Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.05.11REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 11, 1998 7.00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chair Key called the May 11, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga and Key Absent: Commissioner Mink Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Assistant Fire Chief, Ken Muzzo MINUTES C. Galligan moved approval of the rninutes of the April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as mailed. C. Deal seconded and the motion carried on a voice vote 5-0-1 (C. Mink absent). APPROVAL OF AGENDA FROM THE FLOOR It was noted Items #11, May 26, 1998 meeting. approved. There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS 1845-1855 Rollins Road continued to The order of the agenda was then APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) IN EXCESS OF 600 SF, WINDOWS AND A SKYLIGHT IN THE GARAGE HIGHER THAN 10'-0 ABOVE GRADE AND' A SKYLIGHT WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE AT 721 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MICHAEL J. & CHRISTINE L. READ, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe gave a brief summary of the project and requests; cor nnissioners asked: the applicant should provide a justification for the garage given the lot coverage request and address the affect on the neighbors to the rear and left and right sides of the property; where was the 9 foot plate measured from; there are glass panels in the side door which are 8 feet from property line, should these be included in the exception for windows within 10 feet of property line; the plans show the plate at 9 feet elsewhere staff notes that the plate is 10.5 feet, reconcile -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 these; backup is less than 24 feet, do not understand from plans how this was measured; calculated fourth parking place, 9 feet wide, why is this not wide enough; garage to house two military vehicles which are 11 feet long, why is the garage not stepped back to 15 feet in area where these vehicles are to be parked, half the garage could be 15 ifeet deep; plans show a substantial number of skylights, these will cause light glare to the neighbors at night, why are so many needed; not clear on plans which are skylights and which are windows, clarify; the properties behind this site are on Newhall, identify the addresses of each property adjacent to this site; install story poles demarcating maximum ridge height and width of structure so can see from neighboring properties effect of structure. The item was set for public hearing on May 26, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED FORWARD OF THE REAR 30% OF THE LOT AT 1005 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MELANIE MOUNTANOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe gave a brief summary of the project and requests; commissioners asked: applicant should also submit a photocopy of the original plans submitted for a building permit; who decided to move the pool equipment house, was it a contractor's mistake; why was the location changed; 9 feet tall is excessive for this purpose, why the height; why was the relocation not caught during inspections; John Stewart is the architect but his name does not appear on plans submitted for variance, why; did Stewart do these drawings. This :item was set for public hearing on May 26, 1998. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR THE ADDITION OF AN UNCOVERED DECK AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AT 922 CAPUCHINO, ZONED R-2. (BENNY & PROCSY M. YADAO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe gave a brief summary of the project and requests; Commissioners asked: there are errors on the plans, the garage is actually 4 feet from the property line, they need to be redrawn; there is so much built in the existing garage with the storage and laundry that there is really only a single car garage space left; this is an existing ramp; the existing deck is long and narrow, how do they use it; the proposed addition to the deck is also narrow, the ramp should be redone so that it does not interfere with the parking; applicant notes they will remove stairs, did not see any stairs, what will be removed; this is a two story facility, there are stairs for the occupants from the second floor, why need all the ramps if have stairs; if no cars can get in and out, it is not a garage, justify other use; if the Fire Marshal requested an access, how did it get built without a permit; provide history on when and how the four car garage got built; solution to problem is to reduce lot coverage, address why that cannot be done by relocating ramp and replacing garage with a two car structure; since not using it for parking, why should part of the garage not be demolished and the ramp extended in that area; provide information on the number of employees per shift each day; this is a dead end street with several duplexes on it, if get parking variance where will the employees and visitors park; there is a ramp on the left side which is not shown on the plans, was it in lot coverage, did it have a permit, add to plans. Item -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 was set for public hearing at the May 26 meeting if information is complete in time, if not the item will be heard at the June 8, 1998 meeting. APPLICATION FOR A ONE STORY ADDITION TO ONE UNIT IN AN EXISTING DUPLEX; VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR LOT COVERAGE, FIRST FLOOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 1126-1128 LAGU114A AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (DIANE PLESSET, APPLICANT AND LAGUNA ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe gave a brief summary of the project and requests; Commissioners asked: plans show side setback at 2'-4", think it is greater, it appears to be 3'-0", plans are unclear and hard to read, check; applicant should redo their findings for parking variance, there will be two full dwelling units on site, total of 5 bedrooms, how will two parking spaces be sufficient; can they park in front setback, infront of the garage to the right side property line; there is no parking on the street, Broadway is one-half block away; three cars now, where do they park. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing at the May 26, 1998, meeting. ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 526 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT MACOMBER JR., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.11.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer representing the project, asked for clarification of how the average front setback was established on this street; he noted that the house at 520 Marin was setback 20 feet and the garage which they want to retain is also setback at 20 feet; main reason for leaving the garage is the large elm trees on the street, and the existing elm which encroaches into the driveway 18 inches affecting access to the garage; when did site visit there was a truck in the driveway and a car parked in the area you indicated could not be used; property owner is out of town and parked vehicles there off street. There were no further comment and the hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the city instituted the concept of new construction about three years ago so that major remodels with nonconforming situations could be reviewed and decided upon; this is a major remodel, not many walls will be left, substantial addition will be made to the outside, it will be hard to save the roof; not see anything exceptional, can make the garage wider, the covered entry will get smaller, but the new bedroom is being extended out and can be adjusted to add to the entry; given the amount of work, it is time to widen the garage; the front setback variance is for an existing condition, it has been there for years, would be difficult to move for -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 5 or 7 inches. Based on these findings he moved to approve the front setback variance with the interior of the garage increased to 20 feet in width and the garage length kept at 19'-3", the forced air heater and water heater can be retained; action would be by resolution with conditions as modified by motion. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Discussion on the motion: can the elm be removed; applicant would need to demonstrate the need and get a permit from Beautification Commission; would like to add a condition that the elm tree be protected during construction using standards defined by the Senior Landscape Inspector. C. Deal the maker of the motion and C. Galligan second, accepted the amendment to the motion to require that the elm tree in/adjacent to the driveway shall be protected during construction by methods recommended by the city's Senior Landscape Inspector. Discussion continued: the designers letter indicates that he has 5 feet at the garage, he is required 4 feet so the increase on the left would be difficult to make up 2 feet, can he respond; CA noted that applicant could not speak since there was a motion on the floor. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the amended motion with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 10, 1998 sheets 1 (site plan/roof plan), sheet 2 (existing/proposed floor plans) and sheet 3 (elevations), except that the interior of the garage shall be increased to 20 feet and the length can be kept at 19'-3"; 2) that the conditions of the Senior Engineer's March 16, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the elm tree in/adjacent to the driveway shall be protected during construction by methods installed before construction begins and as recommended and inspected by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was carried 3-2-1 (Cers. Coffey, Key dissenting, C. Mink absent). Appeal procedures were noted. APPLICATION FOR A REMODEL AND FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION REQUIRING VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS; FLOOR AREA RATIO; PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT 1117 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (TONY PANTALEONI, APPLICANT AND ANTHONY AND ROSALIE SPITERI, PROPERTY OWNERS). CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 13, 1998 MEETING (58 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.11.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department continents, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked ,why was a side property line survey required, CE responded that when project is new construction Engineering requires that property corners be set the same as if property is being developed the first time; picture in staff report shows two cars parked in garage, is this a single or two car tandem garage now, applicant will respond. This application was submitted before design review became effective. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Chair Key opened the public hearing. Tony Pantaleoni, architect, San Francisco spoke for the applicant; the photo showing two cars in the tandem garage was taken of the applicant's present garage in San Francisco; property owner has been parking tandem in his house in San Francisco for the past 19 years; showed photos of house, want to maintain the front portion of the existing house, purchased 6 months ago with intention of keeping front; garage has a 7'-4" ceiling height, need to step down to the garage about 3 feet; the side setback variance for 3' to 3'-2" is existing, the house was built in 1907, want to keep the existing side walls, not making much change there; extend right side or garage, would like two side -by -side stalls but it would take part of the living room which has a vaulted ceiling, there is 14 feet clear on the side to the living area; exceed FAR by 156 SF, if removed new front portion of the garage would reduce 161 SF and meet FAR requirement; the rear of the house extends into the declining height envelope now, because of the floor to ceiling height in the garage and the base of the family room need to add one foot which increases the existing declining height exception by a third; alternative he cannot build over the kitchen because of the 4'-2" setback or over the living room because of the vaulted ceiling and would increase the mass from the street; tried to keep the remodel to the rear where there is a flat roof now; only increasing the square footage of the house by 30%, trying to make house tie into the existing neighborhood. Tony and Rosalie Spiteri, property owners, 261 Harbor, San Francisco, also spoke, the reason their offer was accepted by the owner was because they did not intend to demolish the house, they are ]limited in what they can do if they retain the house; they will improve the appearance of the house; love Burlingame, knew when stepped in that this was going to be "my home", want to protect the character of Burlingame. Commissioner clarified with architect the ceiling height in the garage, 7'-4", unfinished, no habitable space. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: concerned with the size of the rooms being proposed, the rooms are bigger than the dimensions on the plans indicate; garage is 5 feet longer than the plans indicate; family room does not include the area in the bay window in the dimensions, and the dimension stops short of the kitchen; this project has a lot of big rooms; when need this number of exceptions there is something basically wrong, needs further review by the applicant and owners; have little concern about the left side setback, it is an existing condition and is not being expanded, have a problem with all the rest; if have a two car off street parking requirement can solve by removing garage and room above and putting a detached garage at rear with a driveway along the side property line; all requests intrude into neighbors, nothing given back to city; no excuse for extra FAR, cannot make a finding; have argued tandem parking for a long time, but now it is prohibited to use tandem to meet required parking, given extent of remodel can do other things; garage is not good enough, may be at rear; if whole remodel were smaller then there would be no declining height or FAR exceptions, in favor of variance for tandem garage, need to reduce the bulk of the garage; not like right side, impact adjoining property to have part of the building exceed declining height; this application doubles the declining height envelope intrusion, applicant also asks relief on the other side, its too much; rooms need to be reduced in size. -5- C ay of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Discussed possibility of denial without prejudice, CA noted that denial without prejudice would not be possible in this case because the application if denied in any way would be subject to design review. C. Deal moved for denial of the application for the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Discussion on the motion: applaud intent to retain charm of the front of the house, city is fighting to maintain character, have a lot of wants in this project, possibility of tandem parking and side setback with existing condition give you something to work with. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The commission voted 5-0-1 (C. Mink absent) to pass the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL (COMMON) OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS) CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 27, 1998 MEETING (72 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.11.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirteen conditions were recommended for consideration. CP Monroe noted a change to condition 9 to require that the pavement be marked and signage be added to direct drivers to the guest parking, and that the markings and signage be installed and maintained by the condominium association. Commissioner asked City Engineer if CalTrans required the 27 foot driveway, CE Erbacher stated he did not know precisely why, often if they see a maneuvering or sight line problem they will require a larger driveway or a relocation. There were no further questions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Kendell Peterson, 162 Carmel, El Granada, applicant, and Behzad Aflak, property owner, spoke CalTrans did require the larger driveway width as a safety measure; provided no common open space because small size no one would use, if private yard home owner would take care of and have a larger space to use; commissioner noted that the site plan shows a concrete path going through Unit C's open space, but it does not show on landscape plan, if private why provide walkway; engineering requires that site slope in for drainage, could put in a curb instead then all in planting; are all exits shown needed, Building and Fire code required; who will maintain the private open spaces, the property owners of each unit, the front landscaping will be the responsibility of the condominium association; last submittal had common open space of 300 SF at front, could still do that if required; will build an apartment if do not get condominium permit tonight; want a condominium because son wants to own one of these units. 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minoru May 11, 1998 Speaking on the project were Vic Willoughby, 1519 Carol Avenue, George Zannis, 1515 Carol, Angie Wilson, 1511 Carol. Their comments were: prefer a condominium to an apartment house; am opposed because of the exception for open space, told owner I would agree to support if the project met all the city's requirements. Commissioner asked, this is a pie shaped lot, wants 3 units and provides no common open space so that he can expand private space for better use, how does this affect you; don't know, agreed that would support if it met all the requirements of the code; OK with me if only exception needed is to common open space, commission is better qualified than I to decide that issue; property line is 8 feet away from house and structure is three stories high, will shadow yard and affect way he lives in house, design includes side stair, other two on El Camino have front entrances that is better; sidewalk has been damaged by demolition work and site needs to be fenced; if comply with all rules and regulation don't see why can't continued to build; my property 50 feet wide will look into wall 33 feet tall, not happy, understand they bought the property, will build, opposed to liquid amber trees in side yard, they take three months to shed leaves, husband has condition so hard for him to rake, dog chews pods and chokes; can they agree to plant something else; opposed to liquid amber. Property owner responded: will provide 300 SF of open space at front have space; will replace liquid amber with evergreen trees so no problems. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted the commission considered the tentative map, reviewed the project and made a site visit, talked with neighbors, held a hearing tonight, feel sympathy not want a three story next door but property in R-3 zone and code allows; move approval of the condominium permit by resolution with conditions 1 through 13 and the addition to condition 9 to install and maintain guest parking signage by the condominium association and to replace the liquid amber trees with evergreens. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Discussion on the motion: need to add landscaping to block the view from the three story building into the two story, as shown plans do not provide a continuous screen along the property line, need to make it continuous; think the condominium improves the architecture; recommend that the liquid amber be replaced with three evergreens, plans show liquid amber in 10 gallon containers think evergreens should be in 36 inch boxes, screening calls for 5 gallon plants think should increase container to 20 gallon so it will not take so long to mature; plans show the location of a tree trunk next to a balcony, need to work with the Senior landscape inspector to relocate the trees so that they will grow properly; need to try to mitigate situation with neighbors, this is a wide lot and three houses are affected; just trees along the rear property line, no problem with open space given the amount required for three units, too small to be useable, better in this case to be private; property is unique in its shape, affects three homes on E. Carol; only one parking space is accessible for guests, the alternative is to park on street infront of these same three houses, not enough parking because all are enclosed, can't solve, know they can build apartments; could provide an additional guest parking space but it would have to be in the front setback on the left side, could be as little as 16 feet deep since not a required space, it could be screened by mature landscaping; CA Anderson pointed out that a parking space in the front setback would require a variance and the project would need to be -7- City of B-hngame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 renoticed before the commission could grant such a variance. Staff noted required parking is not allowed in the front setback on El Camino because if the street is widened the space would be removed; Commissioner noted that it would be years before El Camino would be widened and extra space could be used until then. C. Coffey asked to amend the motion to continue it to a date certain so that an additional variance for parking in the front setback could be noticed; CA Anderson noted that the tentative map and the CC and R's would also need to be amended. Commissioners were reluctant to delay the project further; C. Coffey decided not to amend the motion noting that it was the consensus of the 5 members seated that they would like guest parking within the front setback. The applicant noted that he would be happy to provide one more parking space, if he gets permission to do it and he will file for a variance, but he would like the project approved tonight so that he can get on with construction. Commissioner asked what is the motion; CA Anderson noted that the property owner's agreement to apply for a variance in the future is not binding; CP Monroe reviewed the motion: move to approve by resolution the condominium permit with conditions 1-13 in the staff report, except that condition 9 is amended to require that the condominium association install and maintain signage on the pavement and site directing cars to the guest parking space and adding a condition that requires that the three liquid amber trees shown on the landscape plan be replaced by three 36 inch box evergreen trees (placed at a location approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector), the property line at the rear of the private open space gardens be screened from adjacent properties by a continuous row of 20 gallon shrubs which will grow to the same height as the intermittent screening plant material shown on the landscape plans and that the walkway through Unit C's private open space shall be placed with a curb along property line as approved by the City Engineer and planting area increased within the private yard spaces as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 20, 1998, sheet CAI (Site Plan, Location Map, Topo & Demolition Plan, 2nd & 3rd Floor Plans), CA2 (Landscape Plan, Roof Plan), CA3 (Elevations- East & West), CA3.1 ( Front Elevation, Sections & Perspectives) and Tentative Map (date stamped March 16, 1998), with the change that the walkway in the private yard of Unit C shall be replaced with landscaping and a curb approved by the City Engineer installed to address drainage; 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50 % of the lot area and any increase in the proposed 33 % lot coverage will require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 3) that the liquid amber trees shown on the landscape plan shall be replaced with 36 inch box evergreen trees and the screen of vegetation along the rear of the private yards shall be replaced with a continuous screen of the same shrubs using 20 gallon container plants, and the location of the evergreen trees installed shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector to insure that they are placed with sufficient separation from all parts of the structure; 4) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 72.55' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (38.85'), and that the top of each floor, final roof ridge and front, side and rear side setbacks for each floor 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/setback at any point, it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height and setbacks of the structure with roof shall not exceed the City of Burlingame P"wing Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 maximum height and setbacks shown on the approved plans; 5) that the conditions of the Senior Landscape Inspector's February 25, 1998 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 20, 1998 memo and the Senior Engineer's March 13, 1998 memo shall be met; 6) that one (1) guest parking stall (11'x20') shall be designated in the carport under Unit A and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stall shall not be enclosed, and that the condominium association shall install and maintain pavement marking and signage which directs drivers to the guest parking stall; 7) at the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 8) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 9) that the on grade parking garages shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 10) that appropriate directional signage to the guest parking space shall be installed and no guest parking sign shall exceed 2' x 3' with a maximum height of 3'-0" above the adjacent grade; all directional signs shall be maintained by the condominium association; 11) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 12) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; and 13) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Commission comment: understand that it is based on good faith that the applicant will come in for parking variance, uncomfortable to approve project except for guest parking, will be a problem for years if he does not come in for the variance request; not vote yes if project not work without additional guest parking space, have no enforcement on promise; time to accept the man at his word; project is fine and correct, neighborhood accept with improved conditions; these will be Burlingame people, trust that they will make application; additional parking is desirable, all want it, no doubt that he will do it, especially if relative is one of the property owners will live there. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve as amended. Commissioners voted 3-2-1 (Cers. Deal, Galligan dissenting; C. Mink absent) to pass the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 27, 1998 MEETING Reference staff report, 05.11.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. C. Coffey moved to recommend the tentative map to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend. The motion passed 4-1-1 (C. Galligan dissenting; C. Mink absent). C. Galligan moved if applicant comes in within the next 30 days with the request for a variance to add parking in the front setback, commission recommend to council that they waive the variance fee and that if a variance is requested the matter should be brought directly to action before the Planning Commission.. Motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the motion: CA Anderson said that commission can only recommend to Council that the fee be waived. Commissioner noted that there is no reason that the item be brought back to study, it can go right to action. CA Anderson noted that there will be two new planning commissioners seated when this application comes back cannot guarantee how it will come out. C. Galligan agreed to amend the motion with the direction to bring the variance request for parking in the front setback directly to action; C. Deal, the second, agreed. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend waiving the fee and bringing the variance request directly to action at the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a 5-0-1 (C. Mink absent) vote. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (MORTGAGE COMPANY) WITH FRONTAGE ON CHAPIN AVENUE AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1. (NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC., APPLICANT AND CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) (84 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.11.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Sheryl Dehni, resident of San Carlos, represented the applicant, had no additional comments. Commission asked if operating hours of 8 to 5 were too restrictive, are there people there after 5; applicant noted that they are backed by Northwest -10- City of Burlingame Planting Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 bank and keep to standard banking hours, occasionally people are there after 5 to do paper work. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga noted that he had reviewed the application and did not find anything detrimental to the site from this use and that the use is consistent with the building so moved to approve the financial institutional use in Suite 360 with the findings and the conditions in the staff report by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: would like to change condition 2 so that it is stated in the positive: "that the financial institution may be open for business during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m...." C. Luzuriaga as maker of the motion and C. Deal as second accepted the amendment to the motion. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the amended motion. The commissioners voted 5-0-1 (C. Mink absent) to approve the motion with the following amended conditions: 1) that the financial institution shall be limited to 1073 SF in Suite 360, at 1440 Chapin Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 1998, Floor Plan for Suite 360 and date stamped March 27, 1998, Lower Level Parking, Mid Level Parking, First Floor Plan; 2) that the financial institution may be open for business during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with a maximum of 7 employees on site at any one time; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chair Key called for a brief recess at 9:15 p.m. The commission reconvened at 9:22 p.m. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE STORAGE FOR HERTZ CAR RENTAL BUSINESS AT 1649 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1. (THE HERTZ CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND SEVEN SPRINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (34 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.11.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked: how wide does a fire lane need to be, 24 feet; is there a permit for storing autos (car rental vehicles) at Prime Time, no; are they using the area permitted for motel guest parking, no; is 1730 Rollins Road the correct address, staff will confirm, area being used is unpaved south side of building in abandoned spur track right-of-way and in drainage easement; is there a requirement for sole tenant for auto storage, no there is for car rental agency, no cars proposed to be rented from this site; minimum site size required is 0.7 acres, area 24' x 600' of proposed storage area on this site will be dedicated to fire lane, if that is subtracted, then applicant does not have 0.7 acres required, CA -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Anderson noted that how the area is measured is up to Planning Commission; Fire Marshal noted that department needs 24 feet at corners where the ladder truck would be parked for access, along rest of building need 10 feet for putting hand carried ladders against building, probably need to take closer look at site to determine exactly. There were no further questions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. John Townsend, El Sobrante, representing Hertz and Nabial Daoud representing Color Copy were present. Mr. Townsend noted that Hertz is using the space on Rollins Road for airport fleet storage; he said they need this use permit until December 1999 because they are not sure of the airport's construction schedule and also need a transition time; Hertz has contacted the owner of Prime Time to get the site plans they need for submittal, have not received information yet so have not applied. Daoud, Color Copy, responded to the question about available on site parking, he said they operate -24 hours a day and a lot of employees carpool, so not need a parking spot for each employee. Commission asked Mr. Townsend: May 1 letter to city from Hertz said requested a permit, has one been filed for, no; why does letter say it had been applied for, don't know miss stated; there is a Hertz sign on Airport Blvd. across from the DriveIn theater, this was not identified as a place Hertz was storing cars in Burlingame, why; because that site is used by the regional office to bring new cars into the fleet, the Adrian Road and Rollins sites are used by the Millbrae office for airport fleet storage; commission asked staff if a permit had been issued for the Airport Blvd site, no, the site is nonconforming, has been used to store car rental vehicles before current zoning. Commission continued questions: have seen cars parked by people wearing Hertz yellow jackets, on Adrian Road near 101, why; those are employees parking their own cars there, they work for service master who contracts with Hertz; why are all their cars new and look alike; Hertz does not park any cars on the street that Mr. Townsend knew about; does Hertz park, for airport fleet storage, cars on any other sites besides Adrian road and Prime Time, no; does Hertz pay any revenue to the city for any car storage sites; no; looking at aerial of Adrian site see loading docks on the right, are they still in use, not in way previous tenants used them when site was all warehouse, now the loading docks are at the front, facing Adrian, the side is more open now; looked at site plan, is part of parking area for Hertz use on a separate parcel; when moved in area at rear not used at all, don't know if it is a separate lot or not; staff noted that a part of this rear area was abandoned spur track right-of-way which adjacent owners purchased, do not know if this segment was merged to larger lot. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: parking requirements are based on generalized assumptions, don't know how parking will really be used, see 338 employees and 212 parking spaces and am troubled by the imbalance; if Hertz needs to park 210 vehicles at the rear and the fire lane needs to be kept clear, then their space is much smaller, there are also power poles reducing the area, hard to see how they will get 210 cars in even dead -headed; problem is not the interim use but the way the applicant has gone about it, a business like Hertz that has been around for a long time should -12- City of BurBngame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 know the rules; it is easier to go use the sites and then ask permission; say out December 1, 1999, not sure now, my fear is go to December then extend, and stay longer and we will have to do code enforcement, is there a way to create a penalty fee; CA Anderson noted that there were two approaches which could be used: a fine based on the impact of the temporary use or require a bond which could be forfeited if permit requirements are not met or use does not cease on December 1, 1999, thought that anything over $5000 to $10,000 would be large enough to get the Hertz Corporation's attention; Adrian Road is in poor condition, CE Erbacher noted that city will replace Adrian Road this summer for $1.6 million; the car storage project impacts the city and provides no benefit, Color Copy get rental, CA Anderson noted that this use permit will cause a reassessment of the property and an increase in property taxes; if Hertz is engaging in business in Burlingame they will need a business license, a $100 annual fee; no way I can vote in favor, letter tells us use in effect and permit process not begun, sad state of affairs; can't act until figure out what Hertz is doing on all properties in city; if airport facility available in November 1998, why need to go past December 1998; if construction is a problem can come then and ask extension; given parking impact and wear and tear on street see no benefit, how can Hertz park in Burlingame and pay no money when we have to pay a lot for airport parking; should be a user fee; CA Anderson noted that we charge taxi fee but we have no fee schedule established so cannot charge fee now, need ordinance; need to look at how impacts differ from other businesses on Adrian. C. Galligan moved to continue this item in order to get other application submitted. C. Coffey asked for the motion to include requiring the applicant to provide information on all the Hertz sites in Burlingame and what they are used for and those in Millbrae as well, i.e., the applicant should revisit the questions asked for the May 1, 1998 letter. C. Deal asked that the motion include a resolution of the fire lane issue. C. Galligan revised the motion moving to continue this item to the meeting of June 8, that the application for the Rollins Road site be submitted before that date, that the applicant submit revised answers to the questions in the May 1 letter and address all Hertz operations in Burlingame and those in Millbrae which affect Burlingame, including all sites and what they area used for, that the fire lane issue be resolved and the amount of useable area for parking and number of cars which can park there be clarified, add information on whether a part of this area being used on Adrian was on a separate parcel and add a condition to provide for a performance bond. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Discussion on the motion: it was clarified that the use of the site for car storage would probably continue during the time the clarifications were being prepared; and when was the area at the rear of the Adrian Road site paved. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion outlining additional information needed and to continue this item to June 8, 1998; it passed 5-0-1 (C. Mink absent). There was no appeal since the commission continued the item. -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1845-1855 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1. (FREDRIC V. ALLEN, INC., APPLICANT AND F& M PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (21 NOTICED) TO BE RENOTICED AS A LOT COMBINATION AND CONTINUED TO THE TUESDAY MAY 26 1998 1845-1855 Rollins Road continued to May 26, 1998 REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 860 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JEFFREY T. & C.L. FRANCESCONI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 05.11.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions on the staff report. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Jeff Francesconi, applicant and property owner, spoke noting that the application was exactly the same as that approved by the Planning Commission a year ago; he had been delayed because of a problem with his back, he intends to do much of the work himself and could not until he was better. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented that he would abstain from any action on this item since he had a business relationship with the applicant. C. Galligan moved to approve the one extension of the Planning Commission's action on 860 Paloma by resolution with the originally approved conditions since the applicant had made some revisions to the project at the time of the first application and there is no change which would degrade the project from what was originally approved by the Planning Commission, on site inspection the neighbors had noted that they look forward to the completion of this project; Planning Commission can only extend an action once and for one year, if the project is not completed within the time then the applicant will have to return for another Planning Commission review. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-1 (C. Mink absent, C. Deal abstaining) with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 1997, Sheets 1 through 5, and G1 except that the maximum width of the garage shall be 12 feet and the gate across the driveway shall be removed or changed to provide an automatic opener so that parking on site will be accessible; and 2) that the project shall receive a building permit before May 5, 1999, and the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Appeal procedures were advised. -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes PLANNER REPORTS May 11, IW8 - ELECTION OF OFFICERS CP Monroe discussed with the commission the City Council's progress on making appointments to fill the vacancies and expired term on the Planning Commission. She noted that based on the current rules of the Commission the election of the officers of the Commission would have to be delayed until all seven members were seated and present. She suggested that the election be held, if all seats had been filled by then, at the commission meeting on June 8, 1998. The Commission concurred. - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 4, 1998. CP Monroe briefly reviewed the actions of the City Council meeting of May 4, 1998. She noted that the Council had decided to retain a seven member Planning Commission and that a Council committee would interview prospective commission candidates on Saturday, May 16, 1998. It was anticipated that the Council would make appointments at their regular meeting on May 18, 1998. If this schedule is adhered to the new Planning Commissioners would be seated at the meeting of May 26,1998. - APPROVAL OF TWO (2) ADDITIONAL DESIGN REVIEWERS Staff proposed three additional design review consultants to be considered to implement the interim ordinance. These professionals would be added to the two appointed at the last meeting and applications requiring design review would be assigned randomly among the consultants. Commission determined that all three were qualified and that instead of selecting a total of four, all three should be appointed to service for the duration of the interim ordinance. - FIRST DRAFT OF REVISED COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE (MARCH 18, 1998) Since it was after 10:00 p.m. Commission deferred discussion of the Commission Rules of Procedure until their meeting of June 8, 1998, when there will be a full commission seated. C. Galligan brought the commission up to date on the progress and review schedule of the Food Establishment Subcommittee. He noted that he expected Commission to be able to have public hearings on the new regulations about September. -15- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ADJOURNMENT May 11, 1998 Chair Key called for a motion to adjourn. C. Galligan moved for adjournment. C. Luzuriaga seconded the motion. The motion to adjourn passed by voice vote 5-0-1 (C. Mink absent). The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. MINUTES5.11 -16- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary