Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.05.27MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION May 27, 1997, 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on May 27, 1997 at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Mink (7:25 p.m.), Wellford and Key Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Assistant Fire Chief, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the May 12, 1997 minutes were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The spelling of the applicant for item #5, 800 Maple Avenue, Doug Maighell was corrected. It was noted that item #9, 1327 Broadway had been continued at the property owners request. The item will be renoticed if the project is returned. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICES AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE 205, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, (GAIL M. SHAK, APPLICANT, AND TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Why did staff include the information on the percentage of the building in uses which require conditional use permits; What does staff feel is the impact of these; uses vs. normal office uses; how will the health service be operated at night to provide access, security and safety for those working in the building. The item was set for public hearing at the meeting of June, 9, 1997. 2. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICES AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE 317, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, (DIANE WI:LSON, APPLICANT, AND TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Anticipate one employee including the business owner, will this be the case for the duration of the lease; is owner counted as employee; how will the health service be; operated at night to provide access, security and safety for those working in the building. The item was set for public hearing at the meeting of June 9, 1997. so Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 4 KAREN COURT, ZONED R-1, (TAK ENOMOTO, APPLICANT AND MYLA PUYAT & DAVID QUO, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Key noted that since only 5 commissioners were seated, the commission rules required 4 votes, a majority of the entire commission, to approve: a motion. She asked if the applicant wished to continue to another meeting; they indicated no. None of the other applicants present requested a continuance. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Vern Frere representing Talc Enomoto, Architect, spoke noting that they had installed the story poles to show the new ridge height and he submitted a letter from the soils engineer documenting procedures they would follow; a commissioner noted that the commissioners were not involved in soils engineering, assumed building; permit would address these issues. Commissioner Mink arrived at 7:25 p.m. Gary Lyons, 7 Castro Court; Ivis Murphy, 3 Castro Court; and Laura Osborn, 6 Karen Court; spoke in opposition. They noted not concerned with view but privacy is invaded because two windows look down into yard; side view shows that the rear of the property on the slope will be graded out 4-6 feet in order to build the lower floor, they will have to put a berm on a hill which is so steep that you cannot walk up it; plans do not show the depth of the cut or how it will be filled; slope is so steep that only native plants will grow on it; had experience in 1962, before planting, with slippage on her property during storm, concerned about slippage caused by this addition during earthquake or heavy rain; put story poles to show new roof ridge but not show the extension out the back so, as immediate next door neighbor, do not know if view blocked, she looks to south across site; new windows and porch look into her living space. Tak Enomoto, architect, 256 Clarmont Drive, San Carlos, spoke noting that the retaining wall would meet all state and city requirements, they were not excavating toward the property line without engineering and soils information to make the area stable; they will pay for the retaining wall; windows will be 4 feet lower so will not increase view into neighbors, beater than if they were higher; view of neighbors protected since ridge lower than could be and story poles do not show gables which further reduce impact; used split level design so could keep the ridge increase low, think this is the correct design; Commissioner noted that neighbors concern was how far back the new structure would extend; applicant noted can build within the allowed yards (front, side and rear) without violation, proposal does not violate side or rear setback, the house may extend further out at the rear, but bath room would not have view into her yard since it is lower; commissioner noted that adjacent owners concern was with view across lot; applicant noted he was not inflexible, hie had not met with neighbors and would consider doing so. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Galligan noted that it is a gold idea for neighbors to get together before action, story poles helped neighbors above but not to the side, also issues of privacy and geologic integrity, they -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 need to meet to discuss with neighbors below so aware no problem, he then moved to continue the item so that the architect can meet with the neighbors. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: Need to add story poles at rear so neighbor able to tell if view is blocked; plans need to show property line and relationship of excavation and retaining walls to them; commissioner noted that the starting time on the agenda was ambiguous given the resolution item changing the time and so he was late and would abstain from the vote on this item; need more information on site issues, not recommend a project which includes risk based on poor design while approve for view protection, need more engineering drawings or engineer at meeting; rear wall is extended only 5 feet, need clear dimension; item should be continued to next meeting or since there are two issues to the second meeting in June. Ask neighbor next door to provide pictures when story poles installed at rear so can see impact, pictures should be from inside living space. Applicant asked that people contact him, Commission noted that staff has names and addresses of people who spoke. Staff noted that when the item was ready staff would renotice. The Chairman called for the vote on the motion to continue the action on 4 Karen Court. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (C. Mink abstained, C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were noted. 4. APPLICATION FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND A MINOR MODIFICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 33 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1, (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND PATRICK DOHERTY, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal commented that he had some problem with the calculations for the proposed FAR and it should be 2291 SF or .398 FAR (.58 allowed) which is about 3 percent more than shown in the staff report. It was also noted that the covered parking is being provided in a one car enclosed garage and in a carport attached to the garage. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. James Chu, 1 Waters Park Drive, #15, San Mateo, spoke for the project. He noted that the error in FAR may have been his mistake caused when he reduced the lot coverage to conform to the required 40 % after commission study; since wanted to keep the existing garage and it meets dimensional requirements, applicant added a car port next to the enclosed garage to meet parking requirements; was asked if the rear of the building is currently two story and was this area being added to, architect noted that only addition was to the front of the building, no change to the existing condition at the rear. Charlotte Kalbhenn, 415 Burlingame Avenue and owner of 300 Peninsula Avenue spoke in opposition commenting that she was poncerned about mammoth houses, why do they have to extend the new, keep the building back as it is and narrow it so rear and side setback exceptions are not needed; if cannot meet current requirements they should remove the existing structure. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. C. Deal moved approval by resolution and with conditions in the staff report noting that the existing building was built as a residence at this location on the lot, the new addition conforms to all code requirements for setbacks; there is a tree at the front of the lot which might be lost if the house were moved forward; this appears to be the most prudent addition to the existing property. He noted that during his site inspection the play room was obviously a garage, the carpet had been pulled out but -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 could be easily replaced, if this area is to continue to be used in the future as living area then it needs to be brought up to current code requirements including ceiling height and a vapor barrier in the slab; if it is to be kept as storage such improvements are not necessary; he added this as a condition. Comment on the motion: disagree,this is a classic case of a building which needs to be demolished and replaced, they area asking too much of the city to approve; would agree if the main structure were a part of a massive rehabilitation but it appears that the existing house will remain in tact, and addition is at the front; house built in 1925 with unique charm to find an occasional home set way back to the rear is not a problem; condition regarding the play room should be added. Chairman Key called for the vote on the motion to approve with the added condition that if the use of the former garage was to continue as a play room it shall be brought up to all current code requirements, otherwise this area is only suitable to be used for storage. A roll call vote on the motion was called for, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 1, 1.997 Sheets Al, A2, A3, and A4 except that the total lot coverage on this site shall not exceed 40 % of the lot size; 2) that if the use of the former garage was to continue as a play room it shall be brought up to current code requirements including ceiling height and vapor barrier in slab, otherwise this area is only suitable to be used for storage; 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 passed 5-1-1 (C. Mink dissenting, C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were noted. 5. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 800 MAPLE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (DOUG MIGHELL, APPLICANT AND SHEDAN &-,PUHIYYIH R. MAGHZI, PROPERTY OWNERS). CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked for explanation of the second story setback requirement on corner lots, staff noted that the setback was 12 feet but the code provided that un to 25 % of the length of the wall could extend forward of the 12 foot line up to 7'-6", the first floor setback, to allow for design which would break up the long second story wall. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Doug Mighell, 211 Verona Avenue, Sonoma, representing the project,. noted that the homeowner wanted to remove the metal roof on the second floor and extend the roof at the same pitch and style; on the street frontage the porch already has a 4 foot wall, so half the wall is already enclosed the effective length of 37 feet; they just want to fill in and tie the house together; after study he did reduce the height of the house by flattening the roof at the ridge; applicant wants a water tight house, now water leaks into walls; is there a building permit for the roof over the porch; yes, a copy was provided to the planning commission; building permit shows that 23 years ago intended to have porch as part of enclosed living area, aborted to economize, that was when added metal roof. C. Wellford commented that he lived close enough to be shown on the aerial but did not receive a notice and asked CA Anderson if this disqualified him; CA commented that state law only disqualified a Commissioner if within in 300 feet and if you thought that the project would have a financial impact -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 on you. C. Wellford noted that he did not know if there would be a financial impact but would abstain on this item. Chairman Key noted that there would be five voting members on this item and it would take four votes to act on a motion. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: appreciate the applicant having the building permit, they are not so easy to get today; the variance is for the encroachment of the new portion of the second floor into the side setback, this is really a small area since the applicant is allowed 25 % anyway; there are no exceptional circumstances with the property here, the sloped roof is not a problem; without variance only impact would be on interior of room, not what property owners wants but that is not a justification. C. Galligan moved approval noting that he understands the intent of the code, he drove by and observed that what we have is a request for what exists on the site now; the square footage of the house will be less than FAR and already included the porch area in that calculation as living space; the porch area is exposed to the elements, history shows that could have: built the house originally as now requesting, problem is that change of ordinance intervened; it would be harsh to the applicant to apply current ordinance so strictly. Motion is by resolution and includes the conditions in staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. The conditions are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 2, 1997, sheets 1 through 3; 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 Discussion on the motion; Additional findings should include that because this is a corner lot,in a older part of town could not, because of age, meet current setbacks; this is good housing stock, changing the roof will improve the appearance of the house, thus there area benefits to the city and public from the project; the property owner can properly use the space and get reasonable size bedrooms. Chairman Key called for the vote on the motion to approve. The Commissioners voted on a roll call 4-1-1-1 (C. Deal dissenting, C. Wellford abstaining, C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were noted. 6. 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). CONTINUED FROM MAY 12. 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Scott Sullivan, 1323 Solono Avenue, Albany, noted that a fair amount of the exterior space is covered and was when the house was built in 1950, if these areas were considered to be open, a variance would not be required; want to expand an existing bedroom, other alternatives were considered but would not work; this proposal does provide access to the rear yard which was only accessible by going around the house before; none of the proposed work would be visible from the front, would affect only adjacent neighbors at side and rear; considered a second story at front but with declining height limitations not big enough for a master bedroom, no intention -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 of adding on to the rear part of the house. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. C. Wellford noted he had discussed the history of set back regulations and the project with the City Planner and it was similar to another project built when setback requirements were -different; now ask slight extension of a condition with which they had previously complied, would not affect neighbors because this is an existing non -conforming condition. He then moved for approval of the side setback and minor modification for lot coverage for the reason stated and because of the existing siting of the building, by resolution and with conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Discussion on the motion: need one condition more, that the existing area covered by porches never be enclosed and converted to living space or credited toward existing living space in determining "new construction"; breezeway is not covered someone might want to add a second story over the breeze way and then lot coverage would need to be reviewed; one compelling aspect of this proposal is maintaining the single story house which is common in the area, the impact of this addition is internal to the site; if a second story were to be added think should reduce to 40 percent lot coverage. C. Galligan moved to amend the motion to approve with two added conditions: that the Planning Commission shall review any future request for an increase in floor area and that the property shall not receive any credit in the future for covered porch areas in calculating existing square footage of habitable area. The motion to amend was seconded by C. Deal and passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent). Chairman Key then called for a vote on the original motion to approve the variances for side setback and lot coverage as amended. The motion passed, by resolution, on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 25, 1997 Site Plan, Floor Plan, Demolition Plan, Roof Plan, Elevations, Elevations at Court and Attic Plan Section; 2) that the Planning Commission shall review any future request for an increase in floor area on this site; 3) that the property shall not receive any credit for covered porch areas in calculating existing square footage of habitable area; 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, on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 7. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, (JOE CODINA, AIRPORT COMMISSION BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, APPLICANT AND CERTOSA, INC., PROPERTY OWNER)._ Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Joe Codina, P.O. Box 8097, San Francisco, representing the San Francisco Airport Bureau of Arts and Exhibitions would like to add one hour to each end of the proposed operating hours of the business to insure that they are covered if people come a little early or stay a little late. There were no other comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. 1.1 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 C. Coffey commented that the commission had reviewed this previously and he would move approval, based on the findings stated previously and in the staff report, noting that there were an adequate number of parking spaces provided, and this was a decrease in usage density from the previous use, by resolution with amendment to condition 2 to extend the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m.; the conditions of approval are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 3, 1997, sheets Tl, All, A2, Al Proposed and A2 Proposed: 2) that the office may be open 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with 40 employees; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo (4/14/97), and the Senior Building Inspector's memo (4/14/97) shall be met; 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 and approved on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 8. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE AT 1860 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, (DARYL W. ROVAI, APPLICANT AND MARCO CHAVEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) . Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Daryl Rovai, P.O Box 2273, South San Francisco, applicant, noted that this is a residential real estate office; he noted that in the ReMax office in the building, where he previously worked, there were several individual offices; because he had been located in the building at ReMax until a month ago, there would be no additional impacts; there are no visitors to the real estate business during the day, some after 5; during day agents in office mostly do paper work; show houses on Sunday, understand that with present conditions could not use office on Sunday, uncommon to have people in office on Sunday so not a problem; could add hours 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday if you want; Saturday to 4 p.m. is all right; 1500 SF size is a major jump from ReMax could put a lot of people in cubicals even if have conference room and reception area; he noted that he does not work in cubical but in individual offices about 10' x 12', there will be no bull pen areas for employees. Parking is a problem in the area; was until 2 years ago when built a fence to keep people going to other buildings out of their parking; now not a problem. Commissioner noted that parking was a problem this afternoon when he made a site inspection, all spaces used and cars parked illegally; there are about 10 agents at ReMax; are parking spaces assigned, no; a Commissioner noted he was on the commission when the buildings were approved with parking requirements on leased parking areas in the railroad right-of-way with crossing guards to get people across at California, this additional parking has not existed for many years. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented that he did not see how this was going to be detrimental to the area, the use is limited and most of the activity takes place outside of the office, therefore he moved approval by resolution, with the following conditions including an amendment to condition 2 adding to the hours of operation, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sundays, as follows: 1) that the real estate office shall be limited to 1500 SF in Suite 440, at 1860 El Camino Real, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 15, 1997, fourth floor plan, site plan and parking lot; 2) that the real estate office shall not be open for business except between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. -7- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturday and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sundays; 3) that the number of employees shall be a maximum of 8 full-time employees and 1 part-time employee (1 person per 166 GSF); 4) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees (full or part-time), which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 5) that the on -site parking shall be used for employees on -site and their clients/customers without any charge to the users or the business; and 6) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 9. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE EXPANSION OF A RESTAURANT AT 1327 BROADWAY,, ZONED C-1, (GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT AND BILL NERLI, PROPERTY OWNER). CONTINUED This item was continued at the request of the property owner. Staff will renotice the item at the time it is reactivated. 10. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1791 EL CAMINO REAL, UNCLASSIFIED, (PENINSULA BLOOD BANK AND WINGES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING, APPLICANTS AND MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. The changeable copy now being discussed is not letters fit into channels but a single back lit board; yes. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Sharrie Kriger, President and CEO of the Peninsula Blood Bank, 719 Gallion Lane, Foster City, represented the project; she noted that after 35 years of serving the community they must change to become more effective and provide the service at a lower cost, cutting across old service lines; to do this they have looked at partnering with other blood banks, one in San Francisco and one in Oakland, in fact the new collaboration will eventually join 15 sites; she noted this is the reason for the sign change; the sign on the primary frontage will not have a changeable copy or reader board, it will just be on or off, showing Blood Alert when it is on; the sign will be on when blood supply is low, one to two days up to a week at a time, the sign will be turned off when the blood bank facility is closed; Commission asked if they need to show the type of blood that they need on the sign as they had in the past; applicant said that they did not know, they were willing to try without it and would reapply later if they needed it, they could hang their old wooden blood type letter signs off the bottom of the new sign; they acknowledged that if they wanted to add these blood types to the sign they would need to reapply to amend the sign exception; Commission noted that they wanted to know what the applicant needed, it would be a shame to use the old type letters on the bottom of the new sign. Chuck Krayer, 635 Goodwin Avenue, Pengrove, representing the sign company commented that the original submittal included two rows for changeable copy letters, 2 six inch channels so could use a 6" letter or a 12" letter; would commission reconsider to allow that on the sign; there is another approach to add another back lit, black and white plexiglass channel 10 inches tall and 10 feet long, Burlingame Planning Conunission Minutes May 27, 1997 like the one proposed for Blood Alert, and have it show the blood types wanted, it could be switched on and off in the same fashion as the blood alert sign; concerned that the sign would be changeable copy, showing messages other than blood alert and blood types; if use black plexiglass with white letters, channel back lit, the message would be fixed; concerned that applicant responded to comment at study which was not clearly heard, could continue for you to discuss; not want a continuance since project under construction and need signage to be installed while contractor is on site. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink noted that he was on the Board of the Senior Focus group which is a part of the Mills/Peninsula Hospital. This group has nothing to do with the Blood Bank. C. Deal moved approval of a sign exception for a 120 SF monument sign on the primary frontage that is double faced (60 SF per face), 5' x 12', measurement not to include the 6 inch partial pedestal, interiorly lit with two 10 inch x 10 foot back lit black plexiglass channels one stating Blood Alert and the other showing blood types, the over all height of the sign as measured from the ground on the primary frontage shall be 10'-10". The back lit channels shall not be lit during the time that the blood bank is closed nor shall they be changeable copy; signage on the secondary frontage shall be as shown on the sign exception application with one ground sign, single faced 14.7 SF and one wall sign 10.2 SF for a total of 24.9 SF. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and was approved, by resolution, on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Ellis absent) with the following conditions: 1) that on the primary frontage perpendicular to El Camino Real the ground sign shall be installed in the location as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 16, 1997, sheet SK-38; 2) that the ground sign on the primary frontage shall measure 12'-0" wide x 5'-0" tall (double faced - 60 SF each side, 120 SF total not including the 6" partial pedestal) and shall be interiorly lit and shall have two 10'-0" wide x 0'-10" tall back -lit plexi-glass channels, one stating "BLOOD ALERT" and the other showing blood types; 3) that the two signs shall not be lit during the time that the blood bank is closed (the sign will either be "on" or "off" but will not flash); 4) that the overall height of the ground sign on the primary frontage shall be 10'-10" as measured from the adjacent ground on the. primary frontage; 5) that the signage on the secondary frontage (facing the Mills -Peninsula Hospital driveway), one 10.2 SF wall sign and one 14.7 SF ground sign (total 24.9 SF) shall be refaced and retained at the same size and with the same illumination that they now have; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Municipal Code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, Appeal procedures were advised. 11. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C- 1, SUBAREA A, (NYSF PARTNERS, BEN & JERRY'S, APPLICANT AND KARIM SALMA, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three coanditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the master signage program dictated the color of the awnings; staff responded no it addressed the number and size of signs including letters on awnings; staff noted that the second floor signage now on the site was not a part of the master signage program and the property owner has been contacted separately to make application. The CA noted that the commission cannot dictate color or letter changes to the master signage program tonight unless the property owner is present. in Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27. 1997 Chairman Key opened the public hearing and Roger Kaufman, 2351 Powell Street, San Francisco, Ben and Jerry's local franchisee, said that the awning is the logo color of Ben and Jerry's and was dictated by their corporate office in San Francisco; it is a new awning; want to add the ice cream cone symbol on the building to try to gain visibility from Burlingame Avenue and to make it look fun; can't really see the store from Burlingame Avenue now; did you bring a copy of the franchise agreement with you, no; did corporation dictate awning color, the drawing for the front of the store came from Ben and Jerry's all their awnings are blue. There were no other comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this use has a specific location within the building which has a clear color scheme and signage plan, that is the idea of a master signage program, to add grace and beauty for those who view it; the color is out of character, tried to rationalize how to put logo on street, it does not fit; if have a demarkation for this tenant all will want, lost the value of a master signage program; not feel the same way about demarkation facing City Hall Lane, but this shingle sign is out of character on Primrose Road; two ice cream stores on Burlingame Avenue neither has a projecting sign, this would give a competitive advantage to this store; location of this business is an issue, not object to sign in other places but in this location it is out of character; city did not object to the blue awning, got as much as going to give. C. Wellford noted he is concerned about the blue awning sign, great use, but projecting sign blind sides the master signage program and does not address over all color scheme of the building facade therefore he moved to deny the amendment to the master signage program to add the projecting sign since it is out of character for the building and provides an unfair advantage to this business. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Commission discussion on the motion: would entertain blade sign if the store had an awning that matched the others there, blue does not fit; don't think can do anything about the blue awning now, have a permit, if the awning was an more appropriate color then the blade sign would be a good trade off; if tell corporate that city would not allow a blue sign they would adjust. The CA noted that the commission has no grounds to dictate color at this time. Commission noted that they need the property owner to be present to discuss color if require for master signage program, and he is not; might be better to continue; want to deny so get attention. Chairman Key called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the amendment to the master signage program for a projecting blade sign at Ben and Jerry's. The commission voted 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) to deny the permit amendment. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICES AT 340 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 212, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B, (KATHY CLARK AND GLORIA CONTREARAS, APPLICANTS AND DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Gloria Contreras, 1845 Questwood Drive, South San Francisco, applicant, commented that she had asked for hours as late as 10 p.m. in order to keep her options open, usually the latest she would be open would be 7:30 p.m.; she would take advantage of -10- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes . May 27, 1997 the late hours only if. someone was injured or had an emergency. Commission asked if both employees were chiropractors; no there would be a maximum of two employees on site and two chiropractors, one working treatments in the morning and one treatments in the afternoon, usual hours would be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., however one may be on site doing paper work while the other was working with patients. One to two employees would be doing paper work, now current billing person works out of her home. Clarify what is being requested here is two employees and 2 chiropractors, four people, on site at one time not counting patients. There were not further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved approval with amendments to condition 2 to show a maximum of 2 chiropractors on site and condition 3 to show the hours of operation to be 8 a.m to 10 p.m. C. Coffey seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: small office, 344 SF, no parking on site, parking standard 1 space to 250 or 300 SF, with patients this applicant could have 6 people on site at one time with 6 automobiles, given the number of employees there needs to be a second office; this area is impacted, especially at night with the brew pub and other restaurants, so a use beyond 7:30 p.m. is inappropriate; most chiropractors work normal business hours, should have maximum of 2 employees, 1 chiropractor and 1 patient on site at one time; only will have one chiropractor practicing on site at one time; CA noted hard to enforce condition of one practicing at a time; applicant stated that intention is for one to be practicing at a time, market place will dictate hours, number of patients, parking, if no privacy in office patients will not return. C. Deal made a motion to amend the motion with hours of operation of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 2 employees and one chiropractor on site at one time. Motion was seconded by C. Wellford. The motion failed 3-3-1(Cers. Coffey, Galligan, Mink dissenting, C. Ellis absent) for lack of a majority. Chairman Key then called for a roll call vote on the original motion. The vote was 3-3-1 (Cers. Deal, Galligan and Mink dissenting and C. Ellis absent) and motion failed. Continued Commission discussion: concerned about number of employees on site at one time; hours after 7:30 p.m.; area of night life which is inconsistent with this use; can come back later if market says they need later hours, typical time should be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. C. Galligan then moved a new motion with the hours of operation being; 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and a maximum number of 2 employees on site at one time, including the chiropractors, by resolution, with the other staff conditions: 1) that the chiropractic office shall be limited to 344 SF in Suite 212, at 340 Lorton Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 16, 1997, Second Floor Plan - Sabatini Building (8 1/2" x 11"); 2) that the chiropractic office shall not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., seven days a week with a maximum of two employees including the chiropractors on -site at any one time; 3) that any changes in the operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Coders, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. The motion was approved on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C-Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. -11- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 13. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR A 101-ROOM ADDITION TO THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL AT 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (PAUL ZEN, TODAY'S III INC., APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirty three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission clarified: Can valet parking be used on ;site if the lot on the sanitary landfill is not complete; yes; what acreage would be required to support the difference between 65 rooms to the acre and 82.2 rooms. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, 60 East Third Street, San Mateo, architect, representing the project spoke. He introduced the developer Paul Zen and Bruce Carlton, the DoubleTree hotel manager who were also there to answer questions. Mr. Gumbinger stated that they had reviewed the staff report and felt that it was complete and were there to answer any questions. There was no further comment from the floor and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: bothered by two issues: city is considering allowing use of easement to meet variance requirement when not allow a resident to do same recently; and reference that 577 Airport, by not developing to its maximum, gave remaining traffic allocation away permanently; perhaps a philosophical problem, city will control what happens on this property, so parking will not be removed for future development, without replacement, city retains right to have some other solution to location of the spaces needed by the hotel if they want; city stands to gain from this arrangement, this area of land was intended for a parking lot, the lot is slightly larger but there was no real loss of recreation area and the hotel will pay for all the parking lot construction and make an annual payment, seems like mutual benefit for all; no problem with arrangement, but city can't predict needs in 30 years, what if not want to provide on site, if variance can they ask for exemption for parking for hotel, .is there an obligation to provide other parking some place else because a variance allows parking off site; CA noted granting a license to use a piece of property that they agree to pay for, city has right of eminent domain and could provide same parking anywhere in area, or could use park site forever, it is open to the city whether provide parking or not; if city chose to relocate parking, hotel would have to agree and pay; CA license agreement includes a 50150 share for replacement or reconstruction of the parking, the license is only for hotel use and if the number of hotel rooms is reduced then the license reduces the parking use. Concerned that the 101 spaces reserved for recreation use will not be enough when both driving range and soccer match occurring; CA public use first come first serve for the 216 parking spaces from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., if there is a tournament then 100 spaces can be set aside for the public's use; staff report and mitigations indicate that only loss was small part of putting green, good relationship to help pay for recreation facility and increase in rooms would bring more revenue to city; council needs to agree to license agreement but as now stands hotel developer will pay for parking lot, an annual leasing fee, half the annual maintenance cost and will provide security to the parking area from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., also making sure area is not used illegally for long term airport parking. C. Galligan moved approval of the negative declaration finding that, based on the disclosure information in the staff report, the mitigations incorporated in the conditions and the fact that the loss of recreation area is insignificant, there are no impacts greater than those: created by any property in town, the conditions in the report address areas of concern and the hotel site is developed now, there -12- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 is no concern regarding the negative declaration. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. On a roll call vote of 5-1-1 (C. Mink dissenting and C. Ellis absent) the motion was approved. On the motion it was noted that based on our traffic allocation, should the property at 577 Airport Blvd. be developed fully in office use, there would be a significant impact on traffic in the area; at the recent public hearing on the project at 577 Airport Blvd. William Wilson the developer was asked if they ever intended to go ahead with the parking garage necessary to build out that site in office use, and they stated they had abandoned the garage proposal, thus it seems; OK to transfer the available intersection capacity; this project violates the analyzer which has been city policy a long time; could buy additional undeveloped property for parking, so not taking development right away; issue has nothing to do with parking, has to do with 101 rooms and traffic, if not accept negative declaration then have to do a focused EIR on impact of 101 more rooms, the increase beyond the traffic allocation assigned to the hotel site can be off set by lack of need at 577 Airport because the project is smaller, satisfied the project will not bring us to grid lock. C. Galligan moved approval of the special permits for 82.2 rooms per acre density, exception to height limitations for 99'-0", and landscaping of 9.1 % within the parking areas, as well as variances for number of parking spaces on site (277 where 392 required) and compact: parking of 20.2 % based on the information in the staff report, the plans and drawings submitted, the comments of all departments, and the mitigations of the negative declaration, by resolution noting that the use of the extra property for parking does not constitute a grant of special privilege and is not detrimental to the park property and actually provide a greater benefit because of the shared use and the compensation received by the city with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as slaown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 14, 1997, Sheet Ate through A 11, and that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 18, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos, and the Chief Building Inspector's November 12, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos 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 Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that the overall height of the addition as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 84'-6 '/z", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft and mechanical room shall be 99'-0"; 6) 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; 7) 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 all valet parking arrangements; 8) that in the future, as required, the developer 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; 9) 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; 10) that the traffic allocation for a 101- room addition to an existing 291-room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which is a part of the planning approval of this project and the agreement for use of 115 parking spaces on the adjacent sanitary landfill shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time -13- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 the planning approval expires on the project; 11) that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan for the transition period between occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and availability of at least 115 spaces in the proposed shared use parking lot on the sanitary landfill site; 12) that since the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required parking by seeking an agreement with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before issuance of any building permit under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that provides that the applicant will be allowed to use the City property to the north and west for parking for at least 115 vehicles so long as the applicant's property is used as a hotel or the required parking is not provided in some other way approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant shall either reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 115 parking spaces or provide alternative parking approved by the City; 13) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Land Use and Planning); 14) that the proposed structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake (geologic); 15) that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1995 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code (geologic); 16) that in order to minimize settlement of roadways and other site; features, recompacting or surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving (geologic); 17) that flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground settlement (geologic); 18) that the finished floors for any structure to be at least 9' above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater (geologic, water); 19) that any new construction on the site shall elevate the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is .greater. Habitable areas include meeting and conference areas and their support facilities (water); 20) that this project shall comply with the requirements of the state -mandated water conservation program, that a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application, and shall be approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit (water); 21) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards (water); 22) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction (air quality); 23) that the developer shall tie required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards (air quality); 24) that when the level -of -service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through lane on Airport Boulevard at Anza Boulevard to a second exclusive left -turn lane. This improvement will improve cumulative conditions during the p.m. peak hour at this intersection to an acceptable LOS D (V/C=0.85), and the applicant shall pay a fee at that time toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's contribution to the total increase in traffic through the intersection (transportation/circulation); 25) 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); 26) that the proposed Anza Boulevard driveway access shared with the future park shall be widened from its current proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet; a stop sign shall be provided at the driveway to control access on to Anza Boulevard from the shared parking facilities at the public park -14- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 (transportation/circulation); 27) that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport shuttle service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees at shift changes (transportation/circulation); 28) that no portion of the required parking on -site or on the landfill shall be used for long-term airport parking as part of a hotel promotion (transportation/circulation); 29) that there shall be no charge to customers or guests to park in the parking lot (transportation/circulation); 30) 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); 31) that the City shall require that the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip pile drivers with shields, and shall also develop a schedule for pile driving to minimize the impacts on the existing DoubleTree Hotel facilities, the Red Roof Inn and Red Rock Cafe (noise); 32) that the hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa (noise); and 33) that in the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during construction -related earthmoving activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find were determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, then representatives of the project applicant, the City, and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. If the discovery includes human remains, Section VIII of CEQA Guidelines Appendix K would be followed, requiring coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission if the human remains are of Native American origin. All significant cultural materials recovered would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by a qualified archaeologist according to current professional standards (cultural resources). The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. The motion was approved on a roll call vote 5-1-1 (C. Mink dissenting and C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 14. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CHANGE THE REGULAR MEETING START TIME. Chairman Key opened the pubic hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. C. Wellford moved approve of the resolution amending the commission's Rules of Procedure to begin regular meetings at 7:00 p.m. C. Deal seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) on a voice vote. Commission discussion: does this action mean that the next regular commission meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m.; CA noted that the code states that the Council must approve a change in the Commission's rules of procedure before the change in the regular meeting time will be official so the time change will not be automatic until after the Council approves the chwige. Commissioners agreed that they should cover all eventualities by acting on a motion to hold the next meeting at 7:00 p.m. C. Galligan moved to begin the next meeting at 7:00 p.m. C. Deal seconded the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) -15- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1997 PLANNER'S REPORTS - Neighborhood Consistency -Discussion of Regulations Limiting Demolitions in Residentially zoned areas. Commission agreed, given the late hour, to defer discussion of the regulations limiting demolitions to their next meeting. - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 19, 1997 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. MR4Wnss.27 -16- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary