Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.07.12MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 12, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Coffey called the July 12, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga and Coffey Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher MINUTES The minutes of the June 28, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were corrected to read; "Absent: Commissioner Coffey"; the minutes were then approved as corrected. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted for the record; Item #12, 350 Lang Road, the applicant requested a continuance because they were unable to respond to all the commission requests on time, and the applicant for and Item #14, 778 Burlway Road, 1380 Bayshore Highway and 1470 Bayshore Highway, requested a continuance because they felt that notice to them was not timely; both requested continuances to the July 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR Howard Page, 111 Central Avenue, requested that item 6, 1527 Newlands Avenue, be called off the consent calendar and a public hearing be held. There were no other public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 409 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JD & ASSOCIATES APPLICANT AND JACK & EILEEN EASTERBROOK PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report and the Planning Commissioners asked: the plans do not show all the windows to be consistent, they should be corrected. Directed that this item be set for public hearing and placed on the consent calendar for the meeting of July 26, 1999, if the plans are corrected to show a consistent window esign throughout the structure. The item was set for public hearing on July 26, 1999. -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 APPLICATION, FOR VARIANCES FOR EXISTING COVERED AND UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTHS AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2612 HALE DRIVE, ZONED t-1 (WILLIAM J. VAN HOUSEN, APPLICANT AND ROBERT AND SHARON PARATTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report and the Planning Commissioners asked: the glass block shown on the rear elevation is not consistent with the style and design of the rest of the house, it should be changed to a window which matches the others; feel that this item should be set for public hearing on July 26, 1999, and can be placed on the consent calendar for that meeting if the glass block window is changed so that the design matches the other windows. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH SERVICE (COUNSELING OFFICE) IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 1290 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 320, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA 3: (DAPHNE CROCKER WHITE, APPLICANT AND 200 PARK ROAD COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report and the Planning Commissioners asked: in which unit in the building is the business located, staff report and application do not agree; would like to see the specific hours of the day, for each day of the week, the business would be open; chart on use is inconsistent with letter since chart shows no activity after 5 p.m. but asking for business hours until 8 p.m., please correct; point of application is to be realistic and reflect the hours in which the business will operate comfortably because a use permit amendment is required for any change, should be revised to show that. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing and to be placed on the consent calendar for the meeting of July 26, 1999. kPPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A HEALTH SERVICE (PSYCHOTHERAPY OFFICE) AT 1131 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B (BEVERLY B. CONRAD AND MARY NEWMAN, APPLICANTS AND DAVE ADAMS, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report and the Planning Commissioners had no questions. The item was set for public hearing on July 26, 1999, and directed to be placed on the consent calendar for that meeting. 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 LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A NEW WOOD DECK IN REAR YARD AT 1314 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (R.C. SMITH, APPLICANT AND BRIAN AND LAURI SHANAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) 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) and -2- Oty of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 Mimi• •' •' • • 0.19011, ill 1.41"Mrall &WOMIP &B 'kamod I ON -IF FACIWIXIIIRB at) U view 111 a 9UV ft'191101WAV WIR LWAUNW41101BURIP) V 911'4 W&9X'A7Je111%1 Item No. 6; 1527 Newlands Avenue was requested to be placed on the hearing calendar by a member of the public during from the floor, Commissioner Deal requested that Item No. 7; 401 Bloomfield Avenue be put over for public hearing; and Commissioner Keighran asked that Item No. 5; 1314 DeSoto Avenue be put over for public hearing. There were then no consent items. 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 BRIAN AND LAURI SHANAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Brian and Lauri Shanahan, 1314 DeSoto Avenue, the property owners and R. C. Smith, 3401. E. Bayshore, Redwood City, the applicant, were present to answer any questions. They noted that they did not intend to store anything under the new deck nor did they include any screening lattice on the plans, if commission wishes they would include it but it was not a part of the project and would have no objection to the lattice being struck from the project. Commission noted, if no lattice in project then findings for project should also be corrected. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Deal moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report and amended findings noting there is no decorative lattice as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 18, 1999, Sheet 1 of 2; 2) that the granting of 4 % lot coverage for deck purposes on this hillside lot shall not entitle the property owner to expand the habitable space or dwelling footprint on this site to more than 40% of the lot without the granting of an additional variance, even if deck area is removed for the addition; and 3) that 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 seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution, amending the findings in the staff report as noted. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 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) Reference staff report, 7.12.99, 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. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, the applicant, was present to answer any questions. The new garage will have a 3' setback and will match the existing structure. Howard Page, 111 Central Avenue asked, noting it is not clear on the site plan, if the current non -conforming 18' X 18' garage is being replaced by a one car garage and was commission aware that if the replacement was a one car garage it was a reduction in the amount of parking provided on the site, also will there be an electric gate. There were no other comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: no problem with the project; done well; one car garage adequate, the driveway is long enough to park 2 cars and far enough back that an electric gate would not be necessary. C. Deal then moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 1, 1999, Sheet A-1, Site Plan and date stamped May 25, 1999, Sheet A-2, Floor Plan and Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 1, 1'999 memo shall be met; 3) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and except for electrical, shall not include any utility services and/or plumbing including a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Robin and Michael Liffman property owners and architect Janet Campbell, 2 Parker Avenue, San Francisco represented the project. Commissioner asked about the bulk designed into the front facade, felt that 8 inch floor joists were not going to work so that when built this facade will be higher by 4 inches to 25.-9"; overall it appears that the inches in errors will add up to almost a foot; if reduce plate to 8'-l" it would be cheaper to build and reduce bulk, we could do that; do not understand the size of the window to the right of the front entrance, it is an existing window which is being replaced, can't increase the size because of the placement of the fire place. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussion: the elevations look OK until the front, it is out of character with the rest of the house, the half-moon vent is 6 feet across it will look huge and is not appropriate to the style of the house; need to carry through the gables, they do not match on the front; the front is the most prominent side of the structure would like to see it reworked; the roof structure is awkward; would like to see another window system in the stair well, the window is almost the size of the garage door, should be smaller; the solution is to find a scale which closely relates to the existing windows and scale of the house; need a single ridge line and single gable; the stairwell window over powers the front door and needs to be changed. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 C. Deal moved to deny the application without prejudice so that the applicant can return with a new design, -)elieve that there has been enough direction in the discussion, need a nicer view of the building from the street. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. On the motion: the CA asked if this item needed to go back to the design reviewer, no it can come directly back to the Planning Commission; would like a detail of the corbels and "outriggers" shown on the plans so have some idea of what they will look like. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1. (C. Vistica absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE WHICH IS WITHIN THE 2EAR 40% OF THE LOT AT 1412 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MEL SPRINGS, J.M. SPRINGS CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND MARIE-MAGALI IDZAL, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the door could be changed to swing in, yes. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Mel Springs, 1025 Terminal B, San Carlos, applicant was present and had no objection to the change in door swing. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. On the motion: Commissioners asked if the conditions could be changed to grant a door swing in the inward direction. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. Chair Coffey 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 and date stamped July 6, 1999, Sheet A2, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations, and the man door shall be redesigned so that it swings into the garage; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 22, 1999 memo shall be met; 3) that the recommendations for tree protection and garage construction in the arborist's report date stamped July 6, 1999, shall be followed during construction; 4) that the sewer line to the accessory structure shall have a maximum 2" diameter and the water line shall have a maximum 3/4" diameter, any change to the size of these lines shall require a public hearing and conditional use permit; 5) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional utility services and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 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 _ARRATT, PROPERTY OWNER) - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREI UDICE Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Steven Larratt, 1115 Palm Drive, asked if there were any questions. There were no questions and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application for design review because the applicant made the changes -equested by Commission at study and the project is now compliant with the design guidelines, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 6, 1999, sheets A-1 through A-2; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the applicant shall select and use traditional window and mullion details that provide detail of shadow lines, sills, wood trim and minimize any tract house appearance; 4) that the applicant provide a landscape plan with the submittal of plans for a building permit. The landscape plan shall be designed to soften the large mass of the front and side of the residence; 5) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 17, 1999, memo and the City Engineer's May 17, 1999 memo shall be met; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Comment on the motion: this is a nice project, charming with attention to detail, represents the charm that we want to achieve for new construction in the city. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. There were no questions from the commission. APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1624 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1. (KRZYSZTOF KUJAT & JOSEPH FILMUS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) RF_.SURMITTAL OF PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREIUDICE Reference staff report, 7.12.99, 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. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Robert Grewer, architect from Berkeley representing the property owner, commented on the changes made to the project through the process, including reducing the FAR to 3004 SF when allowed 3020 SF, he also noted that they agree to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner asked what is the reason for having the bulk which is shown on the left side of the building, started with a 5 foot setback over the garage, the design reviewer asked to bring that forward to the face of the garage below; could 'lI City of Burlingame Planning Conunission Minutes July 12, 1999 the portion of the addition behind the garage be added at the rear center of the existing building to reduce the impact on the adjacent neighbor, need to keep main sheer wall and to continue it as side wall of building. There were no further questions of the applicant. Len Beattie, 1648 Coronado Way, spoke in opposition noting that he was the next door neighbor, does not feel that the architecture is consistent with the neighborhood, when he bought his home they had view from three sides, house on left was built but could see out on other sides; 4 years ago house on Balboa added a second story lost view from that side (rear), now this house will block view to the right, his property is completely enclosed; he and other neighbors feel street should be built consistent with the way it is now, add on over the garage and keep the open space at the rear. Presently there is an illegal 10' X 20' structure against the fence (submitted a picture taken from his roof) and now they want to add another big structure; the house is rented, doing this for speculation, lucrative to add on and sell; first house in this area was built in 1949, 6 of the original owners still live on the street, he has been there 20 years; if he wants a master bedroom over the garage that's OK but not ,vhat he is proposing. Krzys Kujat, property owner, lives in San Francisco, bought house but too small, have two children need a 4 bedroom house for family, don't know how people lived in these houses in the 1940's but today need 4 bedrooms; to fit in with the existing structure have to build on that side of the building and that is consistent with the rest of the street; can't use the house as it is, is too small, what are his rights; tried to talk to owners through real estate agent, tried to keep them happy, have been working on this for months and, have not been able to build. Asked about renters, too expensive to carry two houses so have had to move people in to make the payments. There were no further questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner. discussion: need to be clear not talking about cutting stuff out of the house but talking about where the stuff is added to the house; zoning does not protect privacy, but there are ways to make additions and provide for privacy; addition over garage consistent with neighborhood, mass behind garage is not all right, those things can be added at other places on the building; felt that direction was clear before, garage OK mass behind it not; but resubmitted plans show solution was to make a bigger recess which makes it look odder; need additional set back from property line and the reduce the mass on the neighbor's side, can keep addition over garage, center the rest on the structure so it looks as if it belongs. C. Deal moved to deny this application without prejudice with direction that the project should be revised as discussed both at the previous meeting and in this meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. On the motion: the second floor space shown could be added over the living room instead of over the kitchen and family room that would probably solve the problem. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) vote. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, SUITE D, ZONED C-2. (FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, APPLICANT AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Ira City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Jeff Jennings, 7523 Clay, San Francisco, took logo off the clock, did not realize that the clock would still be counted as a sign, also reduced square footage on both frontages, could make SF conform over 12' by removing clock altogether, but felt that clock was a positive element; want to keep both flag poles because that is consistent with their other branches; commissioner noted that at last review the wall signs were all the same size lettering, now the sign facing the parking lot has 18" letters rather than 14" lettering; tried to maximize the square footage given the space on the facade facing the parking lot and the proportion of the logo as it relates to the space; will the facade of the building be lit as well as halo lighting the letters in the sign, yes; usually the face of the logo is lite, it is vinyl on background; feel should remove lighting from wall in areas where wall signs are, keep lighting on wall for clocks which are not halo lit; there was discussion of the manner in which the letters were designed to make them more readable and to effectively back light them; would like to see more consistency among the signs, remove logo from parking lot side and keep letters of both signs the same size, removed the corporate logo from clocks, need it on the site, have asked for only one location, only other option for logo is on ATM and it is not very visible. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the sign exception request, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report and the addition that the letters be only halo lit and that the up lights on the facade of the First Republic tenant space be removed. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comments on the motion: should the facade lights on the street side be removed as well, yes; the maker of the motion and the second agreed to an amendment of the motion that all the up lights on the facade of the tenant space for First Republic Bank be removed except those which illuminate the clock faces which are not lit by another means. Comments on the motion continued: concerned about the size of the sign on the parking lot side of the building, it .s 21 feet across and 18" high, would like to see the same sign letter height as the California side (14"), the sign would ,till have good visibility; think that the space for the sign is different on each side of the tenant space, so prefer sign to be proportional to the space, don't think its necessary to change letter height. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the conditions in the staff report as amended as follows: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 21, 1999 (11" x 17"), Site Plan, Parking Lot Elevation, California Drive Elevation, Analog Clock Elevation, Reverse Channel Letter A, Reverse Channel Letter C, and date stamped May 13, 1999, Flag Poles Elevation (11" x 17") and ATM Elevation (81/2" x 11 "); 2) that any increase in the height, area or number of signs on the primary or secondary frontages shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that the clock on each frontage shall be maintained in good operating condition by the merchant and shall show the correct time or the clock face shall be removed; 4) that the two flagpoles shall only display the United States flag and California State flag; 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) that the light fixtures mounted on the wall of the building to illuminate the facade of this tenant space (one side facing California Drive and one side facing the parking lot) shall be removed, the,light fixtures mounted on the wall of the building to illuminate the clock tower shall be retained to illuminate the two clock faces; and 7) that the bank's logo, the eagle, shall have only halo illumination. The motion passed on a 5-1-0 vote (C. Bcju6s dissenting, C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 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) (15 NOTICED) - REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO DULY 26, 1999 In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 This item was continued one time to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1999, because the applicant had not completed his submittal from the study 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) Reference staff report, 7.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked, if the trucks being rented were owned by another company, was the self storage business the sole tenant on this site as required by the zoning, the CA responded if the self storage company leases all the trucks from a company and then rents them directly to customers, the storage company is still the sole tenant on the site. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Henry London, District Manager for Public Storage Inc.,16700 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton, spoke noting that they lease these trucks from Penske then rent them to people, at some of their locations they own the trucks; parking on -site is not a problem, have people come now with semi -trucks and they are able to maneuver on site and come in and out; the average size of the four trucks is 15 feet; when the trucks are not in use will they be on the site all the time, yes; larger trucks will over hang standard parking stalls into access area, yes but have had big trucks on the site in the past and access for them and other cars has not been a problem. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved approval of the conditional use permit and parking variance by resolution to allow 4 trucks to be rented from this self storage site because it is a reasonable use related to the primary use of the site, satisfied that the intention is to Pease trucks from a company to rent to customers and not to have another business renting trucks on the site, that the variance is justified because there is more than enough room on the site for maneuvering and parking and because the space occupied by the truck will be occupied by the car of the customer renting the truck, and with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that the truck rental parking locations shall be built as shown on the plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 2, Sheet 1 of 1; 2) that the truck rental operation may not be open for business or for truck rentals except during the hours of 9:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Mondays through Friday; Saturdays from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and Sundays from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., with no more than 4 trucks for rent on site at any one time. If this number is exceeded the use permit shall be reviewed immediately by the Planning Commission; 3) that the truck rental operation is an incidental use on the site and dependent upon the public/personal storage service on this site and shall not constitute a right to extend truck or car rental uses on this site as an independent or major use of the site now or in the future, should the storage use leave this site the truck storage use shall also be terminated; 4) that there shall be no washing, fueling or maintenance of trucks on the site; and 5) that 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 seconded by C. Boju6s. Comment on the motion: it should be clear in condition 4 that there shall be no washing, fueling or maintenance of trucks on the site, the maker of the motion and the second agreed to add a condition 4 to clarify that none of these activities should occur on site. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. ME City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CAR RENTAL USE AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD, 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, 1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 AND 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY -ZONED O-M. (ALAMO RENT -A -CAR) Letter from George Corey, Corey, Luzaich, Manos & Pliska, attorney representing Alamo Rent A Car, requesting the hearing be continued until Monday, July 26, 1999; and a letter from Westates Venture, Inc., 851 Burlway Road, supporting termination of the car rental use were read into the record. The commission unanimously agreed to continue this item to the July 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNER REPORTS A. DISCUSS PROPOSED REVISIONS TO C.S. 25.36.040 (F) REGULATION OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUBAREA A AND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. The members of the subcommittee were all present and included seated commissioners Bojues, Coffey, and past commissioners Galligan and Key. CP Monroe summarized the highlights of the changes proposed. The commissioners discussed the differences between limited service and speciality food shops and noted that in some cases it was a fine line of distinction between the categories. It was noted that the term limited in the specialty shop definition caused confusion and should be taken out, the phrase in the definition to read "means a business which sells food and has a posted menu". How and if the health department's regulations were incorporated into the various classifications was discussed; as was the hierarchy among the classes defined. CA Anderson noted that the issue was whether the Commission was happy with the conceptual approach and, if so, the staffwill determine how to prepare the notice for the next step of review by the Planning Commission with public hearing. A commissioner noted that this present ordinance needs to be distributed to the property owners and merchants, along with the data tables. Consensus was that the staff proceed to figure out the notification and hearing process, and move to get the proposed changes to the regulations before the commission for action. B. DISCUSS PROPOSED REVISIONS TO C.S. 25.57, DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS TO EXTEND REVIEW TO FIRST FLOOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SOME FIRST FLOOR ADDITIONS. CP Monroe went over the objectives which framed this change in the regulations; she noted that the review process will stay the same, using the design reviewers. The commissioners discussed the definition for "plate",it was noted that the top plate is the junction of the ceiling and the wall; the term plate is an understood term in the industry, do not think will have a problem with the definition. It was noted that the code revision includes a special permit for attached garages, this is a statement not made before, provides an incentive to design with a detached garage since have to go through the review process to have an attached garage; subcommittee found that garage pattern was one of the most important factors in neighborhood pattern and consistency, wanted to provide a motivation to applicants to provide detached garages; and the findings for a special permit emphasize neighborhood consistency. The consensus of the group was that the recommended changes were ready to be moved forward to a public hearing and action. C. STATUS REPORT ON ZONING ISSUES RELATED TO 320-330 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1999 This item was agendized at the request of a member of the public at a previous meeting. The Commission discussed the land use issue and how it related to city development policy in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, noted the differences between Subareas A and B, discussed overlay zones and how they work, spot zoning and how it works, and the general land uses in the area. Commissioners decided that with a better understanding of the issues involved they would like to continue this discussion to the next commission meeting so they could go out and take a better look at the area which would be affected. They also requested some additional information on Subarea B-1, and how it might affect properties shifted from A to B-1. D. REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 6, 1999. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the City Council meeting of July 6, 1999. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Coffey adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. WNUTEs7.12 Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojues, Acting Secretary -11-