35 feet in height, architect took measurements from adjacent grade not top of curb as planning requires, so top of structure was 4" off; have surveyed volume of each unit for final map. Charles Kavanaugh, 470 Chatham Road, Engineer, spoke plans show building 35 feet tall from right Corner of the building as measured from finished grade, city measures from average top of curb; plans show elevations but not referenced to point of departure or average top of curb; did measure garage slab, first, second and third floors, all fit as shown on plan (without reference to point of departure). CA Anderson noted that it was Mr. Castellucci's responsibility to meet the height as shown on the plans submitted to the planning department which were the basis for the condominium permit and as the height was conditioned in the action letter he received at the end of that approval process, it was not the architects responsibility. Mr. Castellucci noted that this was a very flat lot and it was hard to work with it to get proper drainage, when discovered the problem did reduce the roof pitch because it was 6 to 7 inches over 35 feet. CA. Anderson noted that Mr. Castellucci was aware before the construction drawings were made what the city's requirements were. Commission asked if at any point realized that datum point used was incorrect, no. Kavanaugh noted that checked after the structure was framed because doing the final map for the condominium and city required measurement of the roof height, them was when the problem was found. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comment: made site inspection, saw peaked roof, don't know what to do, not serve any useful purpose to take off peak of roof; don't know how got: to this place, the height was written and went with the project; mistake can't imagine architect, surveyor creating on purpose of 4-7" problem with a multi -million dollar project, this is de minimum; if asked for a variance it would be hard to say take the top off the building, have a hard time thinking there was an ulterior motive; need to catch such errors before they happen, this is building department responsibility not planning. CA Anderson noted that the commission needed to determine what is de minimus about 4 inches over 35 feet or you need to amend this conditional use permit to state that the height of this building is 35'-4.44". C. Coffey moved by resolution to amend condition 3 to say that the maximum height of this building is 35'-4.44" as follows: 3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed eleveAiea 34-� 35'-4.4" as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Lorton Avenue (36.65'), and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on the motion: do not want to set a precedent with this action; need to get tougher in the Building Department and not let proceed to next step until survey in and accepted; this is just a determination for this project, it is not a precedent. CE Erbacher noted in this case the -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 property owner did the surveys as required he just picked the wrong datum point, he did reduce the roof slope to keep the error as small as possible. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to amend the conditions of approval to allow the maximum height of this building to be 35'-4.44" inches. The commission voted 7-0 to approve the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. DETERMINATION ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF AN 80' TALL TOWER FOR A LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM AT THE CITY'S SEWER LIFT STATION AT 1775 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED O-M. Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. CA Anderson noted that representatives of the Federal Government are entitle not to be at this meeting, they could condemn this land, the general plan compliance is required because they are leasing the land from the city. What does this tower look like, 18" in diameter at the base, 80' tall red pole; 80' is about 8 stories tall. There were no more comments or questions from the commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: would have liked to hear from the FAA and to have a description of the antenna; could put on a tall building like the Marriott and no one would see it; staff noted that placing any object on the Marriott would be an aviation hazard; could condition it to be a different color. C. Coffey commented that this proposed installation of an 80' tall. tower for a low level windshear alert at the City's sewer lift station is consistent with the General Plan. It should be noted for the record that Planning Commission asked that Council review the application for color of the pole with the request that it blend with the surroundings. :Further, it was requested that a condition be added noting that nothing be attached to the pole. He then moved recommendation of approval to the City Council noting consistency with the General Plan. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comments on the motion: assume that the pole is 18" in diameter based on field observation; do not consider it to be consistent with the plan because it is not sensitive to put next to the freeway in a highly visible place, at 80 feet it exceeds by a lot the 35 foot height review line applicable to every thing else; agree is it possible to find another site not next to the freeway or on top of a building. CA Anderson noted that they need a site that lines up with the runways. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend consistency with the general plan. The motion passed on a 6-1 vote (C. Luzuriaga dissenting). The item will be taken to the City Council for action. -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes PLANNER REPORTS February 22, 1999 - CP Monroe briefly reviewed the City Council regular meeting of February 17, 1999. - Discussion of when to meet to review revised regulations for food establishments. The commission decided to meet at 6:00 p.m. before their meeting on March 22, 1999, if the revisions to the draft ordinance were completed by then. If not the commission would meet before the next meeting when the revisions were available. - Discussion of nonconforming structures, additions and enlargements section of the code. No changes were suggested to the draft ordinance revisions and the Commission directed staff to set the proposed revisions to the nonconforming structures section of the zoning code for public hearing before the commission. - Commissioner Key commented that the commission might want to consider reviewing the sign code requirements and setting some standards for when property owners must apply for a master signage program. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. MINUTES2.22 -15- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary