Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.03.08REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 8, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the March 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: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher MINUTES The minutes of the February 22, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with the following corrections; page 11, 212 East Lane, condition nos. 1 & 4 should read: "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 the p 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 t 4. that the sign exception shall be limited to vehicle sales and service uses on this site; and 5) ". The February 22, 1999 minutes were then approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was amended taking the 2 discussion items off. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes STUDY ITEMS March 8, 1999 APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST ,AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2308 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN & SHIRIN COLEMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: does the .66 FAR indicated in the staff report include the accessory structure to be removed; how much landscaping is being lost at the rear of the house by being covered by the addition. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1411 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MICHAEL CHACON, APPLICANT AND JOHN WALTER & COLLEEN MCCOY, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: this project is mostly new construction, what would be the effects of adhering to required setbacks; plans show several skylights, can this number be reduced or can they be concealed from the street; would like a picture of the garage with the door open, can two cars be parked in the garage, also show in a picture; could engineering tell commission when the sidewalk repair is scheduled for this area, the driveway apron for this site is very wide; would like the vicinity snap in the staff report at a larger scale, cannot read; there is a lot of glass block in this building, it commences to make the structure look inhuman, could the applicant use windows with curtains instead; have the Chief Building Inspector confirm that the proposed interior stairs meet the CBC, if not altering them could affect the design and should be addressed before action. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SETBACK VARIANCES FOR FRONT ENTRY AND DECK ADDITIONS AND A NEW SINGLE -CAR GARAGE SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 260 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ANTONIO M. BRANDI, APPLICANT AND JOSE AND MARIA MONTES, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: what is the condition of the creek at this time, the minimum flow line and the mean water line; is applicant aware that there is currently a lot of silt in the creek and it may not be as deep as; he thinks, what does the applicant know about the current conditions of the creek; need a more detailed drawing showing the existing and proposed elevations; there is a laundry area shown in the garage, add dimensions for this area on the plans; has the basement area flooded in the past, will the potential of flooding affect its use; can the size of the garage be reduced to eliminate 81 SF and take away one exception; explain the reasons for the side deck, concerned about the privacy of -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 the neighbor next door; has the applicant considered a two car garage, why did he add only a one car garage; why is the semi -circular deck extending into the front setback needed when there is so much other decking; FAR formula works in favor of small lots, they are asking to increase even more, why. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1420 CASTILLO ,AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (SCOTT WYNN, APPLICANT AND KAREN AND DAN MCGEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: there is a ramp used by a disabled child at the rear, what are the ADA requirements for such a ramp, does it comply, is the child wheel chair bound, how does the child use the ramp; there are a large number of skylights in the roof, provide more information on their purpose, how the light would affect the neighbors; provide information on what was counted as habitable space within the structure since there is a lot of storage space shown on the plans; what is the ceiling height in the storage areas, please show on a section; why will the 6 skylights not become beacons of light at night; situation here that basement is first floor and floor above -seemingly first floor- where addition is being made is second floor. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning; Department in time. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA AND NUMI3ER OF SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE AT 1354 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (KATIE MAGUIRE, BEBE, APPLICANT AND PAUL AYOOB, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: seems to be a conflict between the sign permit application and the staff report, permit application says 4 signs, staff report 5, which is correct; signage request seems similar to others seen recently, could staff provide a table of recent sign exception applications on Burlingame Avenue frontage; could the applicant provide samples of the color palette for the signs; is a vertical banner allowed; address the blade sign's compatibility with this building. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE AREA, NUMBER OF SIGNS AND HEIGHT ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE AND FOR AREA AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE SECONDARY FRONTAGE AT 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED C-2. (OLIVEIRA SIGNS, APPLICANT, AND JAMES HANNAY, RECTOR MOTOR CAR COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: will any of the three signs on Cadillac Way be lit at night, if so how long; applicant should submit the color palette for the signs; the photo copies of the building are too dark to read, ask applicant to submit photographs for next packet; submit a letter addressing the Broadway frontage and why no signs -3- City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 are proposed for this frontage now and in the future; show drawings of the ground sign it is not clear that the foundation is wholly below grade. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE; PERMIT TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR A NON -AUTO RELATED BUSINESS WITH TAKE- OUT SERVICE AT 224 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D. (JORGE SALDANA APPLICANT AND FRANK LEMOS, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: include the minutes from all previous Planning Commission and Council actions on this project in the next packet; item number 7 from applicant indicates that they will provide private off-street parking for employees, where; would like to see a letter from the lessee and the terms of the arrangement for the off-street parking; increase number of employees to 10, how many more customers will come to the site; applicants letter cites other pizza parlors that open at 11 am, do some of these have conditional use permits and what are the limits on their hours; received a complaint from the Chamber of Commerce about the abuse of chamber parking be delivery vehicles, a continual enforcement problem for chamber because of the high turnover of delivery personnel, applicant should address. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES FOR NUMBER OF SPACES AND NUMBER OF COMPACT SPACES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN TO CONVERT EXISTING CONFERENCE FACILITIES TO 13 HOTEL ROOMS AT 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (MICHAEL ROACH, MARCHETTI CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPLICANT AND RED ROOF INNS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: is the variance request for 201 parking spaces based on having 85 compact parking spaces; provide a table showing the number of standard, compact, disabled accessible parking spaces provided and t required by code; have they looked at using uni-stalls, would there be any gain in number; are there any opportunities to replace landscaping with hard scape/parking area; sheet A0.1 indicates that they are providing 179 parking spaces, staff report says 201, do plans need to be revised; what is the average percentage of occupancy of rooms in the hotel; what happens if hotel guests park in the parking spaces designated for public access parking; converting conference room space to hotel rooms, how many parked cars did the conference room space generate compared to the number of cars generated by the use of the square footage as hotel rooms. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN TO INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 851 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. (LARRY M. LYONS, APPLICANT AND WESTATES VENTURE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: why was the parking lot restriped from 174 to 160 parking spaces; parking projection shows recommended minimum parking for the site to be 158, why only providing two more parking spaces than the recommended minimum; page 2 of the parking study states recommended parking based on 45,000 SF of useable floor area, how was that number arrived at; project a decrease in the number of employees in 5 years with occupancy at 100 %, why; found tenant information provided helpful, could applicant add to the table the number of customers who visit each office each week; seems to be an error in the applicant's December 3 memo regarding a parking variance of 31, do you mean 79; does applicant know the number of employees who now car pool; on -site visit saw one disabled accessible parking space, how many will be required with the remodel of the building; would like a floor plan of each floor in the building showing all walls and uses, how are the permanent partitions laid out; noted that other facades were looked at and rejected, what were they; prepare a table breaking out the square footage of the building by corridors, office, restrooms, elevators, mechanical rooms, lobby, and other non -leasable spaces; would use of uni-stall help parking number, evaluate. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. 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. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR -A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2115 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (HUGO ARENAS; APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE VIOLA, PROPERTY OWNER) APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY DECK REPLACEMENT AND ADDITION AT 2684 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JOE COSTA, GARAVAGLIA ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND JEANNIE KAUFMAN, PROPERTY OWNER) and -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 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) C. Deal moved approval of items #10, 2115 Poppy Drive, #11, 2684 Summit Drive and #12, 1336 Balboa 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. C. Luzuriaga noted for the record that he would be abstaining; from the vote on 2115 Poppy Drive. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion. The consent calendar items passed on a voice vote; 2115 Poppy 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga abstaining); 2684 Summit Drive and 1336 Balboa Avenue 7-0 voice vote. Chairman Deal commented that he did not understand why the applicant on Balboa could not make an addition to the garage that looked as if it was a part of the structure. Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR 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) Reference staff report, 3.8.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Nick Valerio architect for World Wrapps and Keith Cox, a founder of the company, spoke. This was the second store in the chain, expected to appeal more to a fast food crowd, find from experience customers want to eat on -site; want to add seating so more customers can eat on -site, want to improve the ambience in the dining room by removing the tall stools and tables; improve the kitchen efficiency, it is too far between stations now, this allows the increase in the seating area; will keep the: two tables on the street, have an encroachment permit for them; there is a miss print in the staff report they propose 20 to 22 tables with 44 seats. Want a higher quality level, better than fast food, more like fast casual; want to upgrade design to match quality of food; willing to spend money to improve the dining experience, the increase in seating can focus on desire to eat in. Commissioners asked: have you remodeled other stores, this is second, first is in Palo Alto will be finished on Friday; how has your traffic changed in the past two years, gone down lost about 30 % since the first year; was hooked on your product at your Marina store in San Francisco, lost my business after three visits, the level of the food was not the same. The public hearing was closed. fZ City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 C. Key noted that she had no problem with the expansion when she saw the direction they were coming from, to make it less fast food, need to build business base and meet customer need via research; on this basis she moved approval, by resolution, with the five conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 1, 1999, Sheets AO. 1, A2.1 and ID. 1, with a business site of 1529 SF and customer seating area of 434 SF; 2) that the applicant shall maintain daily, or more often if necessary, the trash receptacle(s) of the streetscape design as approved by the City to be located inside the door, along Burlingame Avenue at the front of the store, and/or at locations as required and approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Department; 3) that the food establishment with take-out service may not be open for business, except during the hours of 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. daily, with no more than 6 employees on site at any one time including the manager, and that the number of customers and employees on this site shall never exceed fire department occupancy requirements; 4) that the applicant shall remove once a day, or more frequently if determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, all take-out debris on the sidewalk and on sidewalk tables and chairs, in the gutter, and in planters, in front of the store along Burlingame Avenue, and within 50' on each side of the store front, and shall arrange and pay for additional BFI pick up service to dispose of trash in cans provided on site or on street if necessary as determined by the City Engineer; and 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Coffey seconded the motion. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 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) Reference staff report, 3.8.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if there is any open neon on Burlingame Avenue, staff responded at La Pinata and arrow on Left at Albuquerque; staff report needs to be clarified allowed 60 % of allowed signage if sign is over 12' from the ground, yeas. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Glen Galliher, 2021-130th Avenue, Bellevue WA, Michelle Spaulding, 4200 The Woods Drive, #1610 San Jose, Bruce Kirkbride, 1229 Burlingame Ave, property owner were present to answer questions. If the projecting sign is any smaller it will be hard to manufacture, reduced from 50 SF to 30 SF without the: "open" sign; the sign on the site in 1924 had a box on the bottom, without anything at the bottom it will look odd; Vice President of Luggage Center contracted with his firm about a year ago, sent picture of Miller Drug sign and spent about $200,000 on improvements, this sign was the key to the historic -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 preservation. Commissioners asked: how is the clock lit, with a neon grid inside, not see from the outside just even illumination; luggage center lettering will be yellow -how bright at night, it will be gold neon like the Il Fornaio sign about 30 milli amps, will. have no red, when it is lit the letters will be gold; like historical aspect of sign but corner will become focal point for this store and without photos hard time visualizing the gold neon, not offensive in terms of illumination -sign is very similar to hotel sign; where will there be open neon tubing, scroll on corners of sign, boarder around clock, luggage center wording in yellow tubing, blue neon tube around the "open" sign, the lettering of the open sign is white neon tubing, there is no blue on the upper portion of the sign; a commissioner noted that there is painted blue metal on the upper portion of the sign; hard to tell from photo whether there was neon on the old sign or what size it was, proposed sign no where near as big as the old sign; did you bring a Pantone book, no. Property owner commented that there were a lot of power shortages on that side of Burlingame Avenue -concerned about how the clock would remain set, have a remote reset button inside the store. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concerned about the projecting sign, looked at the Pantone book, this will be a very bright sign; don't think they need the "open" sign attached at the bottom of the projecting sign; other signs OK; concern about the brightness, there is a lot of gold neon on the sign, like the idea of trying to address the sign that was there before, acids variety to the signage on the avenue, don't think the projecting sign is too big; gold is not as bright as red; not happy about open sign at the bottom but if it is removed need something at the bottom to finish the projecting sign, at least a scroll which is more traditional to have on this type of sign; concerned about illumination since it projects from the corner 5 feet it will become a beacon; hard to act don't know enough about how it will look; prefer to see the open sign go, but will not look finished without something at the bottom; gold neon is OK have a problem with blue during the day, am not sure what this application will look like. C. Luzuriaga noted that he was very concerned about the blue neon, seen too many blue neon signs which give the wrong image, this is not a night club or movie theater; the blue neon should be removed from the open sign, the gold is not too bright but there should be no blue neon on the upper part of the sign only yellow and white. He then moved to approve the sign exception; by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report and the: added condition that the s open sign shall be removed from the projecting sign and that there shall be only gold and white neon on the sign. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on the motion: would like the bottom of the sign to be finished with the same soft edge which works on the top, a smaller mimic of the top, feel we should continue the item in order to get that change; object to the open sign. In response to request about commission's latitude, CA Anderson noted that commission could require that the sign be redone with the open bottom replaced to a maximum square footage or could continue the item to your next meeting and ask the applicant to submit a redesign and put it on the consent calendar; commission could also deny the application without prejudice and have the applicant resubmit. 10 City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 C. Luzuriaga amended his motion to continue this item and to brink; it back to the consent calendar allowing the exception for 3 SF of area but that the sign be redesigned, eliminating the open sign, and replacing it with a decorative finish at the bottom of the sign which balances the scroll work at the top and that there be no blue neon on the sign. C. Key the second agreed to the amendment to the original motion. Comment on the amended motion: when the applicant returns would :like to see the PMS blue color paint of the same finish as proposed to be used; should put PMS swatches on each application (eight sets); think splitting hairs, can't have open but can have the bottom of the sign a different shape; not clear on why cannot have open sign; open sign belongs on the store front, this is cantilevered out over the street which is community property because it is over the sidewalk, open signs belong on the building face. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue the item so that the proposed revisions could be reviewed on the consent calendar at a time when the applicant is ready. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Since no action was taken this item is not appealable to the City Council at this time. APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA OF SIGNS ON THE SECONDARY FRONTAGES AT 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY APPLICANT AND WEIMAN SYNDICATE, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.8.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commissioners. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jack Abele, 1051- 46th Avenue, Oakland represented the project. The requested size is based on the building, when looked at the code saw this as a one story building missed the fact that signs over 12 feet could be only 60% of allowed signage; need to look at the full elevation to see the true mass of the building; there is no choice about height since placement is based on building design; try for mirror image in placing the signs since will be seen in close and repeating; the adjoining parking lot is elevated 5 to 6 feet, that is the reason asked for additional height on that side. Commissioner asked about the whiteness of the Mollie Stone letters, sign facing Burlingame Avenue should be more pedestrian oriented would you consider reducing its size further, need to discuss with owner, want good exposure to El Camino traffic traveling north; could you relocate this sign to the upper part of the wall would raise it above eye level and could be read more as a vehicle sign, roof is curved could move to upper parapet wall; is the proposed sign the same size as that shown in the photo, it is similar. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 C. Coffey noted that he had reviewed application and tried to consider how intrusive signs requested would be, code allows 9 signs which would be offensive and if lower could add 52 SF to the total signage would also be offensive; size is less, number is less, height is determined by the building, am in favor of application; do not find proposed will block traffic, white is a neutral color, on these facts move to approve the sign exception request by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Comment on the motion: the sign will have a high impact, it is a little too large, could reduce the ones on the south and north sides, could balance program by making them the same size; applicant does himself a disservice by showing only part of the building; when look at the whole elevation the sign fits the proportions better, the set back is good as is the distance from El Camino, the balance of the program is important because one will see two signs at once at the corner, prefer this application to 9 signs, it's clean and simple; agree with proposal for Chapin frontage, problem is the parking lot frontage facing Burlingame Avenue could raise and size to fit in upper parapet area, this sign is too low; have reviewed a number of applications for signs on Burlingame Avenue, nowhere has there been the amount of illumination as this request, the sign is at eye level and will have a strong impact on that end of Burlingame Avenue; like to see the sign facing the parking lot on Burlingame Avenue relocated to the area above or reduced in size if left where it is so that it will not overwhelm the pedestrians on. Burlingame Avenue. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with staff proposed conditions. The motion failed on a 3-4 (Cers. Keighran, Key, Visitica and Boju6s dissenting) vote. C. Key moved to approve the sign exception for the site at 1477 Chapin Avenue with the sign fronting on Chapin as designed and the sign facing the parking lot on Burlingame Avenue relocated to the upper parapet and the sign size made to fit in the area between the front of the building and the Pac Bell building so long as the finished sign does not exceed 48.8 SF which was the size proposed, by resolution, and with the conditions in the staff report, as amended by this motion: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 2, 1999, (8.5" x 14") and February 1, 1999 (Sheets ALL and A1.3) except that the sign facing the parking lot on Burlingame Avenue shall be relocated to the upper parapet wall, shall be redesigned to fit the space on that wall and shall not exceed a maximum of 48.8 SF; 2) that any increase in the 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. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve as amended for the sign facing Burlingame Avenue. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Boju6s dissenting) roll call vote. CA Anderson noted that -the applicant could apply Hill City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 for a sign permit with the modification as approved without appealing. Appeal rights and procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AT 820 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED O-M. (HARVE`.r' HACKER, HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND JOHN MONFREDINI, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.8.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if a condition requiring all rental contracts to be written in Burlingame had been left out; how can the prohibition on long term storage on the site be enforced, would be on complaint generated from the number of cars overflowing the site. There sfwere no further questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Harvey Hacker architect, 528 Bryant Street, SF, and Erin Polari, Enterprise Rent -a -Car presented the project. The reason :for the change to the site is the opening of the central rental facility at SFO, there is a big service facility there so the current facilities on Malcolm are not needed; the former use of this site was to provide rental cars for air travelers, now that service will be provided on airport; Enterprise is left with a building at a good location without a business, have decided to treat it as a new Enterprise business site and will develop a car rental business focused on replacement rentals and hotel visitors; since the major service facility is at the airport, can convert the service facilities on this site to office for a regional bookkeeping, customer service, etc., site. The use will be regular 9 to 5 like an office building; the same 100 car rental fleet will be leased from the site and will provide on -site parking for 50 % of the fleet; the current landscaping; was approved with the former use permit; prefer to keep the existing parking with limited landscaping as required before so that there is space on -site for the employees as well as for the rental fleet. There are 100 Enterprise outlets and three regional offices in the Bay Area, company has decided to divide the area into four regions and Burlingame was the logical place to locate a new regional office. t Commissioners asked: how will this operation affect your facility on Carolan, each office has its own assigned territory, this new office will focus on the hotels and body shops in the immediate area (east of 101); all the contracts will be written in Burlingame; say you will have a fleet of 100 cars but write only 25 contracts a day- what will be the traffic patterns to SFO to use their maintenance facilities, like to keep 85-90% of the fleet out, these will be longer term rentals than those from the airport which are often one day; how will you move cars from Burlingame to the airport for maintenance, this site will have minimal. contact with the airport site (each is independent of the other) no maintenance will occur on this site (new cars oil changes contracted off site) most will be detailing; where will the cars be washed, don't know yet most likely to SFO or a local car wash. Application states request for variance for landscaping, you received variance for landscaping before because needed space for cars renting and writing contracts in Burlingame when service primarily to airport travelers- now remove -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 vital location for rentals, write fewer contracts, need less on -site parking, but not want to provide more landscaping, this site is not just less landscaping it has 26 % of what is required, you hope to build fleet in the future and have major addition of office, zoning code focuses on developing office in this area but places an emphasis on providing adequate parking for it and meeting other development criteria such as landscaping, won't work; you will have 25 to 30 cars which will not leave the lot, at the beginning there will be some extra parking until the fleet reaches the level of rentals it had before they moved to the airport. CA Anderson noted that in order for this site to be compliant with the zoning a condition should be added which prohibits the leasing of any of the office space on this site to any other tenant. Commission asked how big is the Enterprise fleet on Carolan, don't know under 100 cars; now talk about 25 office workers cars plus 80 spaces for rental fleet which will not need that much space, bottom line, there is adequate room to bring landscaping up to code, applicant noted that does not address odd days when business is slow and have more cars on -site than usual. Steven Wagner, 840 Malcolm, spoke in opposition, represents Joseph Cochette who owns an office building at 840 Malcolm, building immediately to the west of the applicant's site; concerned about this proposal, business decision to use site for administrative offices, but will continue car rental so have a hodge podge of uses on the site; no guarantee that the traffic will not get worse with same size rental fleet plus office; a lot of traffic from moving vehicles in and out now, how will rental vehicles be transported; don't know how to address landscaping, received notice of hearing, came and looked at plans, but not enough time to prepare, this is such a rushed process; happy complied in past how will this now affect parking, major concern is traffic and double parking, this is a quiet area which is uncongested; there is also a history of accidents in the area, dangerous to pedestrians, people walking across Malcolm; storage of vehicles means more cars on -site for a longer time, can block driveways, if want administrative offices and no car rental OK but if add administrative to predominantly car rental site that will increase traffic. Requested that item be continued so he will have time to review the landscaping issue. CA Anderson noted that the notice for this item was mailed on February 26, 1999, as required by law and the notice noted that the plans were available in the city offices for review, therefore due process has been served. s The applicant responded: cars come and go from the site driven by the hiker staff, move all day long 13-15 people who do that service; traffic will change since there will be no more shuttles from the airport bring customers back and forth; same number of vehicles will park with a higher number of all day parkers, the office employees, so should reduce traffic; not clear where the cars get maintained, washed at a local car wash, not proposing to do any maintenance on the site, on -site employees take cars for maintenance. The public hearing was closed. C. Coffey moved to deny this application, without prejudice, on their return applicant should address a landscape layout which meets code requirements with parking as required for the office use and for the car rental fleet based on the 25 % requirement in the code, a determination on -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1999 the dual business nature of the use of the site, provide additional review of the previous variances granted and the findings for them. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Commissioner comment on the motion: agree on closer inspection that could reorganize parking on -site and not loose as many parking spaces and add landscaping; should add to the items to address with resubmittal that no other tenants or subleasors should be allowed on the site, that there shall be no car washing on -site, would like to see a business plan projecting expansion of the car rental and administrative use for a one year and then a two year period, and to review this site for compliance regularly and upon complaint. Where will. the car wash and auto detailing or maintenance be done, need to know specific answers. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without: prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe briefly reviewed the City Council regular meeting of March 1, 1999, ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. MINUTES3.8 -13- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary