Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.11.23REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 14INUTES November 23, 1998 7:00�P.MP.M. Council Chambers - CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the November 23, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Sr. Civil Engineer, Syed Murtuza MINUTES The minutes of the November 9, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The -order of the agenda was approved with continued itemg'itoted. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public'comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1644 CORONADO WAY, ZONED -R=1.'. ,(H. RICHARDSON, RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTIQN, APPLICANT AND BRYNA ALPINE, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: -the applicant's letter 'discusses the need for a variance for uncovered parking space, is variance requi.red; what are the cleai interior garage dimensions, there have been some additions, can, :car- park in, the space; applicant should show the grades on the site plan;, provide additional information on the type of windows, will they match existing, provide a better description of the parts of window and trim; plans -need correction, show adjacent home in correct location, show correct size and location of ,existing windows on elevations. There were no further• questions and the itew, ivas,sq for -public hearing and action on the consent calendar on December 14, 1998.. , , ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR Both consent items were continued to the December..14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1008 MORRELL AVENUE, ZONED R-l. (GEORGE W. MCCRACKEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 14, 1998 AND NOVEMBER 9, 1998) INFORMATION REQUESTED NOT RECEIVED - CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 14, 1998 and APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1405 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MARK J. TOPETCHER, APPLICANT AND TONY & CIRINA IPPOLITO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (55 NOTICED) (REVISED PLANS NOT RECEIVED) REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOW WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 404 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-l. (ALAN R. & ENRIQUE BOGDANOFF, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 11.23.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Deal noted he would abstain on this item since he has a business relationship with the applicant. C. Coffey became chair. The commission asked if a demonstration permit was obtained for removal of house and asked if this is the first wholly new house to go through design review. CP Monroe responded in the affirmative. Acting Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. There were no comments from the floor. The commission decided to proceed and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: This is the first removal with a new house, wonderful design, concur with design reviewer; the first floor front setback requirement was based on the existing setback at this address of more than 60 feet, the applicant's argument is valid that Peninsula is a busy street, so want greater rear yard to use, can make the findings for the front yard setback; the side setback is a lot more than is required; regarding the height variance, exceed the! maximum height by V-10" and is needed to maintain the consistency of the Victorian design, current rules would not require a variance for this height exception, allowed with special permits if fits design of the house. There were no further comments from the commission. C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the front setback and height variances and for the conditional use permit for the window placement in the detached garage accessory structure for the reasons stated by the commission, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the Plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 14, 1998, sheets 1 through 5 and sheets G-1 and L-1; 2) that all details as shown on the plans shall -2- City of Bu,*79a-e Plying Co—irrl— Min— November 2J. 1998 be included in the final construction documents and included in construction; 3) that traditional wood stucco mould shall be used to harmonize with existing residences, including size and proportion of all trims, railings and decorative elements; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Bojues. C. Luzuriaga amended the motion to include the conditional use permit for window within 10 feet of property line finding that these windows would have no impact on the neighbor and were consistent with the design of the structure and C. Boujes agreed. Acting Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. Chairman Deal returned as chair. APPLICATION FOR LEFT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST STORY ADDITION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION AT 466 C'HATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JENNIFER BURROW, LYNN/LAINE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND PATRICIA FISHER, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 11.23.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked are these the most recent plans, CP Monroe noted they were; commissioners noted that design reviewer was contacted, will review with applicant. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jennifer Burrow, designer, 6754 Dairy Avenue, Newark, representing applicant, stated she was available to answer any questions. Commissioners noted that project was discussed with design reviewer, the intent of design review is to make the addition harmonize with existing house so it looks like part of the original structure; noted applicant expressed the opinion that the project is a victim of timing, started design back in March prior to design review, was delayed 2 1/2 months, reviewer did not want to beat them up on the design because of the fact that the project was caught in the transition between requirements. The property owner, Patricia Fisher, 466 Chatham Road, noted that project was victim of timing, but she was willing to make changes; did change a lot of things based on design reviewer's comments at the sacrifice of what she felt her needs were; did not find out about the need for design review until received building plan check comments, came into counter in March about the time of the moratorium, then were delayed about 2 lh months in making changes, and were then subject to design review. Commissioner noted that there is a problem with the design because the pitches of the roof shown in the plans are inaccurate with different pitches over the living room on different pages, difficult to tell what is correct pitch; reason concerned is that if the pitch of the roof over the living room is not right it will affect the height of the short side wall and therefore -3- City ojBurlingane Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 the appearance of the entire structure; elevations are hard to believe very few dead flat lots in the city, applicant noted that the elevations were taken to show each side of the lot relative to the respective front corner, not cross slope, she described method by which elevation changes were determined; chimney height needs to be increased by 5 feet to address fire separation, will have significant effect on how the house looks; in this neighborhood there are a lot of poor additions, do not want a continuation of that appearance, a lot can be done to make this one look better and have it integrated into the existing structure; the rear elevation looks fine. The applicant noted that they added the dormer at the front to facilitate the transition to the second story addition as the design reviewer asked, now do not like and it is unfortunate; commissioner noted it would benefit the design to change the roof pitch from 5:12 to 6:12, plans should be redrawn to show how it would work. Charles Kavanaugh, 406 Chatham, a neighbor, spoke noting that he lives on the left side of the proposed addition; is a civil engineer and land surveyor in Burlingame, is familiar with the survey requirements and feels that there is a problem here, would like to see the addition as it relates to his house; no problem with the addition but it will block the light into his rear right pantry area and will extend the house along his side property line about 12'-2", the windows of his pantry and of living area in the addition will face one another; would be concerned if this part of the addition was two story because of the loss of light; why did the plans not include plate heights of the house next door as required, commissioner noted that not necessary to show plate heights unless intend to use the exception to declining height, in this case the second story is too far away to be affected; pantry is 6 feet from the fence and the house 3 feet from the same fence; want to be sure that plans are accurate and that he has a clear picture of what is proposed. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: Have a hard time supporting the project in its current state, needs more work and accurate information on the plans; could consider denial without prejudice but need to look a calendar, could problems commissioners have be resolved by conditions; difficult to address design with conditions to action; if the design were better could consider adjusting with conditions; how should applicant be asked to make it better, presently looks like something placed on the roof with a stucco band, needs to be smoothly blended; may mean that floor plan needs to be changed; should resubmit. C. Vistica moved to continue the item with direction. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Comment on the motion: does item have to go through design review again, CA that is up to the commission; suggest that design goes back to the reviewer because the Planning Commission cannot provide the level of detailed direction needed; should go back to the same reviewer. C. Vistica amended the motion to include that the project should go back to the same design reviewer for further design review based on the comments made by the commission. Second, C. Luzuriaga, agreed to the amendment. Further comment on the motion: in redesign should look at the awkward appearance of the stucco wall on the second floor and how increasing the slope of the roof would affect this; also need more information on the windows and the details around the windows. Have no problem with the -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 variance request, if included on the consent calendar when it returns findings for the variance should be included. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item for redesign and for returning the project to the same design reviewer for subsequent review before it is placed on the commission's consent calendar. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Continued items are not appealable to the City Council since the commission took no action. APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2714 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN BUTTE, ALDEN HOUSE II, APPLICANT AND PETER & SALLY BECKER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (50 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 11.23.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. John Butte, Alden House II, 2422 Hale Drive, applicant stated he is available for questions. Commissioners asked what roofing type is proposed for bay window, materials are not called out. The applicant responded that the roof material will match existing cap and pan tile roofing. Commissioner comments: On rear elevation, balcony is integrated well;, but roof over has no support, support post on comer as part of railing; not on elevation, oversight; on floor plan, deck is in line with floor below, rear elevation shows cantilever flush with second floor addition, set back looks better, second floor plan shows correct setback, different on roof plan; wants to know if applicant plans to match gutter detail and windows. The applicant responded that the window and gutters will match existing, new deck will match the one at front. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: gravity of addition is small, justification for height variance is that the house is built up on hill above the street; for the declining height envelope variance, the way the house is placed on the lot relative to other houses in the area the intrusion is small, this is an existing house, the addition is small, meets the intent of the code, design will work; can handle omissions by amending conditions; deck proposed is shown correct on second floor plan, error on roof plan should be corrected. C. Luzuriaga moved approval , by resolution, for the reasons stated, of the height and declining height envelope variances and with conditions in the staff report and three added conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 29, 1998; 2) that the profile of gutter, tile roof and all trim shall match existing; 3) that the second floor balcony shall be the same as proposed on the second floor plan, staff shall verify that the post and roof are integrated; 4) that the roof pitch shall be between 2:12 to 4:12; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, or changing exterior -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23. 1998 materials and windows shall be subject to design review; and 6) that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Commissioners clarified the wording of the added conditions, discussed roof pitch, request look at change in roof pitch, 2:12 all right because of window placement; 3:12 looks better than 2:12, and is more in keeping with the existing house, however, does not matter since 3:2 is within the range of the condition. C. Luzuriaga and C. Boju6s agreed to the wording of the motion. There were no further comments from the commission. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOT TUB ADJACENT TO THE LEFT SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1129 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES W. & S.D. EIGENBROT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (57 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 11.23.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Charles Eigenbrot, 1129 Bernal Avenue, applicant was available for questions. There were no questions and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in favor of variance, yard small, awkward to put hot tub elsewhere; fence needs to be continued along side property line; hot tub would have little impact on neighbor since it abuts the garage. C. Boju6s moved approval, by resolution, of the side setback variance and with amended and added conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 16, 1998; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 13, 1998 memo and the City Engineer's October 13, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 4) that the side property line fence shall be continued to the rear property line for aesthetic purposes or that the Senior Landscape Inspector shall review and approve any landscaping proposed to substitute for a privacy fence extended to rear property line, taking into consideration the need to gain access to the side of the neighboring garage for maintenance. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. On the motion: concern with pump house noise, but letter from next door neighbor is in support, so can agree based on that. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 The applicant asked for clarification on the condition regarding the fence, the neighbor's garage is almost on property line, wants to screen with trees instead of fence, thinks it will look better, if put up fence, neighbor can't maintain the side of his building. Chairman Deal reopened the public hearing. Commission asked what kind of tree, needs to be a maximum of 15' tall, 4' wide, a clean tree such as an evergreen. The applicant's designer, Greg Kirchner, 1307 Lake, San Francisco, noted that a tree would also block access to the building, proposes a tall shrub that could be pulled back if building needs repair. Commissioners asked if applicant would consider a foliage tree or bush where foliage starts at ground line, and the applicant responded in the affirmative. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners asked if could consider adding a condition that the Senior Landscape Inspector review the proposed landscaping instead of a fence; Cers. Boju6s and Coffey agreed to amend the motion with that condition. Commission discussion: have a hard time supporting, not for putting recreational uses on property line, it is an encumbrance on the neighbor; hot tub is next to garage, screen of garage offers privacy, depends on how it is used, usually not noisy; often is a problem, but have garage there greater privacy and reduces noise, best solution. There were no further comments from the commission. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR LEFT SIDE SETBACK, RIGHT SIDE GARAGE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 118 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND JEFFREY C. & MOLLY M. LANE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (61 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 9, 1998) Reference staff report, 11.23.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Daniel Bierman, 1649 Laurel Street, represented the project. He noted that since the last meeting they had relocated the garage 23 feet to the rear from the house and redesigned it to achieve a 20' x 20' clear interior dimension; the arborist suggested that the garage be kept 10' from both trees, with the proposed design it is 9' from the tree at the rear and 6' from the magnolia at the side; hope to have the arborist consult during construction; the garage design keeps the same material, stucco, as the existing garage at the front, will keep the 15' garage door and add a garage door opener; will reuse the existing windows on the north side. Commissioner asked why reusing the garage door, existing sectional door fairly new, and can get two cars into the garage with it; think relocated garage better, but can't have eave and gutter cannot be on property line, needs to be in 5"-6", all right we can hold it back 6"; need to have garage 24' from the house for maneuvering, are willing to move it back a foot. Applicant asked for clarification on conditions noting that the new windows on the addition are true divided lights, but the replacement windows for the aluminum will be simulated divided light windows; -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 commission asked why different, the true divided lights are used at the front for aesthetic reasons and match existing, on the side not as visible and need to keep cost down. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that there was a thorough discussion of this project last time commission saw it, everyone was satisfied except for the garage, the applicant has done what the commission asked regarding the garage, a good job, the new garage design holds the plate; down and keeps the scale more residential. Move to approve the project by resolution for the reasons cited by the commission in this and the previous reviews of the requested variances and design review with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 16, 1998, sheets Al through A6, including the new wood framed simulated divided light windows to replace the existing aluminum windows on the first floor, except that the distance from the house to the new garage shall be 24'- 0"; 2) that the garage structure shall be moved over 6 inches from property line to provide space for the drainage gutter on that side of the new structure; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the new garage shall have an electric garage door opener and the gate across the driveway shall be removed and never reinstalled as it is now; 5) that water and sewer service shall never be extended to the cabana and shall not be used for cooking or sleeping purposes; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Comment on the motion: Commissioner noted that a condition should be added to move the garage over 6 inches from property line to provide space for the gutter on that side of the new structure. The maker of the motion and second agreed to the addition of the condition. There were no further comments on the motion. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, AREA AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-4. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND FRIEDKEN BECKER, NORTHPARK PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (20 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 26, 1998) - INFORMATION REQUESTED NOT RECEIVED APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PARKING VAMANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR AN ALTERATION AND ADDITION TO A 3-STORY BUILDING AT 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (ROBERT BRADSBY, MCCLUSKEY ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SAKS TRUST 1997-A PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 11.23.98; with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked would Lot B-1 continued to have metered City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 parking including the new parking spaces, staff responded yes, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission would decide the time limits; the proposed walkway through the parking lot at 1409 Chapin runs behind parked cars, is this safe; staff noted that this was not a public sidewalk but a required fire exiting pathway to delineate the path of travel to the nearest public street in the event of a fire or emergency evacuation of the building. Does the 33 space parking variance requested include the 2 spaces which are needed for the parking district replacement, yes; if parking Lot B 1 were not redesigned/rebuilt what would the parking variance be for the project, 41 spaces. There were no further questions from the commissioners. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Wayne Hussey, 12 East 491h Street, New York, represented the project and introduce Amy Forbes and the new store manager who were there to answer questions also. He thanked the commission an staff for their many questions and comments which they heard and responded to; he described Saks "main street" retail concept noting that there are 10 in the nation, 3 in California, it is an edited version of the 100,000 to 200,000 SF full Saks department store; a main street store is usually about 30,000 to 50,000 SF and if approved this would be the smallest; the main street store is a women's specialty store. He noted that there is good reason in today's retailing for the extension on the first floor because it is essential that certain merchandise be adjacent to be successful and that is the reason :For the 2000 SF extension requested; but they are not adding any square footage, simply removing; the mezzanine and replacing that same square footage on the first floor and in the basement; they are sensitive to the community and city needs: they are willing to reconfigure the city parking lot and reduce the parking variance from the previously granted 43 to 33; they will mitigate employee parking by providing it at the Christian Science Church even though the parking studies did not show availability of employee parking to be a problem; they are addressing the neighboring businesses problems by adding a skylight to Maiouf's windows; they are converting a partially vacant building to a viable retail entity on Burlingame Avenue which was once Montgomery Wards; they are not adding square footage; they will update the design and architecture of the facade of the building facing Chapin to mirror the Burlingame Avenue facade; and they will be flexible in accommodating deliveries working with the city and neighboring businesses. They feel that they have been proactive in their project design and sensitive in addressing the community's concerns. Amy Forbes, attorney representing Saks Fifth Avenue, indicated that she would be happy to answer any questions the commission had, she worked on responding to the study questions; she felt that she should respond to the issues in Mr. Hudak's letter; there seemed to be three basic objections: the precedent set by this action; that the parking variance was not fair; and that the proposed use would have a disproportionate impact on the residential uses. On the precedent issues: this action would not set a precedent because the precedent was set in 1992 when the property was granted a 43 space parking variance because they needed to occupy the upper floors of the building, without the variance they could not afford to do the seismic retrofit required; in 1994 there were still no viable tenants for the building and asked for 2 restaurants increasing the parking demand for the building which the city approved; Saks will take the two restaurants out and not replace them reducing the number of restaurants on Burlingame Avenue and reducing the first floor retail parking impact; in 1996 the number of parking spaces the building was deficient was 56 ( after the 30 substandard parking spaces provided on -site were deducted), the building was never used for office but the Saks retail proposal would lower the parking deficit for the building from the 43 spaces granted in the previous variance to 33 and reconfigure to code dimensions the on -site parking; the on -site spaces would need to be reconfigured to code dimensions by for any In City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 use which would up grade the building, if do code compliant parking in area now used for parking on -site the maximum number of parking spaces would be 20; so under no scenario could the building be used without a parking variance, with office use you would increase the parking impact with retail use you would decrease the impact; traffic studies done for the project also show that the traffic impact of retail would be less since retail trips are off peak hour unlike office trips; the studies also show a reduction in total trips office/retail use 779 trips, proposed all retail, 607 trips; the restaurants generate a lot of trips and all those would be saved since Saks will have no restaurants so the total amount of the impact will be reduced. On the issue of fairness: the site can't be occupied without a parking variance because there is no way to meet the parking requirements on the site; presently city parking lot B1 and 1409 Chapin work at cross purposes, when realized the problem and found through a title search that there was no way for cars to legally exit over 1409 Chapin from the city lot and blockage of 20 foot access area would cause a problem, proposed to unify circulation and increase Lot B 1 by 8 spaces; Saks is willing to grant the cross easement and resurface and reconstruct Lot B1 to accomplish this at no additional cost to the city. On the issue of disproportionate impacts on the existing residential uses: the parking survey was done twice once in January and once in September after Labor Day, studies showed September had fewer parking impacts than January, first floor retail at 1420 Burlingame was operational at that time; counts of people in/out at Santa Barbara Main Street store showed that 18 spaces at the rear of the store were adequate, there was only one 45 minute time on a Saturday when the 18 spaces were not sufficient; the Santa Barbara data also confirmed trip counts as estimated by the traffic consultant for Burlingame; employees do not need to park at rear of Saks, there is, based on the parking surveys, plenty of parking in Lot H and Saks is working on an agreement with the Christian Science Church to use up to 40 spaces a month when the church will not be using them, the initial contract will be for 3 years with a renegotiation at the end of that time, this is not a required parking mitigation but a betterment to the parking situation offered by the applicant. In terms of impact on the residents, any viable use of 1420 Burlingame Avenue will affect the residents, the parking lot is used now, it is a necessary evil, and no unique impact would be created, if applicant could put 58 parking spaces on -site the impact on the residents would be greater. Believe the applicant has met the test and even provided betterments to justify the modification to the existing variance, this is a unique situation since this is an existing building which has participated in the parking assessment district and the only way to use this building is to grant a parking variance. Commissioners asked the applicant questions: how long have you owned the property, purchased in September 1997; how long has the first floor been vacant, retailers left about 5 to 6 months after purchased; projected 706 daily vehicle trips how do they break out by 'hour, peak usage for retail is 172 p.m. for office 4-6 p.m., the p.m. peak impact for retail is significantly less; propose to have employees use the church parking -will they be reluctant, will make parking at the church a condition of employment even in malls require employees to park in specific locations in Greenwich Conn. park 3-4 blocks away and the weather is bad, they do it, we do not plan to offer a shuttle; how verify that employees are using designated parking, operating manager of the store monitors, it has been effective at all sites; what will you do in bad weather, it is not unusual for employees to walk in bad weather or pick up and drop off one another, not concerned about security in the main street locations; parking is a long walk and indirect and complicated with -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 timing of church services which may conflict with store hours, employees used to a long walk in some malls much further, 5-6 block equivalent, need to reserve the beset parking locations for the customers; how do employees arrive, expect at this location some will arrive by train, Saks will arrange with church for a given number of spaces each month based on. employee requirement, license plates will be checked to confirm those parking are Saks employees, it is enforced by fact that failure to park there is grounds for termination, on Sundays when church uses lot and the store is open (12 noon to 6 p.m.) there is long term space in city lots ( as shown in surveys) for employees to use; not practical to ask employees to walk so far, has worked effectively at other locations, in Beverly Hills have color coded stickers required to get monthly issued by name and license number, human resources office issues and enforces, have no problem if someone is not in the right place; not a long walk about 2 blocks and the employee entrance is at the rear; walk is 4/ 10 of a mile, 90 % of the stores have a longer walk from employee parking than this; three year lease then what happens, come back to church and see how it is working for them and renew, with or without church parking, there is ample long term parking based on parking study within 600 feet of site, this proposal is additional parking to reduce the impacts and make it better for all, the church is willing so it is a win win; where are the statistics on Lot H usage (Ralston/El Camino) response to comment document shows peak hour is 1-2 p.m. with a maximum usage of 40; everyone assume that there is no shortage of parking don't understand, Friday and Saturday are the worst days of the retail week a parking shortage is when less than 15 % of the parking supply is vacant even at peak hour there is 15 % available so the shortage is a "perceived" one; what does it mean to have a "significant impact" if you have a variance have an impact, can reduce impacts with what is permitted with the existing variance granted to the property, parking studies show demand show that 15 % is available within 600 feet of site and is sufficient to handle demand, first variance was granted 1992 and 1994 with a categorical exemption which is only possible if determined that there is no possible adverse environmental effect and the present project is below the number granted in that variance. Senior Engineer pointed out that a study of parking Lot H is currently under way to determine if it should be changed from long term parking to parking for retail customers. John Chiapalone, 1216 Drake, owner of the Burlingame Garden Center spoke in opposition: the proposed modification of Lot B1 will have a dramatic affect on his business, reviewed the history of parking and assessments for parking in the area and the expansion of his business over the years from 1946 to 1960 when they purchased the brick house which they have retained in use and improved; have built the business over many years and have been good to the community, have earned the right to be considered; he noted that the physical size of his garden center is very small usually they are on 3-4 acres of land, so he needs to be innovated, fortunate that bulk items can come in the side, customers come by the side to pick up products and to load into their cars as often as the area is used for receiving, if this area is closed off all customers must use front entrance now about half come in the rear, 700 trips to the neighborhood would inundate the parking, employees from all over now feed meters in Lot B1, Cashin Realty has a meeting once a week which really causes a parking problem, parking at the Christian Science Church will not work; he needs access at the rear without his volume will decrease and the hand writing will be on the wall, can sell the property and put in a 4 story office building on the site. Would a loading zone work on the side at gate, would be useable for deliveries and pick: up. Jim Chiapalone, 1474 Oak Grove, welcome Saks but have a few problems: access to the gates, would like a sign designating this as a loading zone; if cannot have their orders truck there for -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 Ioading will be forced to compete for on -street parking for loading; the lot at 1409 Chapin parks 25-28 cars a day as free city parking, this will be displaced by Saks customers; adding 8 spaces to lot B1 will have little impact but will cause them to have to change the layout of the store, customers would not like to have to side step fork lifts at main entrance; as a resident of Oak Grove near the church, this parking lot is less than 150 yards from McKinley school and there is a big traffic problem at this location as well as a lot of pedestrian traffic and this parking use will increase the problems; measured the distance for employees to walk it is 4/ 10 of a mile. Can you accept limit on deliveries/loading zone use, yes but can't limit to 9-10 a.m. larger vehicles could do, but most are family businesses with one small truck and can't always schedule in the a.m. time frame; as parking now laid out and meters installed gave sign by one gate designating a loading zone, 4 spaces are blocked when the gates are needed, been here since 1946; when is earliest delivery, in coming in Spring 6:00 to 6:30 a.m. unfortunately for residents this delivery uses a diesel powered fork lift, in the winter the earliest delivery is 8:00 to 10:00 a.m.; deliveries are very seasonal and in the Spring come all day as many as 8 to 10 are not unusual; do their best to keep access open but it does get closed unloading is easier to do in Lot 131 than in center of Chapin; what about your trash bin area seems to be located in the last 5-6 feet of the loading zone extending as far as the pedestrian gate, any change to that area will cause the business to have to find a new way to move trash materials probably out the front door, could relocate the debris box on to the site and keep area for loading, we haul our own trash, if extend parking lot would have to use BFI and a smaller bin picked up more frequently and create space inside instead of on city property. Joe Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, appears to be an almost entirely new Planning Commission and don't know if you are familiar with the Parking District, formed in 1964 to combat Hillsdale Shopping Center so Burlingame would have viable parking and could compete, most of the properties on Howard and Chapin were included, if the property owner bonded and did not take credits, they were then exempt for all present and future parking requirements, if they took a credit they were not exempt from present and future parking requirements. In 1981 City Council enacted an ordinance which took away the credits people paid for, created Subareas A and B, took away use of all properties in Subarea A by exempting first floor parking only and required parking be provided for floors above in Subarea A, in Subarea B exemption from parking was taken away and all were required to have parking; difficult to understand the 7,811 SF credit referred in the staff report, none of the building, except the ground floor, is exempt. Welcome Saks, have several properties in the area it will help some and hurt some; Saks should do the right thing, the thing the city did when it bought the bowling alley and built the library parking lot, add more parking; they should spend the extra money to double deck Lot A, it will alleviate the problem; when grant a variance the cars have to park some place. When Mr. Hack came for a variance in 1992 I did not oppose it nor did Mr. Chapalone because the parking turn over with office would only be two times a day, retail in good economic times will turn over 6 to 8 times a day, the variance granted to Mr. Hack is not germane for this reason. Cannot conceive if it is legally possible to consider the 8 added spaces in Lot B1, the Planning Commission does not have the authority to take this action, I have a vested interest in that lot, I paid into the parking district, how can they count it as theirs, they will remove the median and the trees which protect the residential from the commercial, I estimate that will cost $35,000 to $50,000 -to do, I would - contribute $10,000 to get two parking spaces here for my use, how can the city choose; Mr. Chapolone would pay also, think increasing the parking here is a good idea but the city should do -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 it; Saks has a driveway next to them, willing to grant a cross easement and reconstruct lot B 1 for on -site parking, it is costing the city $43,000 per space it is a cheap escape for Saks; the diagrams provided do not accurately represent the layout of Lot Bl, there are two lanes one in and one out on the site many go through Saks site but can make a "U" turn now in the 20 foot area and exit in the forward direction; staff report states that it is city policy to let adjacent properties which increase the number of parking spaces in city lots gain the benefit of that increase, but policy has never been implemented; discussed what parking solutions other projects had made, Pottery Barn, Unique Bride and new building at Highland/Howard; concerned about the vagueness of the church parking proposal, what happens in 3 years if it expires; Lot H is nearly full now, Safeway is counting on using Lot H, can't accommodate all those employees; don't think Planning Commission can make judgement on these questions without hard facts. Commissioner asked, applicant letter states " not adding new retail" been there all along and has been on market for office for a long time and had no interest so this constitutes a hardship, submitted letters from brokers documenting that offices would rent quickly at this site, knew about the variance when bought the building, if not approve it was Saks business risk for buying the building which was not properly zoned, Montgomery Ward's quite in the 1960's. Mr. Karp continued law suite with Mr. Hack stipulated 32 parking spaces at the rear of the building not 17; applicant has the temerity to ask for city property to increase there parking numbers in return for allowing to tie into our lot; he reviewed the experience of Saks in St. Helena; they are asking for attendant parking which we do not let anyone else do; should not approve unless they put new parking on the roles, it is not a good project for Burlingame; there will be a disproportionate impact on the apartment buildings if provide all 30 spaces, that is a silly statement; tenants will be affected, not many affordable rental units, these apartments have been affordable for many years not fair to tenants; had building appraised project to park on all sides will reduce its value by 15 to 20%; commissioner asked about removing the shrubs on the west side to add 5 parking spaces, like the trees would not like them removed but if city decides to add 8 parking spaces in the lot would not be happy but would not oppose, would expect some landscaping back. Stan Clark, 1319 Burlingame Avenue, spoke in opposition, his business is located one-half block up the street, any project which asks for a parking variance needs to be; considered and needs to provide parking on their own property, the church not the answer because what will they do in three years; could put parking in their basement area or give money to the city to deck a nearby area, these would be permanent solutions; parking has been a problem for 50 years and it is getting worse, it impacts everyone. Mark Hudak, 155 Bovett, Suite 350, San Mateo, attorney representing the Karp family, he sent a letter to the commission addressing legal issues you must consider; need to remember: building can be used if deny the parking variance, can follow through with office use which is leasable so with existing variance is not different from other buildings in area i.e., one story of retail use with office uses above; magnitude -of the parking variance is 41 spaces, 70 % of requirement; what you decide will have an impact because it will determine the way other property owners developments or redevelop their properties on the Avenue which will affect the future. Have asked for a Mitigated Negative Declaration to -skip an EIR, if grant Saks there was not full study of important and significant impacts in the areas of parking, traffic and noise; they are adding 8 % more retail to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, 23 % more to that end of the Avenue and they will -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 impact the residents in affordable housing; they will have a long term effect on planning and development on the Burlingame environment; one option is to ask for more study and go to an Environmental Impact Report the standard is, is there any real question, and of course there is. The church parking lot is a question of permanence, the variance which runs with the land is permanent; any mitigation considered should be equally permanent and the church is clearly not long term if you want to consider as a parking mitigation. Precedence and fairness, to grant a variance the building must be subject to a hardship and that this building is unique and can't meet the same standard as others in the area; same first floor retail as other buildings in the area and second and above office, parking is tight same as others in the area, if grant a variance all other on the Avenue can say the same thing, how can you say no to them when you say yes to Saks. How explain to all who had to scale back their projects or turned away a tenant because of parking. Right to the city lots, the city parking lots are the one thing that the city maintains control of for the benefit of everyone, there is no precedent to turn over control of a public lot to a private property owner or to go onto a lot and reconstruct especially when that reconstruction will impact others (taking away the planter and evict the Garden Center from its encroachment permit); only fair if they provide 50 spaces on their lot or nearby. In response Amy Forbes, representing the applicant spoke, they have the right to use the 20 foot area of the city lot, thought that by providing the cross access easement and reconfiguring they would be helping not hurting, they would not control these added 8 spaces they would rebuild and restrip to increase the number of public metered parking spaces and provide the perpetual easement at no cost to the city; they would argue that this is "cheap" that might be a relative term, the 8 spaces were offered to off -set the impact, it is up to the Planning Commission to decide if they want to follow this alternative; even if Saks does not provide easement and redo Lot B1 the parking variance requested is 41, less than the existing 43 space parking variance on the land so they would have no more impact than that previously approved; Saks would give the easement anyway, can't turn a car around in that 20 foot wide area, and deliveries would be a problem for existing users if access to that area were cut off by Saks; Saks can accept deliveries any time between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m., the city only needs to tell us when; is the building useable for an office building, contacted the previous owner who did not have a viable office tenant between 1992 ans 1997, a five year period, no one has approached Saks for office use. Discussed the stipulated judgement and on -site parking, noted that in addition to the stipulations the parking variance of 1992 required deletion of 2 spaces to upgrade the exit at the rear; could add parking by parking in aisle but not assume that this would create parking spaces; any use of this building will affect adjacent residents in apartments and this project will have a minor effect compared to others; opponents want to put office in Saks site but all commented that they want Saks; no one requested an EIR, city prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration not the applicant, it was based on objective analysis and no significant impacts were found, lots of studies were done including repeating the parking study after Labor Day which showed the January count to be the worst case and that worst case was used in the analysis, applicant did not take the easy way out; the parking spaces created by granting the easement and reconfiguring the city lot will create 8 public city parking spaces, not parking controlled by Saks; asking for a modification to the existing parking variance, is the only way Saks can come to Burlingame. -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 Commissioner asked about the findings for the variance; the hardship is based on the fact that a hardship was found in 1992 and 1994 when restaurants were added sufficient to grant a 43 space parking variance and the requested variance is for less; without a variance the building could not be used at all, the building has not been used for five years with the variance for office; the maximum parking which can be provided on -site under current code requirements is 20 parking spaces, so any occupancy is going to require a parking variance; variance in 1992 and 1994 was to get an economically viable use in the building so it could be saved, granting a variance now so that the building can be used by Saks will also benefit all the Burlingame Avenue merchants; any use of the building by definition will have some impact on the uses next door„ variance or not; Mr. Chiapalone uses the city parking lot now but he does not want Saks to use it, he extended his use from the 3 feet granted in the encroachment permit to have business operations occur in Lot B1 that were not permitted, effectively he uses half the parking spaces for loading/unloading, there is a better way to use the public parking lot; any traffic through Lot B1 will have some impact on the residents, this is not a hardship since it is existing now and will occur with any occupancy of the Saks building. Commissioner asked what are the extraordinary circumstances associated. with the property, they all seem to relate to the previous variance granted and have nothing to do with Saks' request, since impacts of retail traffic do seem greater: applicant sees two variances (past and present) linked because to get a tenant you have to grant a variance, that is relevant, the building is not occupied to its potential and you have to give a parking variance in: order to use it and you can't provide parking on -site to match requirement; Mr. Karp took Ms. Monroe's testimony in a deposition out of context, studies for this use at this site by qualified traffic/parking engineers show that the change in uses change the traffic pattern and parking demand to less impact than for office, particularly deleting the two restaurants will have a substantial effect in reducing parking demand, the parking studies indicated that there was enough parking within 600 feet, so that the parking problem was one of perception; there is flexibility in the issue of precedent with a variance since the findings address the specific property and use; no one is trying to take advantage of the city or neighbors, are trying to solve some apparent problems with in the reahn of economic feasibility, if cannot find the hardship Saks will have to go. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Deal after closing the public hearing commented that he would like to have the positive influence of Saks in the downtown and is willing to accept some negatives to have it, there has been a lot of documentation on the project, the project is probably too big for the Avenue the way it is proposed and Commission needs to give direction: providing parking costs a lot of money, reviewed the per space costs of recent city funded parking projects, at $30,000 a space see the 8 spaces in Lot B1 as a gift at the expense of the people who paid into the parking district, view their plan as a way to take over the city lot by changing the circulation. pattern, granting an easement over their property which does not do much, do not want to see the two lots tied together, show 20 parking spaces at 45 degree parking could get 21 spaces at 90 degrees all legal and 8.5 feet wide, feel all that compact on a private lot is all right; major problem is the existing apartment building, it has been there a long time a driveway around it with high retail parking turnover would place a burden on the residents, prefer it to be used exclusively for employee parking to mitigate the impact on the residents; if the two lots are split up and cars parked at 90 degrees cars can go in and out on 1409 Chapin and do not need to use Lot B 1; people who have • easements and encroachments on Lot B 1 have been there for a long time, city has not enforced the encroachment permit in order to control the expanded use or hinted that they should not use, Garden Center may have to go to the City Council to resolve, Planning; Commission cannot grant an encroachment permit, but Lot B 1 has in and out now and should stay the same. Not happy with -15- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 the idea of off -site parking, hope it works but after looking at it closely and given the distance and only three year term do not feel it does anything for the long term parking problem; City of San Mateo had a similar problem with the Franklin Fund building and required them to provide a shuttle, employees still used on -street parking; with 21 on -site, 90 degree spaces can forget the variance for the 2 spaces on the parking credit land. They need a 40 space parking variance, the city pays $30,000 a space and there are no new people in the area to help subsidize the cost. There is no way I can vote for this without a substantial change in the proposal such as putting money into a parking fund and the Planning Commission has no authority to dictate that a developer put money into a parking fund, that matter has to be deferred to the City Council. Recommend that we not give away the parking but that the applicant provide it in another place by giving money to the city. Am not influenced by the precedent issue, each project is taken on its own merits. Other Commissioners noted: when we say that we would like Sak's here, the compliment may seem left handed, you have a strong presence; the problem is parking, :request is for 41 spaces which is a number that is bigger than 5 of the city's 12 parking lots, so. we need another lot; its up to the applicant to see if you can find space for one or deck an existing lot; recommend denial without prejudice to allow Saks to research some way to handle parking; and to come back with a proposal. Don't believe the walking distance from the church is 4/ 10 of a mile, it must be less, remember Montgomery Wards it was always empty of customers, never functioned as Saks would, have to look at new parking and what effect it will have; don't know about employee parking next to retail want those spaces for customers, agree on 90 degree parking and keeping the two lots separate; need to bring new parking to Burlingame. Use is a good match with the Avenue, the problem is parking, the downtown needs to work without enough parking for customers it will not work even for Saks, shortfall proposed is substantial enough to affect the downtown, a good solution is to contribute to some parking fund or provide additional parking spaces with less parking variance. C. Coffey moved to deny the entire application without prejudice, we have given the applicant some direction to re-evaluate the parking which is our major concern. 'The motion was seconded by C. Key. On the motion: with this application two restaurants will be eliminated on the Avenue, Planning Commission represents the city, we live here and have a duty to balance the wants of the city and the people with benefits; not willing to "give away the farm" to get Saks into town, don't see the hardship for the size asking; the Garden Center gave 25 feet off the front so entitled to use the parking lot as a loading zone, not fair to take it away because adjacent lot not viable; the two lots should be kept separate, employees using the area behind the store would lessen the impacts of the project, deliveries can be flexible; giving up the restaurants should allow them to take that number of parking spaces off the variance required; not think an EIR is needed, all this paper and three hours of testimony addressing parking, not needed to say need more parking; have directed the applicant to pursue other parking, can double deck Donnelly and pick up 28 spaces, provide parking at church and make people walk, but don't think they will; like to see Saks given clear direction, to give them an opportunity to come back with a solution; agree, feel have given direction. -16- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice all the requests. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AT 1325 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (CAROL K. MILLER, ANN TAYLOR, APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 11.23.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff was asked if temporary, seasonal or promotional lklylar signs on the windows be prohibited, yes through the conditions on the project. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Greg Doohien, representing; the project, noted that the proposed signage was very much like that of the Gap and J. Crew, he presented pictures to document. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner asked if the signs would be illuminated, applicant noted that the sign over the door at the front and back would be lit by spot light fixtures which extended out from the building, they would be a single pole light and incandescent. There were no further questions or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve by resolution the sign exception for 1325 Burlingame Avenue with 23.5 SF of signage which is within the 50 SF allowed on the primary frontage and the number of signs is similar to those granted the Gap and J. Crew, the overall program is very simple and fits with the store with the conditions in the staff report and an added condition prohibiting temporary signs on the windows as follows: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 3, 1998; 2) that no temporary or seasonal signs shall be affixed to the windows in any manner without amendment to this sign permit; 3) that any increase in the number of signs on the primary frontage shall require an amendment to this sign exception; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with an additional condition. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS AND FOR HEIGHT OF A GROUND SIGN AT 212 EAST LANE, ZONED C-2. (ALI KAZEMI, SIGNS OF ALL KINDS, APPLICANT AND ALICE L. AHO & JUDITH A. SCHENKOFSKY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 14, 1998 AND OCTOBER 26, 1998) - INFORMATION REOUESTED NOT RECEIVED -17- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A TRAINING FACILITY AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, SUITES 650 & 660, ZONED C-4. (ARLEN WALL, TSH ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND WILLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER) (9 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 11.23.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commissioners. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Becky Salina and Jill Collins, architect with William Wilson, 1350 Bayshore Highway, and Arlene Wahl, TSH Architects, 1118 Chess Drive, Foster City, represented the project. They noted that there is already a parking permit system on the site, each employee has a permit, the building is parked at one space per 1000 SF, on that basis this space is allocated 20 parking spaces which they will monitor use of; the applicant is talking about using 4 rooms but having not more than 2 sessions at a time, they will have no regular employees on the site, they are an existing tenant in the building now and have 2 classrooms which they use for instruction 10 to 11 days a month; these are computer classes for software engineers who are developing software. Commissioner asked if tenant in building why change, need to rebuild, the rooms are not as large as they need, improvements would be made by 'William Wilson old tenant space would be converted to office space; have no permits for present training use, recognize need one for such use in the future; will have about 12 people a day and they will stay nearby using taxi or walk to site; do they have computers on -site, some but students also bring their own equipment; the variance for parking is tied to the conditional use permit, so if the conditional use permit goes away so does the variance, yes. C. Boju6s moved, by resolution, to approve the request for the conditional use permit for classroom use in Suite 650-660 and a parking variance for 53 spaces based on the fact that the use would not impact the functioning of the facility because of its nature, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 21,1998, Sheets A0.01, A1.01, .A2.01, A7.01 and A9.01; 2) that the computer training facility may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, with no more than twenty-four students and 3 instructors and employees on -site at any one time; 3) that at least one-half of all the students in each training session shall not arrive at class by automobile, if more than half the students for a session will arrive by individual automobiles the business operator shall provide a bus to take the students to and from the place where they are staying; 4) that the business operator shall implement a TSM program for his employees and shall provide financial incentives to his employees for participating in such a program; and 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. go City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 23. 1998 On the motion: the added use proposed is small and does not occur on a continual basis; how would a TSM program work for such a program, can be done with the parking permits as described. There were no further comments from the Commissioners. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF 14OVEMBER 16, 1998. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions taken at the City Council meeting on November 16, 1998. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m. MINUTES 11.23 -19- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary