Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.06.28MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 28, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Luzuriaga called the June 28, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher MINUTES The minutes of the August 10, 1998 regular meeting of the Planning Commission should be amended as follows; 1417 Drake Avenue; condition No. 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 214, 1998 Sheets 1-5; and The minutes of the April 26, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission should be amended as follows; 820 Malcolm Road; condition Nos. 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the application material and plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 16, 1999, Sheets A-1 and L-1, with 7640 SF of office space, none of which shall be subleased to any other business, and the exterior parking configuration and landscape plan shall be built as shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 16, 1999, Sheet L1, which includes a total of 6446 SF of landscaping with 2781 SF of landscaping within the front 30' of the lot; 3) that there shall be provided 26 parking spaces for the office workers (24 standard, 2 handicap); 43 parking spaces to accommodate 25 % of the average monthly car rentals from this site (160), consisting of: 5 standard stalls; 28 standard tandem stalls; and 10 compact tandem stalls: and that the gate be relocated to the area behind stall #10 or further back, exceeding the limit of an average of 160 rentals per month shall cause this use permit to be reviewed; The order of the agenda was then approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR Herman Fitzgerald, attorney representing neighbors, requested that item 9, 1624 Coronado Avenue be called off the consent calendar and a public hearing be held. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 STUDY ITEMS Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Road, commented that he represents the Primrose Plaza Partnership which owns the building AT 320 Primrose Road which houses Pacific Bank and Grubb and Ellis on the first floor. The bank is downsizing and 2000 SF will be available for lease. Grubb and Ellis a real estate firm is also on the first floor. They would like to expand into the 2000 SF but cannot because under the existing zoning real estate uses are not allowed. Because of the location of the bank's safe and access within the building this 2000 SF cannot be properly accessed by a separate tenant. The zoning limitations do not allow expansion of the real estate use. His client asked him to bring this issue to the Planning Commission so that they could direct staff to work out some option to allow the real estate use. CP Monroe noted that staff could prepare a status report and describe the zoning issues for the commission to consider at another meeting. There were no further public comments. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A NEW WOOD DECK IN REAR YARD AT 1314 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (R.C. SMITH, APPLICANT AND BRI.AN AND LAURI SHANAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: how will or can the spaces created under the deck be used; condition should be added that the lot coverage exception is tied to the decking only, house cannot . expanded later; item should be placed on the consent calendar. Item was set for the July 12 meeting. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RECREATIONAL USE OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 1527 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (BARRY L. RAFTER, APPLICANT AND CATHRYN AND JOSEPH BAYLOCK, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: the plans show the gate to be 6 feet wide, it is in fact considerably wider, the plans should be corrected; work shop is a standard use in an accessory structure, this item should be placed on the consent calendar for action. The item was set for the July 12, 1999 meeting if the plans were corrected in time for that packet. APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DISPLAY OF BOATS AT 350 LANG ROAD, ZONED O-M. (BAY AREA BOATS, APPLICANT AND LANG CONTI TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: the applicant should clarify the current use of 390 and 350 Lang Road, are both premises being used by this tenant, if so how do they work together, are boats and storage sheds being displayed at both sites, and where on the 390 Lang Road site is the display area; over the years, how many complaints about this business are in the file, for both sites; what was the nature of the previous complaints; if the application is granted would it mean that there would be no front setback on this site; are the boats parked in an easement, if so whose easement is it; how is the building at 350 Lang Road used inside; what is the on- .te parking requirement for that building; if the boats are parked outside how does this affect the required parking on site, are boats being stored in the required parking; is there a maximum height in the zoning code for a boat to be parked on site; are there any illegal signs on the site at this time; the storage sheds, are they a product for sale `A City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 or are they surplus goods which when sold will not be replaced. There were no further questions and the item was for public hearing at the July 12, 1999, meeting. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR TRUCK RENTAL AT AN EXISTING SELF -STORAGE FACILITY AT 1761 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1. (TOM MURPHY, PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: would the applicant provide an enlargement of the parking lot plan, cannot read easily; where do they plan to park the trucks, identify the spaces to be used and the number; applicant indicates an average of 3 to 4 trucks on site, what will be the maximum number and how long will the maximum number and average number be on the site; plans show parking at the front of the site (4 spaces) and a row of parking on the side by 1801 Adrian, plus some parking at the rear, which of these spaces are on the 1761 Adrian site, whose spaces are next to 1801 Adrian. The item was set for public hearing at the July 12, 1999, meeting provided that all the information is available in time to prepare the staff report. APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 810 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1. (FAMOUS DESIGNS ARCHITECTS INC.. APPLICANT AND JOHN & ELLEN HUNTER, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: the applicant should explain the stair tower, it is too big and tall, does not fit; how does the applicant justify the impact, on the adjacent neighbor, of the length and configuration of the north side wall; explain if the FAR calculation included the laundry, mud room, wine cellar, ., was this area considered to be a basement; attached garage is added at the rear, this is OK because putting interior living area on top of garage; however replacing outdoor recreation space with second story decks put social area of this property looking into the neighbor's rear yard, why need to have decks as placed; can stair tower be modified so that the two parts of the house are unified into one structure. There were no other questions and the item was set for public hearing at the July 12, 1999, meeting providing that all the information is available in time to prepare the staff report. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESSSEPARATEDISCUSSIONANDIORACTIONISREQUESTED BYTHEAPPLICANT, A MEMBER OFTHEPUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Item No. 9; 1624 Coronado was requested to be placed on the hearing calendar by a member of the public during from the floor and Commissioner Deal requested Item No. 10; 1115 Palm Drive be put over for public hearing. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1323 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (STEVE LESLEY, APPLICANT AND TIM AND JOAN ADRAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LENGTH OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JESSE MARIA GEURSE. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 4PPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1217 DRAKE JENUE, ZONED R-1. DAVE HOWELL, APPLICANT AND ROLF AND SUE DONAHOWER, PROPERTY OWNERS) APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND SEATING FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE, SUITE H, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (K. TOLU, APPLICANT AND NESET TOLU, PROPERTY OWNER) and APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AT 1731 ADRIAN ROAD, SUITE 2, ZONED M-1. (LIZAH MCLAUGHLIN, APPLICANT AND STEVEN & LIZAH MCLAUGHLIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Bojues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND DESIGN 'VIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1624 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1. (KRZYSZTOF KUJAT & JOSEPH FILMUS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 6.28.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Commissioners had no questions on the staff report. Acting Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Robert Grewer, architect for the property owner, spoke noting that he felt that the design reviewer had made good comments about the project and that as a result the exterior articulation of the building had been improved. Commissioner asked about the second story inset on the south wall noting that there appeared to be some errors in the plans regarding roof overhangs and configuration, concerned because some portions of the roof when built would not look as presented in the plans; Commissioner noted that as shown the roof is one continuous, larger roof visible to the neighboring property, would be better if both roof parts were hipped, applicant noted hard to do with hip and maintain proper roof drainage away from the building; confused since the north elevation of the roof is not drawn correctly as compared to the west elevation; commission is being asked to act on the project based on how it looks in these plans, because of problems in the plans do not know how the project will look, whether there will be one or two roof ridges at the rear, or with the eaves, what the set back from property line will be. H. Fitzerald, attorney, 345 Lorton, suite 302, spoke in opposition representing 8 adjacent and nearby property owners; noted that they were opposed to the project because it was a 50% increase in FAR and the fact that other operties in the area were built before declining height requirements and were not compliant; the condition of the existing development is not a justification for granting an exception to current requirements for this project; today's requirements should be met by this development, there is no hardship on this property to justify any exceptions; submitted a photo showing a large van parked in the driveway of the subject property which over hung the sidewalk City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 to document the front setback problems in the area; second story addition interfaces with buildings on both sides and aers of these properties do not think the interface as designed is good at all; the roof line is a problem and the project should be denied; do not agree with the architect, the side roof line articulation does not respect the neighbors, people across the street do not need to see the roof for them to be aware that it is there. Commissioner asked: van projection does not demonstrate a front setback issue for this project since the front setback exception was for the second story which is required to be setback more than the first floor no change is proposed to the first floor front setback; if a hip roof were put in on the long side, would reduce the impact on the neighbor; if variance would diminish neighbor's property should not be granted not ask to deny on basis of diminished light and view, but on the basis of a 25 % change in setback and increase in FAR without any undue hardship on the property; two variances requested and no finding of undue hardship in the record. In response the applicant's architect noted that the attorney spoke as an attorney, not make sense to deny, applicant needs enough space to live in, person living in 1628 has been looking down into this property for years, that building is at a higher elevation than the project, so project will have less effect. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: noticed inconsistencies on the plans, site plan shows 3 foot side setback but roof plan does not show eaves beyond the face of the building so does not give clear picture of how it will be built; think should take direction to put hip roofs on the long wall; regarding the front setback variance, number of houses on this block with the same front setback being requested here, declining height envelop regulation would cause the building to look out of keeping with this neighborhood, project has a nice frontal view which complements the neighborhood; concerned about the roof structure at the rear and the accuracy of the plans; setback requested will not affect parking :ause it is at the second floor, if add over the garage could set part of it back to reduce impact on the neighbor; address neighbor better by breaking up mass of the roof; front setback variance OK because respects the existing front setbacks on the street; length of the wail on the side can be reduced by making the bathroom smaller. C. Vistica moved to deny the project without prejudice based on the concerns expressed by the commission and because of the long roof line abutting the neighbor. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: want to be sure direction is clear: reduce the side setback where the bathroom is, so reduce the bulk of the vertical wall; shorten the first wall at the front to the rear of the addition, the front facade can stay the same; rear vertical wall should be set back further from the property line; reduce the impact of the front portion of the garage; in short, reduce the rear, on the side increase the setback, reposition to the center of the house, reduce the square footage. Acting Chair Luzuriaga asked for a roll call vote on the motion to deny the two variances, without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY RESIDENCE AT 1115 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (GEORGE SKINNER, APPLICANT AND STEVEN LARRATT, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 6.28.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed .teria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Commissioner asked how would FAR be counted in high ceilinged area at rear of house; any portion of the room over 12 feet in height would be included in the FAR calculation. There were no other questions of staff. W, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 Acting Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steve Larrett, property owner at 1115 Palm, noted that he did plans himself and asked if the commission had any questions. Commissioner asked about the area with a really high ceiling at the rear of the building, applicant noted it's a tall vaulted ceiling, he wanted it, he was aware that it was really tall; is there a building permit for the work presently under way on the site, yes a demo permit, began work and found extensive dry rot and termite problems so revised plans. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comment: the house is done well, it fits the neighborhood, problem is that there is some good detail and some detail not shown to go throughout the entire building, for example the window trim is different on different windows, should use stucco mold and window sill on all windows; right side elevation shows nice corbels but not agree with those on the back, two under dormer at the rear and also two under right rear of the building, when this is built it will look odd; need to fix the following on the drawings --corbels, roof, window, chimney (not tall enough to meet code separation). Commission comment continued: rear elevation does not seem to have had the same attention to design detail and windows as front; need to look at window proportions, if want large windows at rear do with smaller pieces, do you need the volume that is that tall at rear, roof will not work the way it is drawn. C. Deal moved to deny the project without prejudice to give the applicant time to correct and adjust the plans, commissioners all feel that this is a good project and will be glad to review it again. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. ,nment on the motion: this item could be brought back straight to action; gutters as shown are out of scale, need to get the proportions correct; window trim shown at the rear are boards around the windows would look better with stucco mold as the rest of the windows seem to be. Acting Chair Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 2208 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (CHI HUNG CHU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report, 6.28.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. The June 21, 1999 memo clarifying the changes made on elevation and plans was read into the record. There were no further questions from the commission. Acting Chair Luzuriaga open the public hearing. Gloria Li, 1555 Yosemite Avenue #18, San Francisco, architect, spoke noting that she made the changes suggested at the last meeting, she added double hung windows and notes on the roof plan. Commissioner asked how is exterior sheet rock made, has one side that is water proof, when use do not have to put stucco over it, special water proof tape is used; will the new trim be added to the rear and side elevations, yes; garage wall appears to be miss -aligned 6 inches where the garage meets the stair, wall is existing �d to align stair but client does not mind corner there and want to increase storage in garage; window trim shown via elevations is different, believe that double hung windows installed as detailed will leak should correct, these are replacement windows generally installed from the outside, fitted into existing openings; trim size needs to be the same on all windows. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 C. Deal noted that the massing is not bad, concern is on the second floor detail throughout, entire structure should tch what is shown on Sheet A-4; move approval by resolution with conditions in the staff report and the added condition that the trim detail used throughout the building be the same materials and scale as shown on Sheet A-4. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Acting Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with added condition., 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 June 23, 1999, sheets A-1 through A-4; 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 trim shall be the same throughout and shall match the scale shown on sheet A-4; 4) that the project shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer's memo dated April 19, 1999, and the Chief Building Inspector's memo dated April 19, 1999; 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 passed 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXTEND A FIRST FLOOR WALL AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 2228 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND PAUL & SUSANNE VAGADORL PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 6.28.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked CE Erbacher will they need to provide a driveway profile and elevations if no work is done to the driveway, no. There were no further questions of staff. Acting Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Suite 408 spoke for the project. Applicant spoke to the neighbors on the right and across the street about the project and they support, letters submitted. Neighbor on the left was on vacation. Since study they have narrowed the front stair, the reason for the overhang on the second floor was that the design reviewer wanted the roof simplified and that action caused the uneven roof overhang; did not install story poles because of the expense of doing that and the unavailability of the contractor to do the work, presented a computerized composite instead; presented a model of the proposed house; one element that they want to retain is the 9 foot plate on the second floor to match the 9 foot plate on the first floor; the proposed house will be 30 feet tall, the neighboring house is 28'-4", the house on the right steps up so that the difference in height is actually less, it is also a two story house; at the rear of the property is a school whose roof is. 5 to 6 feet higher than the 30 feet proposed (did no measure the school height specifically); worked with the design reviewer and revised plans in that process. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: C. Dreiling noted that initially he had been assigned this project when he was a design reviewer, but it was reassigned before he looked at it; the roof is better, the porch is a problem and makes the design ficult; agree, but main concern is plate height on second floor, house has maximum of FAR, lot coverage and ueight, without sacrifice could reduce to 8 foot plate and would help appearance of project; agree plate should be reduced to 8'-1", can coffer ceiling to achieve higher ceiling height inside; mass of the second floor is OK, porch is not a residential statement, size is more commercial, should match the porches on the street. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 C. Deal moved to deny the application without prejudice with direction that the second floor plate be reduced to 8' -1 " 1 the porch redone to match those in the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the action: when resubmitted this application should be taken directly to action before the commission. Acting Chair Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND SIGN EXCEPTIONS AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, SUITE D, ZONED C-2. (FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, APPLICANT AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION Reference staff report, 6.28.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. A proposed scale sketch for the face of the clock was entered into the record. Commission asked for clarification about deliveries and ATM use, staff referred them to the applicant. There were no other questions from the commission. Acting Chair Luzuriaga open the public hearing. Steven Chong, 101 Lombard, San Francisco and Anna Herrano, 235 Magellan, San Francisco were present to answer questions; clarified deliveries, 1 per week includes armored for deliveries for ATM; average ATM use at other banks is 116 per day, at other locations, is 21 customers per day, Wells Fargo has ATM nearby also. First Republic's ATM is available with a fee for other users. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. For the record, graphic of the clock on the clock tower was provided by Alan Coon. C. Deal moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions, as amended, in the staff report, noting it is a small bank and there will be no tellers. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. On the motion: agree with bank, not enough parking with ATM; add condition that employees not park in the designated spaces but park off -site; maker and second agree; Acting Chair Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the financial institution shall be limited to 895 SF in Suite D, at 1155 California Drive, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 3, 1999, sheets A-1 and A-2; 2) that the financial institution may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, with a maximum of 3 employees on site at any one time; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 4) that all deliveries to the site including pick up and delivery of cash shall be scheduled once a week; 5) employees shall not park in the on -site parking spaces, and shall required by their employer to park off -site; 6) that the use in Suites G and H at 1155 California Drive, „urlingame, California, as shown on the plans date stamped June 3, 1999, sheets A-1 and A-2, on file with the Planning Department of the City of Burlingame, and consisting of 2,888 SF shall be limited to only furniture stores, appliance stores, or bulk merchandise (no more than 48 SF of which may be used for office space). The property City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 owner shall be solely responsible for notifying all prospective tenants or purchasers of Suites G and H of this triction and for enforcing this restriction. The property owner shall also notify the City Planner at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance of any change in the tenant of either Suite G or H. The property owner agrees that violation of this condition shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permits for the entire property at 1155 California Drive, Burlingame, CA; and 7) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (Coffey absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. B.SIGN EXCEPTIONS Reference staff report, 6.28.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff, have any of the other tenants asked for signage, no; how much signage is each of the other tenants eligible for, 50 SF per frontage. There were no other questions of staff. Acting Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jeff Jennings, representing Ad Art the sign company for First Republic Bank, spoke: his firm does all the signage for First Republic Bank, wanted to change clock to respond to commission but did not want to increase signage area so counted only eagle logo at center, do not feel whole clock should be counted as sign because it is a public service; discussed the diameter of clock, original design showed 5'-6" diameter clock as being proper proportion for tower face, suggesting 6'-6"; intend to put in 6'-6" diameter clock; -en the font and strike smallest letter possible for First Republic sign is 1'-2% so both the "First Republic Plaza" and "First Republic Bank" sign letters are the same size, also wanted the two sides of the building to look the same and needed some space between signs; clock will be lit by lighting on the building, the plaza sign will be back lit with a halo caused by neon behind the green letters. Commission asked about the flag poles, could you put two flags on one pole, two flag poles are provided at eight of the bank's locations in California and Nevada, want them to look the same and be patriotic; both poles will be located in the planter strip; prefer flag poles to monument sign suggested in previous sign proposal; applicant noted that poles must be placed so that the flags do not touch, the flag pole height governs the size of the flag flown, city allows 5'x7' so pole placement dictated, the placement of the flag poles will not cause a line of sight problem at the driveway; it is a problem that the clock face is not lit, could lite by putting it in a can, hour "tick" marks are too small to back light; if back light in a can, clock cabinet will be more visible. Like this clock, ticks low key, the maximum width should be 2/3 of the width of the clock tower; problem is that sign code would allow a long row of signage along the building, would not like, could First Republic Bank live with just one of the two wall signs on the upper part of the building, idea is that First Republic is the anchor tenant prefer to have both signs so aware of importance. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: am in favor of this clock, like subtilty of tick marks, logo in the center is much smaller, its not back lit, like to see the size reduced to 2/3 of the width of the tower; feel that the two First Republic wall signs Plaza and Bank will cause confusion, should make the higher sign say First Republic Bank and eliminate the lower sign and Plaza concept, remove wall lights. Experience with advertising signage is simplicity, if two redundant signs better to have one sign; do not favor halo glow, neon signs will not fit the character of this building, spot lights are +.ter, clock could be smaller, could do an adequate signage job within code limits; 5'-6" clock is a more appropriate ..ze and am not in favor of the eagle logo inside the clock, appearance is inappropriate; clock should be lit indirectly; with all the elements here, the bank is looking like a race car, keep upper First Republic sign and change "Plaza" to "Bank", remove lower wall sign; agree not like logo inside clock, need to decrease diameter of clock; keep upper 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 First Republic sign take out lower wall sign on each frontage; install one flag pole, can fly both flags from it; this lot of advertising for a bank which talks about how few customers it has and. how little drive by business. C. Boju6s moved to deny the sign exception application without prejudice for the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Commission summarized the direction: reduce the diameter of the clock face to 5'-6", and have no logo inside the clock; of the two wall signs on each frontage, retain the upper one and change wording from First Republic Plaza to First Republic Bank, retain the same height letters as proposed; back or halo light the wall sign letters with neon using dark green lettering; remove the lower First Republic Bank wall sign on both frontages; eliminate one flag pole, fly two flags, national and state, on the one pole if you wish. Feel removing bank sign from lower facade will help set off this tenant from others on the site, halo light on the upper wall sign OK, it will be washed with light from below so will not stand out; clock can be lit with wall wash light. This item, when revised, can come straight back to action Acting Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice the request for a sign exception. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF A DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY ADDITION AT 1417 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PATRICK AND LAURA SOMERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) .erence staff report, 6.28.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. City Planner noted that all extensions are required to comply with CBC requirements in effect at time of extension so this project would be subject to the 1998 CBC and UFC. There were no questions from the commission. Acting Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: will this project be complaint with the 1998 UBC; yes. C. Vistica moved approval of the one year extension, by resolution, with the amended conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. On the motion: this request reopens the application; could ask for different window treatment was reviewed previously and has been sitting for a year, leave as is. Acting Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice/ vote on the 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 July 14, 1998 Sheets 1-5; 2); 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding a dormer,(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. ..te motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent) voice vote. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1999 PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed briefly the Council's actions at their June 21, 1999 meeting. — C. Deal reported on the meeting of the commission with design reviewers. Noted that the concensus was that the reviewers would meet with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee once a month for a couple of months to work on the design guidelines and their application. Commission asked how they should respond to developer for 301 Airport Blvd. Project; decided to call a special meeting of the Planning commission for him to present his proposed revisions and questions, suggested a Wednesday evening at 7:30 p.m., developer could pick date. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. MINUTES6.28 Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Secretary 11