Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.03.22City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 22, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the March 22, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 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; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the March 8, 1999., regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as delivered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR Constance Cohen, 105 Lexington Avenue, spoke on the incompatibility and inappropriateness of the new, recently approved Sheraton sign, visual eyesore to her neighborhood, please consider this effect on the neighborhoods when reviewing such signs in the future - too big, too bright, no notice. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-STORY, 7--UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 535 ALMI R ROAD, ZONED R-3. (KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA, APPLICANT AND JOAN LUTZ,_PROPERTY OWNER) A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP CP Monroe reviewed the project briefly and the commissioners asked: would like to see the number of stories in this project reduced; how would guest and delivery parking space use be designated on -site; note that the number of dwelling units on site have been reduced from 8 to -2- City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 7, but mass and bulk were not really addressed, only 568 SF has been removed from the structure, please explain how this addresses a reduction in massing; would applicant mark on a reduced set of plans the number of bedrooms and square footage of each unit; concerned about the size of the building, no reduction in foot print; neighbor has commented, applicant should address each point in the neighbor's letter; project still needs to address design issues of roof and windows on side elevations; some parts of the building have 8 foot ceilings, want to see how between floor assemblies will work to meet all the 'construction standards for condominiums, provide graphic; staff should ask the Chief Building Official to comment on the use of van accessible parking, can someone in the units use it or can it be used only for guest parking. There were no further questions from the staff and the item was set for public hearing on April 12, 1999, if all the information needed is submitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (CARL & GRACE BREDL, APPLICANT, AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the project briefly and the commissioners asked: at what hours are they expecting delivery trucks and where will they park; clarify hours of operations, application states different hours in summer and winter, but staff report gives single set of hours, why; where will employees park and how will applicant enforce no employees driving to work; what items beside juice drinks will be sold; what has been their experience with similar businesses about when the peak demand periods are during the day, during the week; how do you justify this use as a retail use not a food service; where and how many trash receptacles will be provided; what does the applicant plan to do about signage; what are the on -street parking limitations in front of this business; do not see how, based on number of customers proposed, business can be financially viable, explain customer count projections; estimate 9 employees, will all of them be on site at one time, do the proprietors include themselves in the employee count; seems the number of employees is disproportionate to the proportion of the building being used by this business, address. There were no further questions from the staff and the item was set for public hearing on April 12, 1999, if all the information needed is submitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RECONFIGURE THE PARKING LOT AT THE EXISTING MARRIOTT HOTEL AT 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (GREG JENSEN, MILE HI VALET, APPLICANT AND HOST MARRIOTT, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the project briefly and the commissioners asked: will paid parking decrease self parking and increase valet parking, applicant should document split of usage; what is the hotel policy for cabs, how do they regulate, how will their parking pattern fit in with the circulation pattern; how is the public access parking at the north end of the site monitored, is it principally used by employees of the hotel; would like to have the next staff report include all the minutes (Planning Commission and Council) from city review of this site; have all the conditions of the December 1997 application been met; provide figures on the current level of parking lot usage and the vacancy rate at different times of day; has the applicant considered -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 reducing the number of parking stalls designated for car rental parking and making them available to hotel guests; who parks in the below grade garage; application shows 233 employees, show on a map of the area where these people park, how many drive and how many get to work by other means and what are those means; what is the square footage of the meeting and convention facilities at this hotel and what is their maximum occupancy number; shows that 7,227 is the maximum number of people on site at one time, how do they get there and where do they park; provide the frequency of parking demand by season and (luring the day and during the week. There were no further questions from the staff and the item was set for public hearing on April 12, 1999, if all the information needed is submitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PARKING AREA, PAID SELF -PARKING AND VALET PARKING AT THE EXISTING DOUBLETREE HOTEL AT 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (BRUCE CARLTON, DOUBLETREE HOTEL, APPLICANT AND TODAY'S III, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the project briefly and the commissioners asked: how many cars will overflow into the landfill lot; what is the number of cars that use the rear exit (the one operated by remote control); what is the pattern/plan for handling cabs, show on the parking plan; explain the process that a lunch guest would go through to park; is this program typical of other hotels in the area which control parking; the City Attorney pointed out that in light of this request to use the landfill area for valet parking, the applicant needs to talk to the City Manager in the next few days about a required amendment to the lease agreement for the use of that facility. There were no further questions from the staff and the item was set for public hearing on April 12, 1999, if all the information needed is submitted to 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 AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 55 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND KOREEN BYRNE, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Luzuriaga noted that he lived within the notice area so would abstain from this action. C. Coffey 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. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR CALENDAR March 22, 1999 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 18 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1. (KEN HALL, APPLICANT AND TOM CONDON, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. C. Vistica stated that he lived within the notice area so would abstain from this action. C. Vistica left the podium. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. In her presentation CP Monroe amended condition 3 requiring that the half of the accessory structure required to be removed with the previous building permit be removed before final inspection of that work and that the remaining; accessory structure be removed prior to issuing a subsequent building permit; she noted the addition of a fifth condition that the applicant shall be obligated to provide a fire rated wall on the neighboring property line where the accessory structure is to be removed. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Ken Hall, 329 Malcolm Avenue, Belmont, spoke. They have no problem with condition 5; originally the house was sett back 70 feet, it was a cottage, has been added on to and they are about to complete another addition, accept the condition that the accessory structures be removed before they final that addition. The 1995 addition added two covered parking spaces and the master bedroom. This addition will tie the style of the front and rear additions together, change the rooflines and complete the second floor so that the structure will look like a single structure. Property owner wants all the bedrooms on the same floor for future children, rotated the rear roof which eliminated the large gable faces on the sides and matches the rest of the architecture of the house, also moves the second story into the structure; before had a large porch on the front to make the second story fit, but this pushed the project over FAR so reduced the size of the addition to eliminate the FAR variance; went to neighbors and. talked to them, 20 signed letters of support. Stan Vistica, 24 Arundel Road, support the application, have seen it come a long way from the original, no variances are now required. Lot of problems with these three properties since the current owners purchased them from an estate safe; concerned about the encroachment of their accessory structure on to his property, suggest that the following condition of approval be added in place of the one suggested by the City Planner. The applicant after demolition of the accessory structure that encroaches on adjoining property, 24 Arundel, repair the adjoining property by: (1) remove all footings that are not required between the garage wall at 24 Arundel and 18 Arundel; (2) leave the slab on garde intact between the garage wall on 24 Arundel and the property line dividing the adjoining properties. Repair as necessary to complete a finished slabs between the garage wall and the property line; (3) construct a one -hour fire rated wall with a three coat cement plaster exterior surface, finish to match 24 Arundel. This wall shall be built to current government code standards with one-half inch cdx plywood sheathing on existing framing; (4) replace facia board to match existing; (5) repair any damage to roof to ensure no leaks will occur; and (6) this work shall be finished and inspected before issuance of a building permit for the proposed project. Commissioner asked: has a survey been done to determine the -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 location of fences at property line, yes; are you concerned that your neighbor might not extend the property line fence to the rear property line and use the side of your garage instead of a fence, no we can agree on the location of the fence in the future. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: applicant has tried to work with the design reviewer and has changed the project to improve it; not like all the bulk at the front of the house, but it is existing. C. Luzuriaga noted that at first he was taken aback by the front portion of the house approved in 1995, it does not fit the neighborhood, but as looked carefully the applicant has redesigned to avoid variances; the two structures need to be tied together, the front fence is being removed to provide a more open, landscaped front, the boat will be removed into the garage; for these reasons move for approval, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report, condition 3 as amended by the city planner and condition 5 as requested by the neighbor; conditions to read as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 26, 1999, sheets 1 through 5, and shall include a hipped roof form at the rear; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the work under the previous building permit shall be completed, including removal of one-half of the accessory structures at the rear of the lot, finalled and receive an occupancy permit and the remaining accessory structures in the rear shall be removed prior to issuing a subsequent building permit for this proposed addiction (Plans date stamped February 26, 1999); 4) that the applicant, after demolition of the accessory structure that encroaches on adjoining property at 24 Arundel, shall repair the adjoining property by: (1) remove all footings that are not required between the garage wall at 24 Arundel and 18 Arundel; (2) leave the slab on grade intact between the garage wall on 24 Arundel and the property line dividing the adjoining properties. Repair as necessary to complete a finished slabs between the garage wall and the property line; (3) construct a one -hour fire rated wall with a three coat cement plaster exterior surface, finish to match 24 Arundel. This wall shall be built to current government code standards with one-half inch cdx plywood sheathing on existing framing; (4) replace facia board to match existing; (5) repair any damage to roof to ensure no leaks will occur; and (6) this work shall be finished and inspected before issuance of a building permit for the proposed project; 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 seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The commissioners voted 6-0-1 (C. Vistica abstaining) to approve. Appeal procedures were advised. 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) Chairman Deal indicated that he would abstain from this item since he had a business relationship with the applicant. Vice -Chairman Coffey took over the gavel. Reference staff City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 report, 3.22.99, with attachments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. CP Monroe noted that there was a revised elevation at the commissioner's desks showing a 6 inch reduction in the height proposed to the windows on the side elevation reducing the two "clear story windows" from 3' x 5.5' to 2.5' x 5.5'. There were no questions from the commission on the project. Vice -Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. John Coleman, 2308 Hale Drive, property owner spoke, noted that his family had increased in number to 6, house is too small need to add a fourth bedroom and increase the kitchen so that they can all live there; neighbors have reviewed the plans and said that they are OK; intend to remove the accessory structure in the rear yard, replace with a sports court for the children, the bicycles kept there now will be stored in the garage with the cars. Commissioner asked about the 7 x 40 window labeled future, applicant noted that this window location is next to the basketball court not sure that they want a window which can be broken there at this time but would like to put one in at a future date. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga commented that he had reviewed the proposed application, agree with the design reviewer, this is a small addition of about 1000 SF and the only issue is the side setback which is needed to keep the consistency with the rear of the building and in this circumstance stepping it in would be a hardship, move approval, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 22, 1999, sheets 1 through 7, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Roof Plan and Elevations, as revised by plans date stamped March 22,1999, showing 2.5' x 5.5' dimensions for two windows at the rear of the second story in the master bedroom on the north elevation (side) of the proposed structure; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the shed in the rear yard shall be removed before the property owner or his contractor calls for a final inspection, such final inspection shall not be done until the shed is removed; and 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. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. On the motion: think applicant pointed out that if submitted this under the current code provisions such a large house would not be allowed, however this was submitted before the code changed in October, there will not be many more like this one; would like to add a condition that the shed in the rear yard be removed, C. Luzuriaga the maker of the motion and C. Boju6s the second agreed to adding a condition. Vice -Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amendment of the reduced window size and the condition that the shed in the rear yard be removed before final inspection. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 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) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. John Walter and Colin McCoy, property owners at 1411 Grove, and Mike Chacon, architect, 561 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, spoke. They noted that the initial issue in the design of this project was privacy from the four story apartment building next door; they made several revisions to the project including removing all the glass block except for the bathroom window facing the inner courtyard; the addition is all at the rear of the house, the front of the house is unchanged and have kept the same style; there are 39 homes in the immediate area and 17 of them have second stories; this is a transition zone between the apartments on El Camino and the single family homes on Grove; wanted to align the first and second story walls for structural integrity; need the skylights because of the shadow from the adjacent apartment building, have removed them from the plans presented tonight; the building is not as high as it seems because of the height of the adjacent apartment building; showed computer generated simulation pictures to scale to document the visual. effect of the massing of the addition. Commissioner asked photo does not look the same as the north elevation of the building, computer is a more accurate view because it can project from the pedestrian level; stair case shown on the plans is not legal, can you achieve a legal stair without changing the windows, yes. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that he could support this application, there have been several good revisions, the height, mass and bulk work pretty well, it is stepped back nicely between the apartment building and the single family house next door; use declining height to preserve light to neighboring properties, but this addition is not going to block light to adjacent because of the height and mass of the apartment building; there is an additional hardship that the lot is only 40 feet wide with a very large structure on one side; for these reason move approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 5, 1999 Sheets 2-3 and date stamped March 12, 1999 East Elevation View, Grove Avenue Elevation, Sheets la, lb, and 4-6 and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building or garage 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), skylight(s), or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and City Engineer's October 26, 1998 memos shall be met; and 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. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minuses The motion was seconded by C. Key. March 22, 1999 On the motion: at first the front elevation looked awkward, but the computer montage provides a sense of what a pedestrian will see, the property is up against the apartment building and does indeed create a transition; try to create some privacy for this site in design; applicant stated that reason for exception was structural integrity of building first floor over second floor walls, important to know that there are better and more valid reasons for the exceptions. CA confirmed that the glass block, except for the bathroom window, and skylights had been removed from the plans cited in this approval, and were not a part of this approval. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES TO ADD NEW UNCOVERED DECKING SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND TO EXPAND INTO AN EXISTING BASEMENT, AND A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 260 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ANTONIO M. BRANDI, APPLICANT AND JOSE AND MARIA MONTES, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. City Attorney noted that the city does not recommend building decks over creeks as is requested by this applicant. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Tony Bandi, architect, representing the owner spoke. He noted that they are not adding any square footage to the building, they are changing the garage to increase the yard area; it is unfortunate that the main floor- is called a second story because the decks then cause a lot of lot coverage; the house had a deck over the full extension of the creek, it decayed and fell down; submitted pictures to the design reviewer, they are trying to enhance the appearance of the property; the deck at the front is not an appendage, it is a continuation of the deck on the side. Commissioner asked if all the windows would be replaced and what kind, will replace with sliders, no divided mullions, would be windows by the new front entrance; there would be French doors on the creek side; commissioner noted have decking at the rear where CBC will require one hour construction for fire protection, how will you address, build of heavy timber or cut back so meet fire requirement, hoped it could be grand fathered since deck was there before. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: have a problem with the decks, aesthetically reminds me of a summer place, not fit in with other houses on the block, am opposed; also concerned about decks over creeks, the garage is all right; unique lot, left over from other development years ago, no land and little cottage, have to help so that they have a livable structure; the deck over the creek is their yard; realize circumstances, hard to get livable area, this is a good effort, hard to judge this project on current code; concerned about creek next to the house, small lot but not crowded, R1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 have adequate space; saw no yard at rear, deck may not fit into neighborhood but it enhances the house, this is a 3100 SF lot without a rear yard; concerned about the FAR, this project is over the maximum by 81 SF, FAR formula provides a benefit to smaller lots, and still exceed, so cannot support FAR variance, can take 81 SF from garage and comply; 81 SF could be added to the rear yard; see no reason for the deck at the front and need to remove the deck at the rear because of code requirements, side deck over creek is all right since need some useable area, if remove front and rear deck extensions would reduce lot coverage to about 51 % and eliminate FAR variance, see the hardship for the other variances. Chairman Deal moved to deny this application, without prejudice, and directed that the decking at the front and rear be removed, that 81 SF be removed from the garage so that a variance for floor area ratio was no longer necessary. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on the motion: suggest that it be clear that the area removed not be added someplace else on the site; concerned about the elevation of the outside door to the lower level, door is 16" above the standard flow in the creek, need to continue the wall in front of the door to keep water out in a flood. Chairman Deal noted that a direction be added to require that the concrete wall be extended to keep water out of the stairway and that this project, with the proposed revisions, can be brought back on the consent calendar, C. Key the second agreed to the changers to the motion. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice with direction. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 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) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Scott Wynn, 1785 Egbert Ave., San Francisco and Dan McGee spoke. Design review comments were favorable. Does the commission have any questions. Commissioners asked, would you explain the role of the skylights in the ventilation system, use skylights to draw stagnate, warm air up and out of the house; would you consider tinting the skylights to reduce night glare, yes it would also reduce solar load; upper bathroom has three small openings are these windows, yes plan shows as 6 " elevation as 12" they are to let light .in to the bathroom during the day, the view is poor from this area. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted that the design review of this project was favorable, can support, the lot coverage is 44 % but a lot of that is deck on this steep lot and not offensive to any one; the detached garage should be considered since it is something commission encourages people to -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 provide; would move approval by resolution with conditions stated in the staff report and adding a condition that the skylights be tinted to reduce night time glare: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 25, 1999, sheets 1 through 11, and that the skylights shall be fitted with tinted glass or plastic which will reduce the night light glare, it will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain this tinted covering permanently; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the applicant shall comply with the City Engineer's February 1, 1999 memo requiring drainage to be brought to the frontage at Castillo Avenue; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995, as amended by the City of Burlingame The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE AT 1354 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (KATIE MAGUIRE, BEBE, APPLICANT AND PAUL AYOOB, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked there appears to be remodeling occurring at the rear of Electric -Avenue is it a part of this project, don't know ; table on page 3 does not state what exceptions to the code were granted for each signage program; what is the size of the blade sign for Banana Republic, do not recall. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Katie McGuire, 956 Tanaro, San Francisco, represented the applicant. The blade sign is about the same size as the others on the avenue; presented a picture of a blade sign at another location for how it looks, the shape proposed is not quite the same as in the photo; will this business extend into the Electric Avenue site, no it occupies the Waldensbooks and Grocery Store sites. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: concerned about the blade sign, not sure blade sign fits on this building, could eliminate blade and reduce number of sign exceptions; feel blade sign is a necessary marketing tool, it encourages people who stroll the avenue, if only window signs have to be in front of to see, it will blend in and we need to support the merchants, not out of line; bothered by fact that there are not two blade signs like Banana Republic, prefer to see two smaller signs; this is not a large number of signs, only 10 SF over what have granted to others. Is sign exception tied to property like variance, CA responded yes in terms of number and size but can only replace at same dimension at same location. C. Luzuriaga stated he was comfortable with blade sign, lettering is elegant and appropriate, if any change in size or number in future commission will review, color is black, move approval -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minuses March 22. 1999 of the sign exception by resolution with conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Comment on the motion: would like to add a condition that all future signs on this site have the same black and white color scheme. C. Luzuriaga maker of the motion and C. Coffey second, agreed to amendment. Further comment: generally in favor, agree with idea that this blade sign is over two times the size of that on Banana Republic, this is going to be quite large and dominate avenue, prefer two smaller blade signs; would be comfortable if this blade sign was the same size as Banana Republic, put one or 2 signs or comeback. Maker of the motion and second did not agree to this amendment. C. Bojues moved to amend the original motion to provide a blade sign of the same size and shape as on Banana Republic, for the applicant to revise the sign application and its request, to continue this item as revised to the consent calendar for action on April 12, 1999. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the amended motion to continue this item to the consent calendar for the meeting of April 12, 1999. The motion passed on a voice vote. There was no action on the sign exception and the item was continued to the meeting of April 12, 1999. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE AREA, NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS 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 E. HANNAY, RECTOR MOTOR CAR COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked the maximum height of a monument and pole sign; monument, 12' and pole 20' max. _ C. Deal opened the public hearing. Anna de Olivera, and Ferdinand de Olivera, Olivera Signs, 290 So. Jefferson Street, Dixon, representing the applicant explained that the term pylon sign and a pole sign should be interpreted as the same. City Planner clarified that a pole sign has to be free standing and have 10' ground clearance between the ground and the bottom of the sign. There were no further comments and the public hearing was cllosed. Commission discussion: the four lit signs on Cadillac Way that are perpendicular to the street do not give off much light, but the lit Porsche sign facing the street should be limited to the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. because of the Northpark Apartments across the street; could turn them off at 10:00 p.m. since this is the service entrance. -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Afarrh 22. 1999 C. Bojues agreed the signs are nicely done and do not need illumination all night, he then so moved approval, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report amending the time of illumination, as follows: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 1, 1999 (11" x 17" Site Plan, Cadillac Way Building Elevation, Ground Sign Elevation, and Ground Sign Installation); and the signs shall only be illuminated from 7:00 a. in. to 10:00 p.m.; and March 12, 19,99 (81/2" x 11") Ground Sign and Wall Sign Elevations); 2) that the applicant shall apply for a sign exception for any additional signs to be put on this site or any changes in copy on these signs prior to installation of the sign or change in copy; 3) that the `Porsche' wall sign (6 'x 12', 72 SF) shown on the site plan (sign G) date stamped February 1, 1999, on the Broadway frontage shall be removed prior to installation of the new signs on Rollins Road and Cadillac Way; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 10, 1999 memo shall be met; 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. C. Key seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: could the wall sign be moved from 14' to 12', this is auto row, need exposure from 101, would support 14' height because of increase in sales. There were no further comments. Chairman Deal called for the vote on the motion to approve with hours of illumination on Cadillac Way at 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 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) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and. Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal opened the public hearing. Mike Roach, 184 Harbor Way, So. San Francisco, explained there would be no change in the footprint of the hotel. At the: present time the parking lot is underused and 50% of the customers are bussed to the site via shuttle. Occupancy was 76 % last year. C. Coffey noted the change from meeting room to guest rooms would lower the potential parking demand to a lesser figure and noted that there would therefore be no negative impact on the surrounding property owners and there is adequate capacity shown on the traffic analyzer to accommodate this small increase in rooms, he then moved approval of this application, by -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 resolution, with the 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 December 16, 1998, Sheets A0.1, Al.1, A3.1 and A3.2, with 201 parking spaces provided, 94 of which are compact; 2) that the hotel shall continue to provide a 24-hour airport shuttle service, which includes connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees during shift changes; 3) that guests, visitors or employees may not be charged for the use of on -site parking without amendment to this use permit, this would include valet parking arrangements; 4) that long term airport parking for a fee or no fee shall not occur at this site (including "sleep, park & fly" promotions) without amendment to this permit; 5) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes except that the hotel manager may live on the site; 6) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; and 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues Discussion on the motion: prefer unistall parking spaces; would need a parking variance if going to unistall; spaces are narrower (8'), sometimes it is difficult to exit from a car door in that narrow space; going to unistall would also affect landscaping and would not have a compensatory benefit. The maker of the motion chose to keep the motion the way it was proposed. Chairman Deal called for the vote. The motion passed on a 6-1 voice call vote (C. Luzuriaga dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. 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) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Cmsrs. Key and Deal stated they each (separately) met with Larry Lyons, Dennis Chuang and Michael Murray and were advised about the project. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Larry Lyons, 4 West 4th Avenue, Penthouse C, San Mateo introduced Dale Meyer and Alex Mortadivi, 851 Burlway, and Ellen and Dennis Chuang, 1818 Gilbreth. All were present to answer the commission's questions. The architect has been a tenant in this building for 15 of 19 years. There was a preliminary structural analysis, there is no problem with the load. The building still requires lateral analysis. There was discussion on seismic standards and the resistance to seismic forces. Structure is composed of metal deck bolted and designed as floor; concrete shear wall run through the building plus staircase shaft. -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22. 1999 The applicant noted comments in traffic study that City requirement not reasonable since so much space not leasable. CA Anderson noted traffic study that the city does not consider leasable space, does not feel our parking requirements are unreasonable, and traffic consultant is not a city employee. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey moved approval of the application, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report amended to include the table of usable space, as presented by the applicant, and to limit the use in the building to that space and to void the parking variance if the building should ever be demolished for any reason; as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 10, 1999, Sheets A-02 through A-13, and date stamped March 16, 1999, sheet A-1, parking layout plan and shall provide a total of 170 parking spaces, 134 standard, 30 compact and 6 disabled accessible spaces, for a 69 space parking variance; 2) that the storage building; with 6 covered parking spaces may be retained on the site, and the 6 covered parking spaces within the storage building shall never be converted to another use; 3) that the existing lobby (net usable space as shown on Table A, as presented by the applicant) areas and corridors shall not be converted to leasable office space; 4) that should the building be demolished (50 % or substantial cost replacement value, in the future, it shall be rebuilt to the building codes in effect at that time; 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. Discussion on the motion: concerned with parking and future use of additional space, a lot of workstation conversion which put people in at 80 to 200 SF per person; parking problems cannot control floor use within building will eventually mean more people; could be severe parking and traffic problems; torn aesthetically nicer; seismic safety unclear; too large a variance; not opposed to increase need to provide more parking. Building needs serious reparis, this is quite attractive, there is a problem with the way the existing building is laid out, a substantial percentage of wasted space (32 % compared to 15 % in non useable space now) could consider limiting square footage of leaseable space to the table as presented by the applicant, this would cloud the title for future owners of the building and they would have to come back in order to increase the useable area within the building. The final answer on whether this project is possible depends on the application of the seismic regulations; over time the composition of the tenants may change and 69 csrs is a large variance cannot support; remodel would increase the floor area 2 %, 32 % of the building is now unuseable, most buildings have 15 % unuseable, look at parking based on this and variance for only 6 spaces; will spend a lot of money to make it look better with 170 parking spaces; insulted that applicant would think: that not need to improve parking, should ask for ways to provide more parking, like moving the curtain wiall in and removing the storage building; use of this building will be like any other similar building. The Chair called for the vote. The motion passed on a 4-3 roll call vote (Cmsrs. Bojues, Keighran and Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised -15- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING ON REVISIONS TO THE NONCOMFORMING STRUCTURES (ADDITIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS) REGULATIONS CS 25.50.080. CP discussed the revisions to nonconforming structures, additions and enlargements section of the code. The current revisions do not clearly address the: 1) application for the residential exception including Declining Height Envelope and height; 2) The issue of how to handle lot coverage in excess was vague with revisions; can increase structure not nonconformity. C. Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Boju6s recommended the appropriate revisions be approved and recommended the code amendment be taken to City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica and passed 7-0 voice vote. IX. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 15, 1999. - AMENDMENT TO RULES AND PROCEDURE REGARDING ROTATION OF OFFICERS. Changes suggested: - if all the commissioners who are not officers have served. as Chair, the one whose service as chair is furthest in the past shall serve as Secretary. - if the office of chair is vacated with less than 6 months remaining in the term, then the commissioner rotated in to fill out the remainder of the term shall also serve the next full one-year term. - DISCUSSION OF POLITICAL REFORM ACT CHANGES. -16- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ADJOURNMENT March 22, 1999 Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary -17-