Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.11.22MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 22, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chair Luzuriaga called the November 22, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojuds, Deal, Keighran, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Planner, Janice Jagelski ROTATION OF OFFICERS Vice Chair Luzuriaga announced that because of the election of the Chairman to the City Council it was the time for the Commission to do the rotation of officers; these officers would be seated until May of 2001. He noted that this year the rotation of officers has been formalized in the Commissions rules of procedure. ce Chair Luzuriaga stepped up to Chair and took the gavel. C. Vistica became Vice -Chair. Since Commissioners Bojues and Keighran were appointed to the Commission at the same time the Secretary was selected by lottery. Commissioner Dreiling drew from a hat, the new Secretary selected was C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga thanked the new officers MINUTES The minutes of the November 8, 1999 regular meeting minutes were approved as delivered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR Peter Thorner, 390 Alcatraz Avenue, Oakland, representing the San Francisco Sailboarding Association spoke regarding study Item #5; 301 Airport Boulevard. He asked that the west/northwest winds be tested for the revised project; because of the new designs, testing the west wind does not test the most affected winds; concerned about the turbulance and intensity of the wind when exceeding building height limits; becomes a threshold issue. 5 or 10% change in violocity makes it tough to sail; the quality of the wind determines the recreational experience. Dan Levin, 400 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo presented the commission with a brochure depicting the proposal at 301 4irport Boulevard. He expressed concern about the Sailboarding Association spokesperson's comments being _esented to the city, not to Glenborough, in a timeframe 10 weeks after the standards were given at the August 25, meeting. The buildings are set back within 200' of the water. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Ron Munekawa, representing the City of San Mateo Planning Department commented regarding the review of the response to comments and comparison with 480,000 SF building; also the impact of the left turn movements; these Sues have not been addressed in the response to comments. There were no other public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 704 SF TWO -CAR GARAGE AT 847 ACACIA VENUE, ZONED R-1. (CLARK WURZBERGER & KAREN OHL,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the Commissioners asked: this appears to be a 704 SF garage which provides one parking space, what will happen if a second parking space is later required for this site; can the laundry area be replaced at some other location in this garage; why did the Public Works Department ask for the grade elevation for some of the drainage; is there some way the Building Department can allow eaves close to the property line; there appears to be a skylight within 10 feet of property line, do they need an exception for it; the SF of storage seems to be reported differently in two places in the staff report, clarify; will the size of this garage result in a variance for any expansion of the house later; concerned about a substantial change in the eave as required by the Building Department and how that will change the appearance, would like to see the plans for any such change; need some additional site information: dimension to the existing sidewalk, dimension to the street, dimension to the right of way; why was this location chosen for the garage and not one closer to the street which would enlarge the yard area; what is the ceiling height in the second story storage area; a maximum 2 inch waste line should be conditioned so that no toilet can be placed in this structure. The item was set for public hearing on December 13, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. '\PPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCES AND DESIGN REVIEW OR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1209 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KARIN PAYSON, APPLICANT AND CHRISTIAN & ERICA REILLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the Commissioners asked: need a better explanation to justify the declining height exception; do not agree with most of the points included in the present explanation for the exception; what is the bedroom count, is the fifth bedroom the family room; asking for a parking dimension variance, is there a way to extend the garage so at least one parking space is compliant; there is a lot of height and bulk in the structure, can the plate he on the second floor be reduced; why cannot the entire garage structure be lengthened; economic hardship is not a justification for a variance, must be related to the property. There were no further comments and the item was set for public hearing on December 13, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3-CAR GARAGE AND LAUNDRY AREA AT 735, 737 & 741 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-2. WARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND SAM BARRETTA PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the Commissioners asked: applicant does not appear to understand the significance of setting the garage in front of the rear 30% of the lot, seems to have it confused with the rear setback requirement; staff should explain; why is the extra plate height necessary; garage is large given that city allows a 600 SF garage, why is a 525 SF laundry needed; why is a 4" sewer lateral needed; there is a gate in the rear fence which ,rovides access to Carolan, will this be uses as additional access to the site, are there any regulations about such access; applicant should address why they want the 10 foot plate height; clarify zoning, seems to be an error in the staff report; are their laundry facilities in any of the dwelling units; seem to have 18 electrical outlets in the garage, why so many; why are the garage doors 9' tall; why is this garage larger than two of the dwelling units and almost as large as the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 largest of the dwellings on site; how would providing a 15' rear setback instead of 10' affect the project. There were no further comments and the item was set for public hearing on December 13, 1999, providing all the information is bmitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VARY FROM THE FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INCREASE IN OFFICE USE AT 880 STANTON ROAD, ZONED O-M. (RUSS HORA, CORK REALTY INC., APPLICANT AND ALBERTO M. RODRIQUEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the Commissioners asked: if the parking spaces were provided to required dimensions, how many would be in the parking lot; indicate 9 trucks parked in the lot, does this include the 3 in the loading dock area; what are the size of the trucks which come to this site; clarify on the plans where the visitors and employees will park; show a site plan with the required parking, how much more landscaping can be gained; need a better rational for the variances; the commercial application is incomplete, does not address visitors and employees on the site in 2 years and 5 years; what is the history of the site, why are there only 8 parking spaces there now. There were no further comments and the item was set for public hearing on December 13, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR APPARENT WIDTH ALONG THE NORTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD FRONTAGE AND FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 488,000 SF OFFICE PROJECT, IN THREE FIVE -STORY BUILDINGS ON A 16 ACRE SITE AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. 'T)AN LEVIN, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, ROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented briefly the Revised Project and the Supplemental Response to Comments Document noting that this study would be different from the typical since the Commission should first identify any questions they might have about the environmental document, to which ESA, the city's consultants, would respond. Then the Commission should ask any questions they might have about the project, which would be addressed in the staff report prepared for action on the Revised Project itself. On the environmental document the commissioners asked: City of San Mateo raised issues under From the Floor, should be addressed, traffic engineer responded since issues seemed to have been brought up at a study meeting held during the summer which he did not attend, he would respond in writing, as a part of the project review, to the letter the City of San Mateo representative indicated he would send; feel applicant should do additional study of wind turbulence and intensity from the other wind directions indicated, CP noted that since wind was identified as a less than significant effect in the environmental document this study also could be requested as a part of the project analysis; how does the report address the projected traffic impacts in the future if this project is built over a very long time frame, traffic engineer Jack Hutchinson responded, the environmental document looks at the traffic now present with the project and the cumulative analysis is based on the project with traffic growth in the area (two models were used), it is difficult for any one to determine what might occur to the economy or growth in the area in the very long term because there are background issues outside of the area which cannot be determined, the cumulative analysis will hold up reasonably well for the future; can you verify the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and what happens in the time left in �tween, traffic engineer Jack Hutchinson responded, the peak hour is a 60 minute window within the 2 hour peak period identified for the a.m. and p.m., because of issues of data, especially for freeway segments, they usually use the 2 hour period; the general experience in the Bay Area indicates that the peak 60 minutes is 7:30 a.m.-8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m., operationally they design for the peak two hours in a.m. and p.m. because that provides adequate City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22. 1999 capacity for the periods in between; how can we determine the overall increase throughout the day; can you calculate the number of cars at Peninsula and Humboldt at 5:30 headed to the left turn and determine the delay and queuing, ffic engineer Hutchinson commented that one can collect 12 hour traffic counts but when deal with an intersection it must be collected by hand, have never had a manual turn movement at an intersection required in an environmental document; have had a problem with the left hand turn at Peninsula and Humboldt from the beginning, what will be the number of cars waiting and what will be the delay; visual impacts indicate that there will be a significant view blockage of San Bruno Mountain, if the project were 65 feet tall how would that affect the view. Commissioner noted that this is a disclosure document, commission represents the citizens of Burlingame and also represent the neighborhoods of San Mateo; document needs to include simple tools to educate the public: in traffic terms the number of cars sitting at Humboldt and Peninsula, east on Broadway to get to 101, need to find a way to show simply how traffic will look at the intersections; would like to see the overall impacts set out differently in a table which identifies the significant unavoidable impacts first, then those which are significant but can be reduced by mitigations and then those less than significant; need a diagram or table which will show overall activity at all the intersections. Concerned about the number of cars through the intersection at Broadway, will cars back up; CE noted that the Broadway intersection is complicated because of the train crossing, need specific detail on the project in order to determine and then it will be a best guess; want to know what incentive caused by delay, which will cause people to take other street alternatives; need information for a reason, commission needs to determine if the impact is all right for the city, have a lot of information here but need more; could consultant provide information on the effect of the auxiliary lanes on the two freeway segments that will continue to have a significant cumulative effect with the Revised Project. Commission asked: what is the status of the EK CA Anderson noted that a public hearing was held on the first three documents and the Commission found those documents to be sufficient in their environmental study of the Original Project, the commission did not certify the document; the environmental document is prepared by the city and is the responsibility of the city (applicant pays but city selects the contractor, supervises the work, and is responsible for the ntent) , not the applicant; if for example, want additional counts beyond what is sufficient for the disclosure then the city is obligated to pay; Commission asked questions about the project: sense a reluctance from the applicant about providing the day care activity, would like to have him show how he can make the day care work for the facility, what would be the terms of the leasehold, would he provide the building shell, etc.; would like applicant to look at the effects of the Revised Project on the west northwest wind and other winds previously studied both in terms of velocity and turbulence effects; applicant should respond to the problems with the simulation data for the 7 and 5 story buildings; trees in parking will be topped to 7 or 8 feet in height, explain how these would have an effect on the winds especially in areas already affected by the buildings; in Revised Project it is smaller but the site amenities are also fewer seems : lost reserve for restaurant at the southwest corner of the site for the wind surfers, no place for the tenants to have a Friday afternoon picnic, no place for outdoor recreation, it is simple to study additional wind impacts and should be done, the architecture of the buildings lack objects which give them scale -they blend into a mass, nothing breaks them down; applicant needs to justify the project at the size that it is; what will the city get if it accepts the impacts, needs to be addressed in detail; would like an alternative to the parking layout, 1200 unistalls plus compact seems like a lot, what would it take (what would the effects be) to make all the stalls standard size. There were no further questions about the project, staff suggested that there were a lot of questions to answer so it may not be possible to set this project for the meeting of December 13, 1999, the next meeting would be January 10, 2000. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 ACTION ITEMS JNSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYARE 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 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 924 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (SHANE SPIEGELMAN AND LYNN HAWTHORNE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Deal asked that it be noted for the record; he will be abstaining from vote on 924 Oak Grove Avenue due to a business relationship with the applicant. APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 831 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-2. (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS. APPLICANT AND JIM BALEIX AND ED RYMSHA, PROPERTY OWNERS) and APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A NEW GROUND SIGN AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D. BILL GIFFORD, APPLICANT AND JOE PUTNAM, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Keighran 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 -�conded by C. Dreiling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; 924 Oak Grove Avenue passed 5-0-1 (C. Deal ,ostaining) and 831 Edgehill Drive and 3 California Drive passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1535 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (LUIS MORGAN, JPS HOMES, APPLICANT AND GREG MITCHELL, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Greg Mitchell, 1535 Los Altos, spoke noting that he and his wife just purchased the house and only wanted to upgrade it. Commissioner asked about the clarification of the findings for the side setback variance, applicant noted that it was an extension of an existing condition which they were not removing and they had added reasons as requested to their proposed findings. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that there have been no complaints made by the neighbors about .view obstruction, the building has some existing problems to correct, the design reviewer had no problem with the proposed design, commission's concerns were With small items so moved approval of the project, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report. The motion was -conded by C. Bojues. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 On the motion: cannot justify the variance for side setback, the design review process has been effective, but do not see the existing hardship, this is a wide lot; can meet the side setback with the new addition; this is a wide lot and a lot of ase, can resolve the 1.5' off set inside easily, the additional set back buys the neighbor relief and makes the exterior of the house more interesting; if design review were not required this set back would be a minor modification; feel setback is all right since it is following the line of the existing wall; at study asked the applicant to address the hardship, has done that, hard now to eliminate the variance; in this case the neighboring houses all follow this same line and are of the same type, since the request is at this location it is OK. C. Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 15, 1999, sheets Al. 0, A2.1, and A2.2, and date stamped November 12, 1999, sheets T, A3.0, and A3.1 and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an 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 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 requirements of the City Engineer's September 14, 1999 memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 4-2 (Cers. Keighran and Vistica dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FROM SHOPPING AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (7 PARCELS) AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR 10 PARCELS FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY ROLLINS ROAD, TOYON AVENUE, LINDEN AVENUE AND ROSE COURT EXTENDED EST; AND A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 3-STORY, 12-UNIT CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 949-965 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED R-3. (RONALD A. PERNER, APPLICANT AND W.J. BRITTON & CO., PROPERTY OWNER) CONTINUE ACTION TO DECEMBER 13, 1999 - REQUIRED INFORMATION NOT RECEIVED A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report, 11.22.99, with attachments. Planner Jagelski presented report, read letter into record from Karlene Harvey (920 Linden Avenue) and noted that PC could not act on applications because Neg Dec incomplete without sewer study. Chair Luzuriaga requested direction from City Attorney as to how PC should proceed with hearing. CA Anderson advised that PC should give comments to applicant, take testimony from public, and PC may make additional comments after public testimony. Commission comments: applicant has not responded to concerns raised at November 8, 1999 study meeting; building looks like a box with little articulation; flat roof and relief bands on side have no character; metal awnings don't look like part of the building; whose privacy do awnings protect - R-1 neighbors; downstairs neighbors. With so few windows, `lie building looks like storage facility. Building does not have best location for sight lines - to north is 7-Eleven, to east Highway 101, to west are R-1 residences, and to south are multi -family structures; building should look good from Highway 101 and Rollins Rd, too; more windows would still give building more human appearance; not enough storage inside building, no place to store bicycles, appears to be 18 - 25 SF of storage per unit - not enough; verify ceiling heights, City ofEurlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 are they 8'4' or are they taller; OK to have delivery vehicles along curb in front of building; on -site temporary parking not required; guest parking is not adequate, how many required parking spaces will be used for guest parking; applicant d not respond to study item questions; what are the heights of the adjacent buildings on Rollins Road and Linden Avenue, would like that information. Planning Commission questions to staff. what is guest parking requirement in code; CP Monroe code does not establish a standard number of guest parking stalls, usually provide at least one; guest spaces are maintained by the condominium association and their availability established in the CC and R's. Only recently has Planning Commission asked for additional guest parking. Commission responded to letter read from neighbor Karlene Harvey: Planning Commission is able to review design of building under the criteria for approving a condominium. The review is based on the appearance and character of building. Commission noted that problems with appearance of exterior of building and lack of windows reflects problems with floor plans; not enough windows from interior perspective. Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, Ron Perrier, representing the project, stated that he would Eke to address issues raised by Planning Commission: height is three stories with parking below and meets allowed height for this zoning district; this configuration allows for increased side setbacks and gives more light to neighbors; he has talked with rear neighbors and understands that privacy is their number one interest; he is not an advocate of metal shades, but they are durable and can be directed to block views; his client is willing to provide trees for neighbors to plant in their rear yards to minimize views; the 5'-0" planting area in rear is a P.U.E. and has a height limit for type of trees which can be planted; the railings were not rendered well; they appear as pipe railing, but will be higher quality, o j pattern;, he is concerned about the bright and unattractive 7-Eleven sign, having more windows in units facing this sign will subject occupants to view of 7-Eleven sign; he is flexible on design, can provide heavy blinds to screen windows and help open )rners of building; he is experienced in design of Single Room Occupant (SRO) buildings; find that it is better to have less storage in SROs; the storage area calculations include laundry and closet areas he is providing separate laundry facility in each unit which is an amenity and also storage area; each unit is designed to accommodate ADA requirements, and 3'- 0" x 4'-0" storage units are fire hazards, expects this to be moderate to low income housing with adequate storage in proportion to area of apartments; street parking is adequate for delivery vehicles; this building provides no blockage of sunlight and is perfectly oriented; he had no previous request from Department of Public Works for sewer study. Chair Luzuriaga asked if anyone else in favor of project wished to speak. CA Anderson noted: public can speak tonight or they can return at next scheduled hearing and provide testimony. Chair Luzuriaga asked if anyone opposed to project wished to speak. Speaking in opposition of the project; Mike Harvey, 920 Linden Avenue, Najan Duemas, 932 Linden Avenue; Norm Torelio, son of adjacent property owner at 941 and 945 Rollins Road; concerned about density and the 3-story building would be taller than anything in this area and look into surrounding yards; blinds, shutters, awnings won't help; parking is bad in neighborhood from car dealers near this neighborhood and the 7-Eleven is very busy; this neighborhood is hurt by this traffic; the building looks cold and industrial, is not appealing. Rollins road has 2-story buildings and a A 3-story building can be seen by neighbors on the west side of Linden Avenue (across street from rear neighbors); an environmental impact report should be prepared for the general plan amendment; why was this neighborhood zoned commercial; does the General Plan affect how their parcels are assessed; would like to see re-evaluation of taxes based on the general plan amendment and wants the environmental document to include a full image study, traffic, parking study, view corridor of houses, economic study to consider other compatible uses, what benefits would result, assessment study and how this project will affect city ,ervices (roads, sewer, schools, etc). Commission asked CA Anderson how will tax base of rezoning be studied, CA Anderson replied that financial studies are not a part of environmental evaluation. Concerned about architecture and impact on pedestrians and tenants in adjacent buildings; parking is very difficult and not adequate on any sites in this area; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November :2, 1999 larger units up the block (Northpark Apts) are zoned R-4 and are very different in that they're surrounded by commercial uses; project design appears to maximize the height, width, depth of project; adjacent multiple family property owner is support of the General Plan Amendment for changing commercial designation to multiple family residential. Commission Discussion: how is it possible to get 3 floors above parking if this site is not zoned R-4; CP Monroe replied that this site is zoned R-3 and the frontage along Rollins Road is zoned R-3. The Linden frontage to Rose Court is zoned R 1. What are possibilities of changing zoning to something else; what about an overlay zone to keep height at maximum of 2 stories; is there a zoning that creates a transition zone; can we change zoning or do overlay; can this still be done on this site; would like more graphic representation of existing uses identifying specific parcels;. CA Anderson responded yes, zoning change can be considered. Applicant cannot proceed until the General Plan is reconciled with the zoning. CP Monroe noted further down Rollins Road is an "R-3 Garden Apartment" overlay zoning; item can be rescheduled for public hearing on December 13 assuming all additional information (including sewer study) is provided. Commission directed applicant to look at condo unit on 1400 block of Floribunda as a good example of a boxstyle condominium project. Chairman Luzuriaga continued the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting on December 13, 1999. The item will be renoticed. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR LANDSCAPING AND FOR VEHICLE MANEUVERING IN THE PARKING AREA FOR A NEW 3-UNIT, 3-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1009 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (FRANK PANACCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Reference staff report, 11.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria ,d Planning Department Comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal noted that he would ,stain from any discussion or action on this item since he had a business relationship with the applicant. C. Deal stepped down from the dais. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Frank Panacci, 1664 Foothill Park Circle, Lafayette, presented the project. He noted that since the Commission's study session they have added articulation to the outside of the structure, the structure is not subject to design review since it is located in an R-3 zone, they are providing 25% less than the required 60% landscaping at the front because of the narrow lot but most buildings in the area have no landscaping, the required driveway consumes much of the 35 foot width of the lot; two of the parking spaces require 5 maneuvers to egress but the standard is based on an 18 foot long car and many cars are shorter than that today. Commissioner asked about the neighbor's concern about the parking garage opening on to their landscaped court yard; thought about extending the side wall but it would increase the number of maneuvers required from additional parking spaces, will provide a solid fence at property line to protect the neighbor; can the fence be masonry, yes. People speaking in opposition: Steve Barsione, 1007 Burlingame Avenue, Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands: there is no FAR maximum in R-3 zone so need to rely on parking and setbacks to rein in the size of the building; based on parking maybe this should be a 2 unit building; the area is impacted with parking because of the existing tennis courts, park and apartments, cannot back out of driveway; do not see any hardship on the property to justify the variance. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues noted that he was in favor, the applicant has tried to address the commission's concerns, this is a substandard in terms of width, the average setback on the street is 13 feet, and he meets the required 15 feet, the landscaping he uan provide is limited by the width of the lot and the required width of the driveway, he has tried to accommodate the landscaping needs in the area available; would add a condition that the applicant place a masonry wall along the property City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minules November 22, 1999 line to.protect the neighbor's interior court yard from the new structure's parking area, by resolution with the following amended conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning apartment date stamped November 12, 1999, sheets 1 through 6 and Sheet L-1; 2) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 134.83' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Burlingame Avenue (99.83') for a maximum height of 35'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3) that all windows on the building shall be either wood or wood clad windows; 4) that one of the parking spaces shall be designated as a guest parking space; and 5) that there shall be a fence between the properties; 6) that this 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. Keighran. Comment on the motion: think the applicant went a long way, he added to the architecture and was open to providing a visual and sound barrier to protect the neighbor's inner courtyard; it is these small apartments which give Burlingame its charm. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the added condition that a masonry wall be placed on property line to protect the neighboring property from the open parking garage. The motion was approved 5-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DEMOLITION OF TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1411 TIAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1. SUBAREA B-l. (JOSEPH KARP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted for the record a letter from Sam Malouf, owner of Malouf s, a business site which shares frontage on public parking lot B-1 with the proposed project. Commission asked staff if any landscaping was required in the C-1 zone, CP noted that there is no code requirement for landscaping in the C-1 district however the city does provide landscaping in public parking lots in the C-1 district. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney for the applicant Joe Karp, trustee of the Family Trust, was concerned that the staff report did not make the concepts which are the basis of this application clear enough: this is a good infill project for this site, the idea behind the parking proposal came from the Saks proposal for 1420 Burlingame Avenue i.e. that if the developer could reconfigure a public parking lot and expand the number of parking spaces in it they would get credit toward the development for the additional number provided on the site; in the Saks proposal they removed all the landscaping, they removed the loading zone for the Garden Center and did not give any of their own land to expand the lot. Why should his project put parking in the city lot: in 1953 the property owners on Chapin donated 20 feet of their property frontage and accepted an assessment for improvements to increase the width of Chapin to provide for more parking, in 1962 the property owners participated in the Burlingame Avenue Parking District assessment and were promised if they paid the full assessment they would be excused from all on -site parking in the future and the parking would be provided in public lots paid for 60% with assessments and 40% by the city; in 1981 the city changed the parking requirements in the parking district and created Subareas A and B, no parking for first floor .tail was required in Subarea A and on -site parking was required in Subarea B, they granted on a concession that parking for the existing use would be grandfathered; based on this do not think it is such a reach for this project to consider using a public parking lot, feel it is unfair to have to provide any on -site parking. The proposed project would replace City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 outmoded buildings which are at the end of their economic life; they are not affordable rents now and the apartment use does not fit into the commercial development on Chapin; we will give the city over one-half million dollars worth of rking which will be metered and the city will accrue revenue on; the project preserves the Burlingame Garden Center use and provides more space for trucks to maneuver; the building will be used for office or perhaps retail uses; the site is not being over -built at an FAR of 1.07 where 3.0 FAR is allowed; the project meets all building code requirements; public lot B-1 would meet all parking stall requirements for dimension with a 24 foot aisle. Mr. Hudak went on to address the specific questions made of the project: the lot narrows at the back so the easement dedicated varies in width from 13' to 15' so that the parking in Lot B-1 can be reoriented on the west side with a 24' aisle width; have added a good deal of screening landscaping at Chapin along the front of the parking lot, the city will control all the parking spaces in Lot B-1; the proposed FAR of 1.07 is consistent with other uses on Chapin, glass brick was used on the east side of the building because the building is placed on property line and conventional windows cannot be used, granting a permanent easement rather than giving the land to the city because if the land were given to the city the property line would change and conventional windows could not be used on the west side of the building; have provided a 4' bumper overhang as requested by the City Engineer, this is not a code requirement, most city lots only seem to have a T overhang, they are proposing a 6 to 8 inch high continuous curb with plantings behind so it will be hard for a car to jump the curb and hit the building; have landscaped the two sides at the front of the parking lot cannot put landscaping on the sides, no landscaping is required in the code, if you wanted 2 feet of landscaping on each side of the building you would narrow it so much the office areas would not be rentable; a truck negotiating in lot BA would hit the trellis before it would hit the building, if the city would like the property owner will hold the city harmless for this event; regarding the cost of the improvements the property owner is donating to the city land valued at one-half million dollars, need to negotiate who will pay all the costs for improving the parking lot, applicant thinks it is not fair for him to pay all the costs when he is making the land donation the city, the city council will have to decide on this matter. Regarding the letter from Mr. Malouf, he came and supported the Saks project's changes to the lot, now he complains about the applicant's -oposal, why; chief concern seems to be the right-of-way between his building and the new office building, they are not olocking this area, only backing into it. Commissioners asked the applicant: asked for a comparison plan showing what could be built on the lot with a project which provided parking on site and office so he could see development without encumbering city property, it was not provided, guess is that could get almost the same square footage. Applicant responded that they were not encumbering city property except the use of the back-up aisle, did consider one bay long of parking under the building with an entrance off Chapin most optimistic design was 17 parking spaces which was reduced to 12 or 13 with the placement of columns and elevators, it increased the cost of the building with a little bigger building. What about the architecture of the structure, what will it look like, it could reflect the brick buildings in the area, the Garden Center, Saks building, small buildings on the corner of Primrose and Chapin, easier to consider if had a jewel of architecture. Applicant responded that the architectural concept will mirror the building across the street, don't want to compete with the neighboring buildings, they are flexible on the architecture once they have the footprint in place will work to get a design that looks good. In that event should note proposed scheme lacks landscaping, texture of the building, pedestrian amenities, its a building in a sea of parking. As chain stores take over Burlingame Avenue the "Mom and Pop" stores are moving into the outskirts, could this building have a retail component, as presented it has no pedestrian amenities. There were no further questions by commissioners. Speaking on the project: Cathy Baylock 1527 Newlands, concerned that if one holds the parking district as a model the whole street would be parking since the Garden Center was originally one of the properties to be purchased and turned into a parking lot; like the village feel of those apartments could put offices in 1420 Burlingame Avenue, should adapt hat we have instead of removing it; do offices fit here they are parking insensitive, they have a different parking dynamic than residential; prefer a mixed use of retail with residential above; if grant a variance what does the city get in return, 19 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 deals made in the 1950's have no merit now, still have parking problem, don't accept easement just to perpetuate attorney's fees. There were no other comments from the audience. Commissioners commented: having a maximum FAR of 3.0 in the C-1 district does not mean you get an FAR of 3.0; applicant responded that in 1981 created overlay zones A and B and focused retail on Burlingame Avenue and moved office and financial uses into B, can have the option of retail but office is what the people want; applicant is known for good quality architecture, he built the project at 1100 Howard which is quality work and reflects the architecture of that entry way, design does not drive this project, if had to put all parking on site cannot develop a 50 by 100 foot lot to get enough building to make sense. In the Saks appeal you noted that putting parking around this apartment building would devalue your client's building, now you want to do the same, please explain. The intense parking is on the applicant's site, only use the public aisle, in the Saks proposal all users of Lot B-1 would circle his building and Saks attendants would have the opportunity to control the users of Lot B-1 by filling the spaces and feeding the meters; with this proposal Lot B-1 is fully under the city control and would have no impact on the building. Your parking consultant recommended that the majority of the meters be 2 hours with some 4 hour and some 10 hour; the office employees will arrive before the shoppers and won't the office employees feed the 2 hour meters. Applicant noted that the city will determine the timing on the meters. Why don't you give the easement property to the city by deed, it would make the encumbrance issue go away, could put notches in the building for the windows and provide landscaped area within the notches. Can't make the building narrower, especially at the rear, would donate the land in a minute if the city would waive the building code issues. CA Anderson noted that a permanent easement is as good as a deed. He also noted that it is not legal to encumber city property, the problem would be in the future if the city decided to sell its holding. Applicant noted why would the city sell unless they were providing parking someplace else. Need to look at past mistakes, put a new building at Broadway and California, there is no connection between that building and the street, this building looks as if it belongs with that one, would feel differently if there was a tie among the buildings in the immediate area, it would provide an incentive and amenity to the city. Applicant noted that the Karps have a long history of good building which fits in, have good architect, want confidence that can work within this footprint before do final design. Did the applicant look into converting the existing buildings into office or retail uses, cost may be about the same , have 9 on -site parking spaces and would result in no change to Lot B-1, might be a more attractive project to the city. Applicant buildings built in the 1920's do not meet any current accessibility requirements for apartments, don't know if can do retail; buildings at the rear are too small to be useful as office space, did not seriously consider since they buildings do not have any historical significance. The applicant sat down. The Commissioners noted: how much would the city gain from parking meters at 15 stalls. CE noted not a lot because one must subtract the cost of collection, maintenance, and enforcement. Unique project, the five parking variances cause red lights to go on, want to see what can be done without parking variances; could support if given an architectural jewel; don't want them to look at the Cashin building as the way to go; would support a motion to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to return with an architectural design; if applicant decides he wants to do a good design he can, the choice is not with the commission; it is possible to add pedestrian amenities, parallel parking with pedestrian access for example; no landscaping but a front of public parking 4 inches tall; might pursue, architecture needs to offer something of older Burlingame, could see a brick building; initial concern was the use of city public parking to enhance private property, don't like the Cashin building do not see giving parking for that building, there is nice detail down the street, would be flexible with the parking if they had a good project that fit the neighborhood and provided landscaping in the parking lot; think encumbrance on the city property can be worked with, concerned about pedestrian environment, has to be nice/special; parking with 18 inch strip of landscaping means losing square footage on the ground floor not above; this is a rich block architecturally look at the Garden Center and at the corner would be more comfortable, can't support now. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission lUinutes November 22, 1999 Commission noted that if an owner wanted to save a building, they can do it if there is a desire to do it; prefers projects with pedestrian amenities; this is an interesting space, but without landscaping, or only having 4" tall landscaping under aeel stops, it is not good; wants details reflecting older brick Burlingame buildings. concerned about using City parking lot for office use rather than retail; working backward on this project, first should work on building design, then parking; wants good building design and more landscaping, then can be more flexible on parking issue. wants a pedestrian environment; probably means losing ground floor area; great that the applicant wants to work with the PC and City, but not ready to support the project yet, but at this point there is potential. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of December 13, 1999, showing confidence in considering the parking proposal provided that adjustment is made to the architecture and design of the project. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Comment on the motion: do something to make possible taller landscaping; look at the parking at the rear; give some justification to approve the project, if it comes back with some creativity OK, but if not can't support the parking variances. There were no further comments. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the public hearing to December 13, 1999. The motion passed 6-0. Since no action was taken the item is not appealable. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING FROM GENERAL. OFFICE TO HEALTH SERVICE USE AT 1820 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED C-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JERRY WARREN AND SUSAN FULLEMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE eference staff report, 11.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Road, represented the project. He noted that they had eliminated the elevator at the rear in the parking area, they had reduced the parking variance from a deficit of 7, and provided 33 parking spaces where 32 are required; they provided 2 disabled accessible parking spaces near the elevator; and reduced the number of examination rooms from 9 to 7. There were no questions of the applicant. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the applicant has addressed the issues which concerned the planning commission including the parking and removal of the elevator in the required parking, so move approval of the project by resolution with the following conditions from 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 November 12, 1999, Sheet P1, and date stamped November 5, 1999, Sheets P2 through P4; 2) that the health services may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:30 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, closed on Saturday and Sunday, with no more than 15 employees and visitors on site at any one time; 3) that any changes to the hours of operation, number of employees on site, number of examining rooms or office, square footage of the building used for health services or by this business, or to the parking area including adding storage areas, electrical generators or any other equipment, shall require an amendment to this permit; 4) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 23, 1999 and November 8, 1999 memos and the Chief Building Official': November 8, 1999 memo shall be met; and 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building anc Are Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. 12 City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Comments on the motion: feel that the applicant listened to the commissions comments, responded and came up with a creative solution to meet the parking requirements; this lot is only 60 feet wide if it were a little bit wider it would not :ed the variance for unistall parking because they could get a legal double loaded aisle of parking. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion was approved on a 6-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AND AREA OF SIGNS AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (STEVE PETERSON, AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND BAY PARK PLAZA ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steve Peterson, 5 Thomas Mellon Circle, commented that in choosing the sign they did a study of size and letters in the area, the proposed sign letters are smaller than those in the "Forbes" and "Hilton" signs, but there are more letters so the sign is a larger square footage; did place a mock up of two letters at the requested size on the building for the Commissioners to see; do not feel that the sign is overpowering, it looks a little larger in the rendering than the two sample letters; the sign will be long but not large; there are 2 to 3 signs on all the buildings in the area; this building has a number of faces which orient to the freeway differently so need more than one sign. Commissioners asked: what is the purpose of the sign, to acknowledge "Crossworld" as a major tenant in the building -id to direct people to the building; the address will direct people to the building, this building is a part of a complex and this building is placed further back; this sign is pretty big to promote a tenant, it is the equivalent of advertising, yes, the same as the others there; if the purpose is to advertise a tenant do not see why it needs to be so big, the "Forbes" sign could have been smaller; at 75% of the propose size, the sign would be hard to read from across the freeway; the proposed sign looks taller than the flat face of the building it is placed on -does it extend beyond the reveals, yes it is intended to cross the reveals because we are unable to close them up. There were no questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: concerned about buildings sticking up with signs on them, the residents view of the bayfront becomes one of buildings with signs; concerned about the size of the signs, do not want a series of large buildings with large signs, these could be smaller and work well, they are asking two times what they would be allowed at grade and the signs do not fit within the fascia face of the building; it is important to advertise but can do with fewer letters, smaller in height, the font can be changed, the color red is penetrating, seen from a long distance like the Sheraton sign, prefer smaller letters. C. Bojues moved to deny the request without prejudice for the reasons stated by the commission. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. On the motion: should give the applicant direction, the letters should be 50 to 7 5 % of the proposed height; feel that the discussion indicated the commission's intent and those items should be addressed; would like a representation of the sign on the spandrel panel to scale. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the sign application without prejudice. The commission voted 6-0 to approve the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL BUSINESS AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED C-4. (O. MASON HURST, II, ALAMO RENT -A -CAR, INC., APPLICANT AND 1OPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. George Corey, 700 El Camino Real, Millbrae, represented the project. He noted that the changes suggested to the conditions were all right with the applicant except that they did not want to tie the site at 1755 Bayshore to a review of this conditional use permit, that site is leased and they do not know if the lease will be renewed in the next year, he suspects a hotel will want to use the site, he has no problem if the use permit for auto storage is canceled at 1755 Bayshore should they cease to use the property for auto storage; he did not know where the limitation on hours for deliveries for auto carriers came from, but the fact is that the transport drivers are independent from Alamo and Alamo has no control over them, Alamo will do all in their power to get them to deliver at off peak times and will have them unload on site, but cannot guarantee delivery times. What is the relationship between Alamo at the airport and in Burlingame, Alamo tried to stay in Burlingame but the airport forced them on to the airport site because they would not allow customer pickup except at the car rental facility, there is no maintenance facility at the airport the only thing that can be done there is washing cars, all other minor maintenance is done at the Burlingame location. What are the other car rental businesses doing, they all have some storage at the airport and all have off -site storage some place, what are the peaks in car carrier activity, Alamo caters to vacationing families so in the summer more cars are moved, the maximum is 8 car carriers a day, they come from all directions since new cars coming into the line from manufacturers come in here and are prepped for rentals, cars are also rotated out of the line here. When do you think you will be up to 100 car rentals a day from this site, do not know, once have this approval the public relations people will begin to romote the local car rental option at the local and nearby hotels. There were no further questions from the commission and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that this was a better application than the previous one, and addressed the commission's concerns, so moved approval by resolution with the staff proposed conditions and the staff and applicant proposed changes to conditions number 3, 4, and 6 as follows: 1) that the project shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 30, 1999, Sheet A1.0, site plan, and date stamped October 7, 1999, Sheet A1.0, tenant improvements for building A; 2) that the car rental, maintenance and storage facility may be open for business 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that there shall be no more than 15 full time employees and 10 customers on site at any one time; 3) that there shall be a maximum of 400 cars stored on the site at any one time, this number shall include a maximum of 125 vehicles on site for maintenance and there shall be no more car carriers loading and unloading on the site then can be accommodated on the site, and that there shall be a maximum of 100 cars of the 400 total stored by Alamo rent a car on the site at 1755 Bayshore Highway; 4) that Alamo rent a car shall make its best effort to insure that no trucks delivering or picking up cars at this site shall arrive or depart between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m, daily, and all such deliveries shall be made on -site with no impact on the public street or right-of-way; 5) that two (2) disabled accessible parking stalls for employees and/or visitors and two (2) disabled accessible parking stalls for customer ready vehicles shall be provided and designed at 778 Burlway road and while on site all other employees shall be required to park in the 30 space employees parking lot at the south end of the site, employee parking spaces shall be so designed and employee cars shall have stickers identifying them as belonging to employees on site; 6) that the loss of the use for auto storage of the site at 1755 Bayshore Highway shall not change the maximum storage allowed at 778 Burlway form 400 cars, that the maximum number of cars to be stored at 1755 Bayshore Highway shall not exceed 100 vithout amendment to this permit, and that if Alamo ceases to lease 1755 Bayshore Highway, the use permit for auto storage on that site shall be come void because the use of the site is not longer linked to a car rental facility; 7) that all employee parking shall be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the south end of the site; 8) that the car rental 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 operator at this site shall pay to the City of Burlingame one percent of the gross rental for any vehicles for lease or rental originating from this site, whether those agreements are signed in Burlingame or adjacent jurisdictions ( for this purpose airport car rental facility shall not be considered for the 1% payment to the City). Payments shall be made monthly, upon such forms as may be required by the City. In addition the City of Burlingame shall accrue any sales tax revenue from rental contracts written in the City of Burlingame. The car rental operation on this site shall keep and preserve, for a period of three (3) years, all records as may be necessary to determine the amount of said one (1) percent payments; such records shall be available for delivery to the City for review within fifteen (15) days after request thereof; 9) that auto storage shall total 400 at 788 Burlway Road and its associated sites 1470 Bayshore Highway, 1380 Bayshore Highway, and 1755 Bayshore Highway; 10) that the conditional use permit for car rental use to write contracts, do minor maintenance and repair, and wash cars shall be granted only to this site with supplemental auto storage only at 1755 Bayshore Highway, no rental contracts shall be written nor rental cars picked up by customers at the supplemental storage site; 11) that no cars shall be loaded, unloaded or stored on any public right-of-way, or in any public access area; 12) that any change to the rental cars, number of employees, average number of cars rented from the site each month, amount of on -site or off -site auto storage, addition of services or secondary businesses to the site, or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; 13) that the fire lane from the north end of the site to Burlway Road shall be provided and maintained, unobstructed, on a permanent basis as required by the Fire and Public Works Department of the City of Burlingame; 14) that the project shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions every two (November 2001) years or upon complaint; and 15) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution, with the amended conditions in the staff report, The motion was seconded by C. Keighran and was approved by a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 'W� ANNER REPORTS REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1999 CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions at the City Council meeting of November 16, 1999. DISCUSSION OF BASEMENTS IN CALCULATING FAR Because of the late hour the Commission continued the discussion of how to calculate basement areas in determining FAR to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 1.15 a.m. MINUM11.22 15