Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - PC - 1997.04.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 28, 1997 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on April 28, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink: (7:10 p.m.), Wellford and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the April 14, 1997 Planning Commission minutes, page 5, para. 3 were corrected to read; "The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) on a voice vote". The minutes were then approved. AGENDA - Staff noted that since the commission should not begin the Action Items with noticed public hearings until 7:30 pm, if the Study Items were completed before that hour, item 16 and Planners Reports should be moved forward for action. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCES AT 800 MAPLE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (DOUG MAGHELL, APPLICANT AND SHEDAN & RUHIYYIH R. MAGHZI, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: Appears that applicant has alternative to redesign so variances would not be required, why was this not considered; need clearer findings for exceptional circumstances having to do with the property, can applicant add; what is being asked for does not seem to conform with what is in the area, please address; other options for improvement with lower roof height have not been addressed. Item set for action on May 12, 1997. -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 APPLICATION FOR MINOR MODIFICATION AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2012 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (ROB & DIAN DELANTONI, PROPERTY OWNERS AND SCOTT SULLIVAN, AIA. APPLICANT). Requests: property already over lot coverage, proposal increased nonconformity, are there other alternatives; how old is the shed, can you tell when the assessor identified its presence; are the breezeway/porch counted in lot coverage; the proposed addition will change the access within the structure in such a way that to get to the bedrooms one will need to go thorough the living room, why is this better; why does the applicant need two laundry rooms. Item set for action on May 12, 1997 if the questions have been addressed. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 235 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1, (W. GREGORY MENDELL, APPLICANT AND MALCOLM S. KOHN, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: How would the size of signage and number be affected if all the signs on the awning were measured as one; what would be the effect on size and sign number if the three Kerns signs over the door on the primary frontage were measured as one. Item set for action on May 12, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE EXPANSION OF A RESTAURANT AT 1327 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, (GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT AND BILL NER:LI, PROPERTY OWNER.). Requests: Public notice should be posted on the adjacent property as well as mailed; how will the applicant handle noise impacts on the apartment residents between 10 pim and 2 am daily; how will the employee know that there are people behind the storage area who need service; will space heaters be installed in the outdoor seating area; how many seats, specifically, will be put in the outdoor seating area; will private parties be held in the outdoor area; what will be the real use of the area, overflow, special parties or events; will the hours of use of the outdoor area be limited. Item set for action on May 12, 1997 if the answers to the questions are available in time. DETERMINATION REGARDING NON -AUTO RELATED USES IN C-2, SUBAREA D, AUTO ROW. ZONED C-2. Chairman Ellis introduced this item and asked if the applicant was in the audience. The applicant was not present so C. Ellis moved this item back to number 16 on the agenda. PLANNER REPORTS Chairman Ellis asked CP Monroe to report on the last Council Meeting. Chairman Ellis then called for a five minute break in the proceedings. The commission reconvened at 7:30 p.m. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR PARKING, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 860 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JEFFERY T. AND C. L. FR.ANCESCONI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Jeff Francesconi, the applicant, spoke noting that they purchased the house three years ago, want to start a family so need a bigger house; have fewer than four bedrooms so one car garage should be alright; wife works at hospital and the neighborhood is close and good for children. Commissioner asked if the house had been built in phases originally, since portion in side setback appears to have been added later. Applicant commented yes, each area has its own foundation. It was also noted that the garage at 15'x 23' took up more yard than a one car garage; would it provide more yard space for children if standard one car garage built. It was noted that Applicant has a suburban, and if standard one car garage there is no place for storage; a storage shed in the yard would take more play area. Cannot make the garage wider because it would come too close to the house and take more yard. Edgehill is a busy street, want to keep the children in the rear yard until they are bigger. Why was a hip roof, which would reduce the apparent size of the garage, not considered. Applicant felt that it looks better as designed; his consideration was what he would look at, not impact on the neighbor. Speaking in support were Jeff Lindstrom, 801 Paloma, Todd Starkovich, 812 Paloma, Ruth Ann Poulous, 846 Paloma, and Mary Trevick, 863 Paloma. They commented had the same problem when remodeling his house, was granted an exception so that he could keep more; back yard, all the feedback on his improvements have been positive; note that people do not always stop at stop signs so need to keep kids in backyards; child pays in yard with this neighbor's child, want them safe; like what is doing, good to keep kids in yard; have to stay thin if going to use narrow driveways in neighborhood; everyone in the neighborhood has suffered the lack of planning when the area was developed, this project is outstanding, makes maximum use of addition consistent with house as originally built and neighborhood. There were no comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant so would abstain from discussion and action on this item. Commissioner discussion: point well taken that if yard size is issue then garage should be scaled back to standard 10'x 20', even if reduce to 12' wide more justifiable, as presented just a little less than two car size and not worth impact on the neighbor and his loss of light; a hip :roof on all four sides would address that problem; lot size is being used to justify too much, neighbors on each side need to be considered too; side setback variance is an existing condition for a long time; driveway is on other side of property so provides some buffer for neighbors when asking for first and second floor additions; -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 concerned that locked gate across driveway prevents access to on site parking; better if garage is 12 feet wide within 1 foot of property line; not concerned about roof being hip or not. C. Galligan moved to approve the side setback variance and the variance for number of covered parking spaces with the following amendments to the conditions: 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. Approved conditions were: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department 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 meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford. Commenting on the motion Commissioners noted cannot enforce keeping; the gate unlocked; if going to grant a parking variance then need reasonable conditions to insure parking on site accessible; want fence to protect kids but could be relocated so not across driveway; many houses in city have gates across driveways, need automatic so that uncovered parking can be used. as well as garage. Chairman Ellis called for the vote on the motion to approve the side setback and parking variance. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 roll call vote (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were reviewed. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND MINOR MODIFICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 1704 TOLEDO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LI YIN LIANG, PROPERTY OWNER AND JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES. APPLICANT, Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted that the overall side dimensions of the structure shown on the plans scaled at 60 feet not the 59 feet noted on the plans. The correct dimension is 60 feet. A commissioner asked if this change would affect lot coverage. Staff noted that the lot coverage was based on the 60 foot dimension. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect represented the applicant noting that he was the second architect on the project; there had been much opposition to the first proposal and he had been told not to increase the height of the existing structure, this was done by covering new areas with flat roof and not adding a second floor; he received a call from the neighbor on the left (side where wall is to be extended 4 feet out from existing structure) before he could get to see him the neighbor had discussed the addition with a Planning Commissioner -and called to say he had no problem with the project; he did not believe the redesign would have a major impact on views in the neighborhood. Vic Sangervasi, 1708 Toledo, commented that the proposal was alright as it is, but does not want to see any further extension of the structure; it was noted that the zoning rules require that any change to this structure beyond this in the future would be noticed. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28 1997 Mr. Stewart made a final comment that soil stability is always a concern and he would have a structural engineer look at the site and design before it is submitted for a building permit. There were no further comments on the project and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he had visited the adjoining neighbors house and felt that if the extension went out no further than shown on these plans it would not have a substantial effect on the neighbor's view. He would be concerned if they wanted to add 10 or 15 feet at the rear; but if they want more in the future the neighbors will be noticed and the item can come before the Planning Commission. Conditions note that this project shall be built as per plans, the neighbor to the north might have a view blockage but existing vegetation will block much and the small amount remaining is not an issue. Based on these reasons he moved approval of the Hillside Area Construction Permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report amending condition 1 to add "that the overall dimension of the new construction on the sides of the house parallel to side property lines shall not exceed 60 feet from exterior corner to exterior corner", as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 1997, Sheets A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 with no changes to roof ridge height, footprint, window placement or building envelope without amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit except that the overall dimension of the new construction on the sides of the house parallel to side property lines shall not exceed 60 feet from exterior corner to exterior corner; and 2) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Key seconded the motion. C. Ellis commented on the project noting that he appreciated the property owner and architect working so well within the intention of the Hillside Area Construction Permit. He called for the vote and the motion for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and Lot coverage Variance passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were reviewed. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GARAGE WITH OFFICE AND BATHROOM AND A SKYLIGHT WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES AT 1205 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (RICK AND ELSA KITTS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe suggested modifying conditions 2 and 4 to remove the word "office" since this could imply that a future owner could have a home occupation in the accessory structure without applying for a special permit, the current owners want to use the area for personal business which is a part of the recreation room use. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Elsa and Rick Kitts, 1205 Grove, spoke, it is a small house, they have chosen to add to the back because of the character of the front of the house; the rooms at the rear of the house are not suited to an addition; originally :had a full bath proposed for accessory structure and reduced it to a half bath; washer and drier are in kitchen now want to free up -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 space and relocate to garage, presently a stacked unit, not convenient. Speaking in support was Gigi Hurty, 1349 Laguna Avenue, the proposed garage abuts her side yard in view from kitchen window, support the project because the present accessory structure is an eye sore, wants an improvement. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved that he did not think the new garage and room were detrimental to the neighbor; the applicant was not going to live in the room, could appreciate the need. to relocate the washer and dryer; was concerned about the skylight on the rear of the structure because the glare of light from it would bother the adjacent neighbor at night; while skylight could be covered at night hard to enforce so would like the skylight removed. Action would be by resolution with conditions in the staff report amended with removal of the skylight on the rear of the structure and with the word "office" removed from conditions 2 an 4 as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 21, 1997, sheet Al, with the skylight on the rear of the structure eliminated; 2) that the 585 SF accessory structure shall be used for vehicle storage, tools and laundry (292 SF) and as a recreation room (293 SF) only, and the accessory structure shall not be expanded without another special permit; any change in use or facilities other than vehicle parking, tool storage, laundry and recreation room uses shall require application to the Planning Commission for a special permit; 3) that there shall never be a shower or kitchen area or cooking unit in the accessory structure; 4) that the detached garage with recreation room and half bath shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit; 5) that there shall be no encroachment of any structures, equipment, work benches, storage shelves or appliances into -the 10'-0" x 20'-0" required vehicle parking area; 6) that the conditions of the Senior Building Inspector's March 17, 1997 memo shall be met; and 7) 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 seconded by C. Mink. In comment on the motion the commissioners noted: cannot support there is too much house in the garage, addition should be made to the house; since lot is narrow, should add to the house in order to protect useable yard area; did not say would not make house bigger in future, if did, this one car garage and room would already be in place; existing garage looks like a two car garage which was converted to a one car garage, so the proposal gives less parking; need to replace garage, if moved back could provide two covered spaces and family area; relocation of washer and drier into garage will be less convenient; even if put in two covered spaces hard to use because the lot is so narrow and would really eat into rear yard area; appreciate view from house into rear yard; not want to remove skylight, need daylight inside, cannot support requirement; know impact of diffuse light at night from skylights, neighbors obscure view at night, it is a problem; having laundry outside is consistent with code, convenience is applicants issue. Chairman Ellis called for the vote on the motion to approve with the skylight at the rear removed and the word office removed. The motion was approved on a roll call vote 4-3 (Cers. Coffey, Key and Wellford dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. M Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28 1997 APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIANCES AT 1432 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LISA AND STUART HOSAIAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). CONTINUED FROM MARCH 24, 1997 Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked who owned the easement; CA Anderson responded that is was a remainder from the original subdivision that the city did not take at the time, now it would have to be quiet title or an adverse possession which could take a long time to resolve. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Stuart Hosman, applicant at 1432 Castillo, and architect Brad Clark, represented the project. Would like to keep original design which extended the side wall 3 feet above the first floor plate because it is architecturally better design, neighbor would get more light because the wall is notched; it would cost more to move the wall. in without improvement to appearance; the ownership issue of easements exists through out this subdivision, they propose uiet title action and have begun the process but will take some time so want to go forward with variance request; if he gets property will give city right -of -access, if city gets he will get an encroachment permit to widen driveway; putting turf block in at a later date is no problem; have a problem with condition on fence, would like to keep property line fence behind garage to keep child safe; it will take 7 months to a year to gain title to the strip of land; willing to add a condition that he get title to the strip of land, but does not want to hold up project. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan commented that the side setback issue for the second story would represent a construction hardship to correct without any benefit to neighbor and would have less impact overall; for driveway the applicant is doing all we can reasonably expect within the property and working to arrive at a good conclusion on strip of land; the record is also supported by the testimony and findings of the previous hearing on the application; therefore he moved to approve the side setback and driveway variances for the project including the conditions in the staff report, by resolution, with the amendment to condition 3 that no fencing shall be installed along the side property line adjacent to the driveway without the approval of the City Engineer and addition of condition 6 that the property owner shall make their "best effort" to acquire the 5 foot strip of land along the driveway. The conditions are: The motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the motion: Commissioners asked CA Anderson about the quiet claim to the adjacent strip of land, he noted that most likely the adjacent property owners would get to split the property, 2.5 feet each; the city has no interest in acquiring the strip of land in fee, the utilities would have to be allowed to remain. It was also clarified that the one foot extension for 3 feet over the first floor plate line was to be retained as a part of the motion. Chairman Ellis called a voice vote on the motion to approve with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 12, 1997, sheets 1,2,3,4, P1, Existing 1, Existing 2, :Existing 3 with V-0" of wall on the second floor encroaching into the side setback but not extending into the declining height envelope; 2) that the 14'-0"W x 17'-6" driveway extension which is located adjacent to the garage &A Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 driveway apron and extends towards the rear of the property shall be constructed and maintained as shown on sheet 1 of the plans date stamped February 12, 1997 in order to provide adequate ingress and egress to the garage; 3) that there shall be no structures, fences, or barriers installed along the left side property line adjacent to the driveway without the approval of the City Engineer; 4) that the conditions of the Senior Engineers' February 13, 1997 memo shall be met; 5) that the applicant shall make their "best efforts" to acquire the 5 foot strip along the easement; 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. The motion carried 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND FRONT SETBACK AT 111 CENTRAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (HOWARD G. PAGE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FEBRUARY 24, 1997. Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked for clarification about extra wing wall attached to the garage. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. David Howell, 2825 Hillside Drive, designer and Howard Page, 111 Central, represented the project. Mr. Howell pointed out that the buttress wall on the front of the garage was there to seismically support the garage rather than using a more expensive steel moment frame. Commission asked why the first and second floor additions were increased in this application over the previous one; the designer responded that by reducing; the garage they found extra square feet and they added them into the house without increasing the lot coverage beyond what was allowed. The square feet were added on the first floor by increasing the bay window 39 SF, on the second floor the bay was also increased, in addition the rear wall of the: entire structure was moved out 8 inches. They felt that this did little to the bulk of the building but made the inside work better. A commissioner noted that their letter and the conditions note that half timbering would be of redwood which is expensive, how would it be finished; applicant noted that contractor had bid redwood, and it would be painted. It was noted that any wood could be used if it was to be painted. Applicant noted he would be happy to remove condition that redwood be used. Applicant stated that he knew that there was controversy over mass and bulk in the neighborhood so he submitted pictures of other houses in the neighborhood. He took out a window on the west side of the house to reduce the impact on the neighbor. He adjusted the roof slopes on the rear to address another neighbor's concern about the second story affecting their light. Could not discuss this with neighbors so proceeded without. Had a problem with staffs definition of the size of window needed to define a window enclosure, would reduce size from required 9'x 6' to 9'x 5' to increase neighbors privacy; would like an added condition to address this reduction. Comments on the project: John Ellis, 1553 Newlands, neighbor to the rear spoke in support. He noted that he felt the applicant had gone to extreme lengths to design to neighbors concerns, he had talked to everyone, this is about the twelfth addition in the neighborhood and one that meets the original character and will fit in for a long time. Joe Baylock, 1527 Newlands, spoke in opposition. M:2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 He had concerns about the mass and bulk, this redesigned house is bigger; he has spoken before about the fact that the current code entices people into bigger houses; feels that the FAR for this lot should be reduced since it is substandard, house should be 600 SF smaller; he is doing a good design, but he is pushing the envelope with the front setback. He has not called out the type of windows, or how he will treat the half timber, what the stucco finish will be like, what his landscape screening will be, how he will address the trees at the rear, or what will happen if it is too expensive to build what he is proposing. There were no other comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: feel the concept and design are well thought out, structure includes variety; disappointed that the building got bigger from previous submittal; last lame two car garage that not work because of placement of house and lot limitations on width and depth so suggested reduce size of garage, but not increase size of house; should put the 220 SF back into parking not into house; this house approaches all the maximums, height, size, lot coverage; no reason to put something too big on a lot, know denied without prejudice but not sure the message was clear; intention was to reduce the design to listen to neighbors, not use gymnastics to make the house bigger, not able to support. C. Galligan moved to deny the application to give the applicant time to decide his intent and to address the concerns of the neighbors, as proposed the project is too big for the ]lot and is going in the wrong direction. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford. The motion was approved on a roll call vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A CHURCH AT 1500 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 AND R-3, (BOB DAVIDSON, APPLICANT AND ARTHUR D. GIMBEL, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the application, reviewed Public Works criteria, comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Ellis opened the public hearing. Bob Davidson, 1500 Easton Drive representing the church was present to answer any questions. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on the reasons stated C. Galligan moved recommendation of the tentative and final parcel maps to Council with the following conditions: 1) no building permit shall be issued until the parcel map for lot combination is filed with the County for recordation; 2) the existing zoning boundaries shall be maintained and shown on the parcel map; and 3) easement to be granted for City water vault and piping at corner on this map. The motion was seconded by C. Key and carried 7-0 voice vote. Commission took a break at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. In Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CHURCH AT 744 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (WA:LTER MARKELOFF AND ALEX PARHOOTTO, APPLICANTS AND ORTHODOX CHURCH OF ALL RUSSIAN SAINTS, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if it was possible to provide an uncovered parking space on site; staff responded yes. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Alex Parshootto, representing the Orthodox Church of All Russian Saints, commented that 15 years ago part of the original two --bedroom dwelling unit was converted to Sunday school classrooms; the garage was used for parking when church official lived there, since used as storage; there is area out side which can be used for an uncovered parking space, the existing driveway to the present garage, for example. Commissioner asked if the accessible space needed to be designated as handicapped accessible, staff noted that the Building Department had not required that. Applicant noted that it was all right with the church to limit the use of the living area to 30 days a year. There were no other comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. C. Deal commented that practically this is a parking variance for one space, not need since the residential unit is not being used; there is physically no way on site now, nor was there before, to provide the 23 parking spaces needed for the church assembly use, this situation has existed since the 1962 use permit was granted and there have been no complaints; therefore he moved approval of the special permit amendment and parking variance with the conditions in the staff report modified by allowing the retention of the third curb cut on Fairfield, the one that leads to the driveway to the present garage, by resolution. The amended conditions are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 24, 1997, sheet Al and A2, and elevations date stamped April 17, 1997, sheet A3: a) allowing the retention of the third curb cut on Fairfield, the one that leads to the driveway to the present garage; b) with the conversion of the existing kitchen area on the lower level to a food service and storage area and the ultimate conversion of this space to be a part of the adjacent auditorium area; c) with the replacement of the garage door with a facade detailed to match the existing portion of the exterior of the church facing Fairfield Drive; and d) with the conversion of approximately 935 SF of the previous on -site residential unit to Sunday school classrooms; 2) that an uncovered accessible parking space shall be provided within the rear 30 % of the property and striped on the pavement to measure 9'-6"W x 20'-0"L; 3) that no part of the church shall be used as a residence for more than 30 days during the calendar year, and that the lower level assembly rooms shall not be used at the same time as the sanctuary for separate events; 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 seconded by C. Galligan. Comments on the motion: the parking variance request addressed two things, straightening out the record for the church and making the approvals comply with current code requirements and addressing -10- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 the changes in the use since 1962, including the change in the size and intensity of the use of the dwelling unit; the addition of another kitchen the assembly area will have no net effect on membership, thus on parking or site use, because the sanctuary and the assembly room are not used at the same time for different events; the downstairs area is a social hall used in conjunction with church activities, therefore this does not represent an increase in any potential parking problem. Chairman Ellis called for the vote. The motion to approve the special permit amendment and parking variance with amended conditions was passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN APARTMENT EXPANSION AT 1469 BELLEVUE, ZONED R-4, gALIP & E.S. OTUS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that they had each received a letter from the applicant at home. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect,857 Burlway Road, and Tulip Otus, property owner and future tenant, spoke. Mr. Meyer noted that the: enclosure of this interior, uncovered patio area did not represent an intensification of the property because they were removing an existing den within the unit to expand the dining room, and relocating; the den use to the enclosed patio; the skylight will be in the center of the building, and will extend only T-5" above the parapet, so will hardly be visible from adjacent properties; it is not possible to increase parking on site since all the parking is contained within an existing, enclosed garage. Commission asked if the space would be heated, applicant responded yes. Mr. Otus noted that the apartment was three bedrooms and two baths, now it would be two bedrooms, two baths and a den; the third bedroom had been there since 1962. He also noted that there are 9 more parking spaces on site over and above the 1 per unit required in 1962. There were no other comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he had reviewed the plans, site, parking garage and felt that there was no was to expand the parking within the garage by restriping because of existing structural elements; the residential unit would remain three bedrooms as before; new enclosed area is not conducive to use as a bedroom because of the glass block walls; therefore he moved approval of the two space parking variance with the conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The conditions were: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 4, 1997, sheets Al through A3, and existing plans, sheets A2, A8, A10 and A13; 2) that any additional enclosures of eighth floor patio areas shall require both parking and height variances; and 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. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. -11- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE BUSINESS AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (JOHN ALVERGUE, DBA JOHN'S, APPLICANT AND WILLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNERS)_ Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked where the trash cans were to be placed outside, what proportion the unistalls were of all the parking places on -site including the; new proposal, will alcoholic beverages be sold and required exits should not be blocked. C. Ellis opened the public hearing. Becky Selna, Building Manager at 577 Airport Boulevard and Bill Kokezas, an employee of John Alvergue, were present to explain the application. There will be no advertising or signage outside the building. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan moved approval of this special permit based on the reasons stated noting that it is an appropriate use, will provide service to the employees so is not a destination, is not detrimental or injurious to the properties in the area the conditions should reflect, that there is a limit of 672 unistalls of the 882 parking stalls on site, that additional trash receptacles should be added as required by the City Engineer and that no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the cart. The motion is by resolution with the following added and amended conditions: 1) that the project shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 2.6, 1997, reduced overall site plan and lobby floor plan, and site plan date stamped March 26, 1997, Sheet L1.1, and that there shall be 882 parking stalls on -site, not more than 672 shall be unistall (8'-6" x 19'-0") parking spaces shall be provided on site, two of which will meet the on -site parking requirements for the two coffee carts; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 3, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that the coffee cart may operate between 6:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. Monday through Friday; 4) that trash receptacles shall be located as approved by the City Engineer to serve either cart; 5) that there shall be no alcohol sold on -site; 6) that the conditions applied to the special permits and variance granted for construction of the five -story office building shall remain in effect; and 7) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and carried 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, MLLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CE Erbacker discussed the application noting this was a landswap that allowed the additional parking discussed in the previous commission's action, reviewed criteria, Public Works and Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. C. Ellis opened the public hearing. Tom Sullivan, representing William Wilson & Associates was present to answer questions. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. -12- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 C. Deal noted this is a good project. He then moved recommendation of the lot line adjustment to City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Key and carried 7-0 voice vote. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A 132 ROOM HOTEL AT 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Forty conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Ellis opened the public hearing on the negative declaration and project. Robert Sauvegeau, RYS Architecture and Mark Schlecter, Callendar Associates presented the application. They asked that condition number 9 be modified to read property owner, rather than developer and clarified that in condition number 20, 2.5 feet above possible flood level is 9.5 feet, and in reference to condition number 21, the storm water will drain to the lagoon via a gravity system no pumping will be required. In response to Commission questions: they clarified that a sandy beach would not be appropriate and would eliminate the habitat areas; there would not be enough water movement to keep the sand clean and useable; they have no plan to alter the shoreline on the water side at the existing levee, the land does not belong to them; the plant specimen trees along the street will be 24 inch box size along the side property lines, new trees will be mixed in size from 15 gallon to 2.4 inch box. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan moved approval of the negative declaration based on the review noting that the project is consistent with the plan and with what exists in the area. The potential impacts identified by the city and BCDC have been addressed in the mitigations. There have been no environmental problems experienced as a result of previous developments in the area and no unique or special conditions exist on that site therefore there is no environmental significant effect with the mitigations as noted in the conditions on the project. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and carried 7-0 voice vote. C. Mink then moved approval of the special permits for a 132 room hotel for the reasons stated, there is no view obstruction and the design guidelines are met. The project fits and is unique to the frontage road/Lagoon. It was noted for the record that the only the property owner can be assessed and that the emergency power noted in condition number 21 will not be necessary if the storm water will drain to the lagoon via a gravity system. The motion is by resolution and with the following modified conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 4, 1997, Sheet A1.01, and date stamped April 8, 1997, Sheets A-2 through A-10; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's April 3, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and -13- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that the overall height of the building as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 77'-4 '/2"; 6) that the landscaping as installed shall comply with the plant materials, size and form as stated in the Callendar Associates letter of April 18,1997; 7) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 8) that guests, visitors or employees may not be charged for the use of on -site parking without review and permission of the city, this would include valet parking arrangements; 9) that in the future, as required, the property owner shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east -west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on -site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; 10) that the hotel shall provide on -site security services and patrol, including the portion of the public access area on the site; 11) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping; shall follow the procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 12) that the traffic allocation for a 132 room hotel which is a part of the planning approval of this project shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning approval expires on the project; 13) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Lands Commission (Land Use and Planning); 14) that the project shall conform to any seismic requirements of the State Architect's office (geologic); 15) that seismic - resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site -specific geotechnical investigations (geologic); 16) that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer (geologic); 17) that all runoff created during constriction, future discharge and storm drain collection from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, and that all applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction (geologic, water, utilities and service systems); 18) that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during constriction, including stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the wet season; and future discharge from the site shall meet the applicable Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and storm drain maintenance (geologic); 19) that an oil separator shall be installed to reduce pollutants from runoff entering the storm drain system (utilities and service systems); 20) that project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces, and the office buildings shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation 9.5 feet (+9.5 feet MSL), or 2.5 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break (geologic, water); 21) that emergency power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be provided if gravity flow is not used (geologic, water); 22) that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material and in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, all utilities and the site shall be repaired (geologic); 23) that tide gates shall be provided on the storm drains to keep high water from back -flowing onto the site in high flood periods (geologic); 24) that if lateral spreading of the edge of the lagoon should occur while the site is being filled, work shall stop and the project sponsor shall correct the spreading and shall take appropriate action, in compliance with the requisite regulatory agencies, to prevent further damage from occurring (geologic); 25) that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion :into the adjacent lagoon will -14- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 be minimal (water); 26) that backflow prevention for storm drainage to the lagoon shall be provided (water); 27) that a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at time of permit application (water); 28) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed (water); 29) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction (air quality); 30) that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and a BAAQMD permit shall be obtained before a building permit is issued (air quality); 31.) that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection (transportation/circulation); 32) that the project sponsor shall provide an airport shuttle service, which includes connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees during shift changes (transportation/circulation); 33) that the required parking area shall not be used for long-term parking as a part of a hotel promotion (transportation/circulation); 34) that there shall be no charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot (transportation/circulation); 35) that if the fill material or asphalts are to be removed from the site during construction, analytical testing of the removed materials for petroleum hydrocarbons or metals will be required to classify the material for appropriate disposal (hazards); 36) that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be; driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday (noise); 37) that interior noise levels shall be reduced to a maximum of 45 dBA (noise); 38) that the proposed hotel project shall be required to meet the City's exterior lighting standards, as well as the tree planting provisions of the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (aesthetics); 39) that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics as defined in the Negative Declaration are discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by a qualified cultural resources consultant, can be implemented; project personnel shall not collect cultural resources; any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic properties) or similar forms (cultural resources); and 40) that BCDC approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC jurisdiction, and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to construction activities (recreation). The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. DETERMINATION REGARDING NON -AUTO RELATED USES IN C-2, SUBAREA D, AUTO ROW, ZONED C-2. Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Commissioner asked if the antique store previously in this tenant space had a use permit; staff noted that they did not, but the store was no longer operating at the site. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. Dave Marino, real estate broker representing the owner and applicant, noted that he felt that his letter stated his concern. He commented that the broker for the futon shop and the shop owners were also present. He was asked why he did not get a special permit. Mr. Marino responded that he called the Planning -15- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 Department in January when he took over the building and subsequently when the tenant left and got different direction about whether a use permit was required. In the second call he asked if an antique store and futon store were both retail furniture sales. He did not recall who he spoke to. Previous tenant, antique store, did not get proper permits; so he did not know he had to. He wrote the letter requesting a determination that one non -auto related use could replace another without a special permit, in hopes of speeding up the process, so that the furniture store could begun sooner. The parking issue was noted, he said they lease CalTrain right-of-way at the rear of the building across East Lane and the area exceeds the parking requirement for the building. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: have read the staff report and the code section, believe wording is clear that each non -auto related retail use in Subarea D needs. a special permit; because of the timing this special permit request should be taken directly to action and put first on the next possible action agenda; two questions being asked: is an antique dealer equal to a futon store; and if the use is the same and the use has no special permit can it be replaced without conditions; could consider that if a use is exactly the same and can abide by the same conditions it may be unreasonable to ask for a new permit; the purpose of Subarea D should be considered, intent to encourage auto sales use not to encourage any other retail or residential use; antique shops can be really different, purpose is to look at each retail use for compatibility; there seems in this day of mega stores to be a lack of demand for small auto parts vendors, eventually we may need to look at whether this area should be made general retail, but for now it should be kept as it is. C. Mink moved that the wording in the code be kept as it is and that the staff continue to require special permits for each residential and non -auto related retail use in Subarea D. The motion was seconded by C. Key and was approved on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Galligan dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. MINUTES4.28 -16- Respectfully submitted, Chuck Mink, Secretary