Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.01.10 1 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 10, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the January 10, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioner Keighran MINUTES The minutes of the December 13, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were corrected to read: Item No. 12; 949-965 Rollins Road; AChairman Luzuriaga Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny.@ The minutes were then approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS 337 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION. (ROBERT & ELIZABETH WOLFE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Commission asked: has applicant considered dropping a few SF to eliminate the lot coverage variance, adjustment could also eliminate the front setback variance; other houses on block have modest entry, this proposal is not in keeping with existing, explain; please give the reason for so many architectural elements when the number is not typical of the neighborhood; confirm the width of the garage, is it changing from the existing; roof plan not consistent with elevations, valleys should be 45; will person-door on the side of the garage be able to be opened when a car is inside; try to reduce the lot coverage; and reduce the number of architectural elements on the side and rear facades. There were no further questions about the project from the commission. The item was placed on the action calendar, for the January 24, 2000, meeting if the needed information is provided to the Planning Department in time. 1152 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES TO ADD A PATIO COVER. (CATHERINE GREER, APPLICANT AND MICHAEL & LINDA BALLENGER, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Any variance granted should be tied to the trellis in such a way that the square footage cannot be converted to enclosed living area in the future; do not want an entitlement of a .71 FAR on this site; if the concern is privacy in the rear yard there are other ways to achieve it beside a trellis structure; CA responded that commission could place a condition on the action that if house were demolished only the existing non- conforming .7 FAR could be replaced or a condition that if the house were demolished the replacement house would have to conform to the FAR in effect at that time; this house was built before current FAR limitations so is very large, to add on to it, even a trellis, will increase its impact on the neighborhood. There were no further questions from the commission. Item can be placed on the consent calendar with conditions which limit the FAR and lot coverage so that this additional area cannot become an entitlement for more enclosed living area in the future. The item was placed on the consent calendar, for the January 24, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 2 1609 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Commission questions: the purpose of the special permit for height is to allow resolution of a roof in a positive way i.e., the roof should peak, in this case the extra height is used and the roof peak is cropped with a flat roof on top, applicant should try a redesign with a less steep roof which can be peaked; the garage roof is also cropped before the natural peak, it could be designed with a less steep roof as well; want detailed drawing of eave and how they will work, with better resolution it would really finish off the design of the house; similar house up the street, identical facade, problem with that house is the finish, the front gable and entrance which project so little that they do not provide the shadow and articulation needed), these issues should be addressed at the front of this house. There were no further questions from the commission. The item was set on the regular action calendar for the January 24, 2000, meeting providing all the information is given to the Planning Department in time. 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR NEW RETAIL USE (FRAMING GALLERY) IN AN EXISTING BUILDING. (PETER GUMINA, APPLICANT AND 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: can ADA parking requirements be exempted; can the applicant describe maximum and minimum, the number of people on site at different times, doing their own framing; ask the applicant to address why this site should be allowed to become retail sales when it was built for bulk merchandising because there were so many problems with the location; what was the parking dimension variance requested in 1989, and why was it granted; could the applicant explain why the development of this site was delayed so long; when did the current applicant become aware of the parking restriction on this property; if a parking variance is granted, is it tied to retail sales use of the site, what are the options for limiting the use and the variance. There were no further questions from the commission. The item was set for the regular action calendar for the January 24, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted in time. 1649 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE UNIT SIGN, OVER HEIGHT POLE SIGN, 3 SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE, AND 416 SF OF SIGNAGE WHERE 200 SF IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED. (UNITED SIGNS, APPLICANT AND SEVEN SPRINGS, LP, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Staff pointed out that since the applicant wishes to place community service notices on the reader board it appears that he will need an Outdoor Advertising Permit from the State of California. This requirement must be met before he could install any reader board approved by the city. The commissioners asked regarding the application: what are the sizes of the DHL, Sonic Air, and Briggs and Stratton signs; can the clock be integrated into the sign and not appear as an added-on element; conditions should state the length of time for each sign posted on the changeable copy part of the sign; is the entire sign black and white; what is the reason for on going advertising; what is the current status of the enforcement on the code violation (installation of the clock without sign and other permits); how can the city enforce a time limit on the message changing of the sign; this request raises a lot of issues such as what should the image of Burlingame be along the freeway, how bright should this sign be, how much action should be allowed on the sign, these are city image issues that need to be addressed; could CA address how much control the city has over such a sign, CA noted control over size and color and whether copy relates to on-site or off-site advertisement; can the owner word messages any way he wishes, yes; commissioners should look at the sign at Serramonte Shopping Center to see what the impact of illumination can be, CA noted that commission can regulate brightness, applicant should tell us how many lumens the proposed signage would be; discussion seems to indicate that changeable copy sign is inappropriate both in terms of city image and control, digital clock seems OK; would like a clearer description about the finding for each of the sign exceptions, the reasons given in the attachments i.e., the applicant would like to have the signs and the need to clarify the company name, are not reasons for sign exception findings. The item was placed on the regular action calendar, for the January 24, 2000, meeting if all the information is provided to the Planning Department in time. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 3 1405 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CARPORT FOR A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE. (STEVE LESLEY, APPLICANT AND ATLAS PLASTERING, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. The Planning Commissioners asked: why do they need a 20 foot tall opening in the carport; at time of site inspection (1.10.00) applicant was pumping a liquid from a truck into the creek, is this allowed; why was so much architectural embellishment put on this carport, seems a level of detail not necessary unless it is advertisement for what this business does; project looks like a hanger, why is it so tall; the staff report indicates that the carport will be the same height as the adjacent building to the north, however there is a wall there now that is 4 to 5 feet taller than that building, will the carport roof be placed on the existing wall; approval should include best management practices for all activities on the site next to the creek; there appear to be a couple of catch basins on the site which discharge into the creek, are there fossil filters in them, how are they inspected and when are they replaced; the building appears to be 25 feet tall and the proposed facade not in keeping with the rest of the development on the site, please address. The item was placed on the regular action calendar, for the January 24, 2000, meeting if all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. 1516 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-CAR GARAGE. (CHRISTINA IP-TOMA AND BURT TOMA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA: A. 1125 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (LA SALSA, APPLICANT AND SANDRA H. YORK, PROPERTY OWNER) B. 1152 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (NOAH=S BAGELS, APPLICANT AND GURDIAL S. JOHAL TR, PROPERTY OWNER) C. 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (STARBUCKS, APPLICANT AND GURDIAL S. JOHAL TR, PROPERTY OWNER) D. 1219 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (CAFE LA SCALA, APPLICANT AND PAUL A. OHM TR ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) E. 1309 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (PEET=S COFFEE AND TEA, APPLICANT AND GURDIAL S. JOHAL TR, PROPERTY OWNER) F. 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (BOCCE CAFE, APPLICANT AND GENSLER FAMILY LPI, PROPERTY OWNER) G. 1318 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (WORLD WRAPPS, APPLICANT AND SHIRLEY KING TR, PROPERTY OWNER) H. 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (MEDITERRANEAN GARDENS, APPLICANT AND SHIRLEY KING TR, PROPERTY OWNER) 1308 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (THE CAKERY, APPLICANT AND GENSLER FAMILY L.P.I., PROPERTY OWNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 4 and 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - RESOLUTION OF CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 488,000 SF OFFICE PROJECT, IN THREE FIVE-STORY BUILDINGS ON A 16 ACRE SITE. (DAN LEVIN, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Deal noted that he had no conflict of interest with any project on this calendar. He did note that although his name was on the drawings for 1516 Forest View, he had no relationship with the applicant and had not received any money from them. C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolutions. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR 149 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (ANDREW & TRINA PASCAL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Andrew Pascal, applicant, 149 Pepper Avenue, and Bernardo Urquieta, architect, 2160 Lake Street, San Francisco were both present and available to answer questions. Commissioners asked; why grant the variance, have a big (10,000 SF) lot, addition is out of character with the existing building. Architect asked commissioner if he visited the site; yes, but was not inside the house. There are two issues that are important, one is that there are certain rules established by the interior design of the house, main corridor ends in the family room and it is in a specific place in the house, very little space on the lot from the family room to the neighbor; site design is difficult to express in the drawings, want to have addition lower than the trees along the side; met with neighbor, she did not want the impact of continuing the existing plane of the roof, wanted to have roof as low as possible, applicant designed a flat metal roof to respect the neighbors concern; design is in response to existing conditions and neighbors concerns. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: preserving the interior is important, not taking into consideration the exterior of the building, level of detail shown on the plans inside the house is good, but concerned that the exterior is being ignored, addition has an impact on the neighborhood, not just on the adjacent neighbor, skylights will be visible, seems like the addition has many parts, many things attached to it, could still have a good exterior which can work well with the interior; being asked to grant a variance on a large lot, reduced setback of only 3' for 32' in length, wall offset by one foot may provide an opportunity to create some articulation to eliminate what appears to be an 80' long wall 3' from the property line; long wall is extremely large and overbearing; front of the building is pleasing, has nice approach and front facade but falls apart at the rear, concerned only with exterior; see no justification for the variance; this is a small piece at the rear of the house, has minimal effect, if any, on the character of the neighborhood;, consideration and sensitivity shown to the neighbors is an important part of building a community; understand the concept of preserving the interior spaces, feel this is justification for granting the minor variance considering variances have been granted for other properties where essentially a house is torn down, rebuilt with a greater variance requested; this project does not fit in category of requiring design review and review should not be taken to that extreme, in support of the project as proposed. Further commission comments: at study meeting expressed concern about consistency of the addition with the existing house; concerned with abrupt change in materials and style, prefer additions that look like they were part of the house, cannot support project, looks like an addition, does not match the existing house; need to resolve interior and exterior issues; no design review required for this project, if going to reach beyond the limits of design review and control every City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 5 piece that=s added to a building, inhibits people=s ability to be creative and growth of architecture; need to look at and respect the existing building and patterns. C. Deal moved denial of the project as submitted for the reasons stated and because the addition does not blend in with the existing structure, applicant needs to treat the project differently in terms of the variance, 80' long wall for 75' in length is very long with substantial impact. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. On the motion: should ask the applicant if the interior plan is really in conflict with the things that might be necessary on the exterior of the building to make the addition consistent with the structure. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-1-1 roll call vote (C. Vistica dissenting and C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 847 ACACIA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 704 SF TWO-CAR GARAGE. (CLARK WURZBERGER & KAREN OHL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Reference staff report, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner noted that it appears that there are several skylights within 10' of the property line, CP Monroe noted that it would be appropriate to ask applicant; the height of the garage should be dimensioned from average grade and not from garage slab, asking for variance for the way the ridge is positioned so this dimension is not that important. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Clark Wurzberger, 847 Acacia Drive, applicant, noted that the skylights are shown to be within 10' of the property line, was asked if he intended to keep the skylights, noted that he intended to keep them in this location if they are allowed, CP noted if retained the location of the skylights would be require a conditional use permit which hasn=t been advertised and this item would have to be continued to the next meeting; commissioner asked CA Anderson because this project has been noticed for four conditional use permits, and the conditional use permit for location of the skylights is minute, can=t it just be included with the others. CA Anderson noted that the location of the skylights would have had to have been noticed; commissioner asked if application can be heard as it stands without the skylights and if applicant chooses to add them he could make a request for an amendment, yes. Appears skylights are within inches of being 10' from the property line, suggest a condition that would allow the skylights to occur by relocating them slightly, applicant agreed to move the skylights so that they are at least 10' from property line. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: in favor of this project, well articulated on the exterior, has outriggers and nice entrance detail on the side, understand need for storage, asking for several conditional use permits but some go hand in hand, for example if you have a 704 SF structure then you will surely have a wall that=s more than 28' long, not too concerned with 32' long wall, found it interesting that due to the location of the garage if ridge ran the other direction no special permit would be required, can make finding that it is not detrimental to the neighborhood; would not want to give an extra height that allowed if the ridge were going the other way, normally ridge is measured from average grade and not from the concrete slab, suggest adding a condition that the structure be 15' from the average grade; in regards to exceeding 10% of the area of the house for storage, one could build a 10' x 10' storage shed without a permit, this proposed project is a much better use, provides space for two cars, a storage area and shop at the rear of the garage; structure related well to the house. C. Deal moved approval of the project with two amended and one added condition, by resolution, with the amended conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. On the motion: in regards to condition #3, the commissioner noted that a 2" water line is large and suggested that it only include a limit on the size of the waste line to 2". Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 5, 2000, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 6 Sheets A-1 through A-2, except that all the skylights in the detached garage shall be placed at least 10' from nearest property line; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, memo dated October 18, 1999, that the conditions of the Fire Marshal, memo dated October 18, 1999, and that the conditions of the City Engineer, dated October 18, 1999, hall be met; 3) that the size of the waste line from the garage shall be limited to 0'-2"; 4) that the height of the detached garage to the peak of the roof shall be no greater than 15'-0" at any point as measured from average adjacent grade; and 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1 vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE. (T. PETER LAM, AIA, APPLICANT AND DMITRI NADEEV, PROPERTY OWNER) - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Reference staff report, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. C. Bojués noted that he would abstain from action on this project, he lives within the noticing area. He then left the dais. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that for this item three votes would be a majority for action. Because of the reduced number of commissioners he gave the applicant the opportunity to continue the item to another meeting. The applicant chose to go forward. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, the architect for the project, indicated that he would be pleased to answer any questions on the project. Commissioners asked: this submittal represents an improvement over the previous submittal but concerned about the relationship of the second floor addition to the first floor, the front works all right but at the sides it is awkward, and the rear looks like a different building; applicant noted tried their best to work within the mix of housing styles in the neighborhood; windows add a human scale, why are there so few on the new second floor, felt that could screen the addition with landscaping along the sides which would also soften the facade, side setbacks are 5 feet at first story and 7 feet at second, neighbor is 10 feet away, commission is aware rarely see sides in full as one sees them in plan elevation. There were no further questions or comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: agree that this project is a whole lot better, but feel that a couple of elevations need more work, addition of some windows and trim, the rear elevation needs more work, provide more information on the type of window trim detail and eave detail; the rendering does show the adjacent houses and the flavor of the neighborhood as well as the size and scale of the adjacent houses, there is no continuity between these houses and the proposed new house, could be addressed though such items as: the roof pitch and how the roof works, can it be made steeper and brought into the first floor, could add smaller windows, chimney goes across the roof may not be desirable; addition centered on first story by declining height, could break this image by going straight up to the second story next to the driveway; not opposed to size but project has a tract look, needs a steeper roof and to include more details typical of existing houses in the neighborhood, needs better fenestration; so for these and the reasons stated by the commissioners, move to deny this project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. On the motion: direction to the applicant should be taken from commissioners comments, commission is reviewing a draft of the Design Guidelines, could these be sent to this applicant for reference, yes; if this project is resubmitted it should go to a different design reviewer for a second input, commission agreed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the design review for a second story without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-1 (C. Bojués abstaining, C. Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Bojués took his seat again. 360 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD A MEZZANINE TO EXISTING REAL ESTATE OFFICES. (MICHAEL NILMEYER, AIA, APPLICANT AND WEM PENINSULA REALTY CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 7 Reference staff report, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mike Nilmeyer, architect, 128 Pepper, represented the project. He noted that there are 32 people employed at 360 Primrose Road in a real estate business now (28 sales people and 3 administrative staff, 1 office manager), there are 10 parking spaces on site; applicant does not intend to have any more people on site, just needs to make the office areas bigger and have more amenity; the site has been used as a grocery store, bank and now real estate office; at commission direction looked at smaller mezzanine areas, each had a problem, could not accommodate people, to meet fire exiting requirements brought stair down at most prominent corner of building; looked at reconfiguration of parking, can pick up one space along side of the building and make 90 degree if remove most of the landscaping but will create a lot of dead end aisles and a less attractive building. Charles Moore, McGuire Real Estate, property owner; McGuire Real Estate is a family business with 2 offices in San Francisco and two in Marin, they are a Ahigh touch and delivery@ business, see Burlingame as an opportunity to play to the firm=s strength, need top quality sales people who require larger and better equipped sales offices to be attracted to the firm; so they want to add a private office environment; this location is good, need the added space to add the critical mass of sales people that they need. Commissioners asked: been told that if real estate people are in the office they are not making money, why bigger offices if not in them; bigger offices are required to attract and retain the top producers; understand your concept but when the building is sold a new buyer might have a different philosophy, and since the mezzanine is there, add more people, would you remove mezzanine if you sold the building; McGuire has not sold any of their office facilities, if another tried to use would accept a limitation of 28 real estate agents on this site, if use changed would need a conditional use permit so commission would review, am willing to accept a deed restriction and will remove mezzanine; reconfiguring parking to 90 degrees would add one parking space but would require redoing the curb cuts, moving a street light and reducing the on-site landscaping, seemed like a high price for one parking space. Ask CA what entitle to if tenant change, variance based on real estate use, so if change to different use variance would not continue, there is a problem with the definition of real estate in our code because it is very broad and includes title companies, etc., would need to adopt a narrower definition for this site if wanted to limit variance within real estate definition, difficult to enforce removal of mezzanine is dependent upon the applicant=s willingness to comply; could the commission require an in lieu fee for parking spaces; applicant indicated he would consider but the remodel will be very expensive and he can see the return for, that but parking would be a hard fee to absorb, however, he would consider it. Architect noted that a retail use has people and customers on site all day during the hours they are open, real estate sales staff comes and goes and is seasonal as well, only time all there is for weekly meeting. Property owner noted he would be willing to allow his parking lot to be used for public parking during the evening hours. There were no further questions from the Commissioners or comment from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: would like to work this out without requiring an in lieu fee which has to go to the City Council; propose the same number of real estate agents as present but am concerned about the future, we could refer this back to staff to come up with conditions that would make this possible; how know number of employees on site and how to enforce such a condition; CA noted can tell number of professional licensed people on site; have observed that this parking lot is often under used, need to insure the same number of users on the site; condition all day employees to park off the site; do not see that needing a bigger office as a hardship for a variance finding; need to find a way to clarify the definition of real estate use for this application to focus on the lower impact; not concerned about parking since the need for parking is going to change in the next 20 to 30 years. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to continue this item so that staff could prepare conditions for commission consideration before action at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. On the motion: can such conditions be crafted, if company merges with a different company with a different philosophy will the conditions stand; is it possible to think further about the applicant paying for additional parking; this should not be put on the consent calendar, important issues that need to be discussed, put on regular action calendar. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the regular meeting of January 24, 2000. The motion to continue passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Since no action was taken by the commission, the continuance is not appealable to the city council. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 8 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PARKING TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN PARKING RATES. (DAVE CASH, MILE HI VALET SERVICE, APPLICANT AND HMH SFO INC., PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Stan Moore, 1400 Capuchino Ave., General Manager of the Marriott Hotel, spoke for the project. Asking to increase the hourly rate charged for the first four hours in order to cover the cost increase over time. Parking fees put into place two years ago; costs have gone up; during the 9 years he=s been at the hotel; new owners have invested $66 million in the property, they expect a given margin of profit, want to see growth in profits in a market where there are limits on increases in room rates, employees wages increase 4%, if can =t increase room rates need to look at other sources for increase, this is one; do lots of benefits for school district. Commissioners asked: one condition refers to car rental operation is it still functional on this site given the changes at the airport, yes this is an on-site franchise operator independent of airport operation; if short term parking rate is increased will it discourage people from using other facilities at the hotel, people who eat at restaurants on site have validated parking; do not validate usually for weddings, BCE, but often do for booked meetings. There were no further questions from the commission or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented did speak with Stan Moore about why they needed to increase the short term parking fee and he was told the same things Mr. Moore put in the record tonight, the hotel wants to be competitive so will not be unreasonable in fees charged, they are unable to raise room rates all the time; increase short term parking to $1 is reasonable, people using the on-site restaurants are comped, feel it=s all right not to have a maximum lower than $1 per hour for 24 hours, hotel can set a competitive rate within that range; any change beyond $1 for 24 hours the applicant would have to return to the city for an amendment to the conditional use permit. C. Deal then moved approval of this application for the reasons stated, by resolution with the amended conditions as follows: 1) that the parking lot circulation shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 26, 1999, Site Plan; 2) compliance with the conditions of the City Engineer=s memo of April 5, 1982 and the Zoning Aide=s memo of April 5, 1982; 3) contribute 12.2 percent to the modifications to the signalization of the Millbrae/Bayshore Highway intersection necessary when traffic generated from the project causes a worsening in the level of service at the intersection of one level; 4) maintenance of catch basins and grease traps serving the project; 5) development of a final landscape plan which meets BCDC public access concerns and approval by the Burlingame Park Director; planting and ongoing requirement to maintain whatever landscaping is approved; 6) contribution, as required by the City and depending upon receipt of Federal grants, to the improvement of the City=s Sewage Treatment Plant, secondary treatment solids improvement; 7) pay cost of independent review of the Jefferson Associates= Traffic Assignment study for the project; 8) approval of Phases II and III of the project is subject to an origin-destination study of actual traffic generation and distribution from previously completed phases of the project; 9) provide signalization at the Malcolm Road intersection if traffic studies required by the City for Phases II and III show it to be necessary; 10) provision of the following during construction of all phases of the hotel: adequate off-street all weather parking for construction workers and physical protection to the marsh habitat along El Portal Creek; 11) during construction of all phases require erosion control to include limiting construction as determined necessary by the City during the wet season, hydro seeding at the onset of the wet season, developing a specific plan for sedimentation control approved as necessary by the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board and the City of Burlingame; 12) as part of the Title 24 survey, the feasibility of solar energy and other conservation devises should be considered; 13) submit excavation procedures to protect public and private property and final grading and drainage plans acceptable to the City; 14) all excavated material, acceptable to the City, shall be treated and placed in the City=s sanitary land fill as directed by the City; 15) receipt of permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 16) compliance with Mr. Edward Hope=s letter of March 19, 1982; 17) the project shall include a 14,000 SF ballroom/convention center in its first phase; 18) heAfootprint@ as submitted by the developer shall be followed; 19) the project shall generally follow those plans date stamped March 31, 1982 and submitted to the Council; 20) that the car rental operation at the Marriott Hotel, 1800 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm, 7 days a week, and that all rental contracts shall be written and signed in Burlingame; 21) that 6 parking spaces shall be reserved for car rental vehicles in the garage and no car shall be stored in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; there shall be no rental cars parked in the surface parking lot; 22) that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned, washed or repaired on the Marriott site; 23) that car rental customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 9 change to the operating limits of the car rental use shall require an amendment to this use permit; 24) that before charging for on-site guest parking the applicant shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to install appropriate directional signage; 25) that the conditions of the Senior Building Inspector=s September 9, 1997 memo, Fire Marshal=s August 25, 1997 and September 8, 1997 memos, Senior Civil Engineer=s September 11, 1997 memo, Traffic Engineer=s September 10, 1997 memo and the City Engineer=s September 22, 1997 memos shall be met and that there shall be no temporary tents for any purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site; 26) that storage in the parking garage shall be limited to areas permitted by the Burlingame Fire Department and not designated as parking spaces on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997 (Sheets 1&2); 27) that on-site security and patrol shall be provided; 28) that during construction all parking for construction equipment shall be provided on-site and a supervised program for on-site and off-site parking for construction workers shall be approved by the Department of Public Works; 29) that the hotel shall install oil separating traps for runoff from parking areas and maintai n oil separating traps on a regular basis as approved by the city; 30) that up to 251 parking spaces in the below grade parking garage shall be designated for valet parking; 31) that any change to the operation of valet parking affecting the fee charge or the area used shall require modification of this use permit; 32) that long term airport parking for a fee or no fee shall not occur at this site (including Asleep, park & fly@ promotions) without amendment to this permit; 33) that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 per hour for the first four hours, and $1.00 thereafter and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 34) that 14 spaces remain on the site for the purpose of public access in the location indicated on the plans date stamped February 19, 1999 (Sheets 1 &2), and that these spaces shall be clearly marked as public access spaces and shall remain unrestricted (outside any parking control gating) and that no fee shall be charged for these spaces at any time; any revisions to these public access spaces require the permission of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission prior to any alterations; 35) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 36) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (January, 2002) and every two years thereafter; and 37) that the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more than 10% of the on-site parking spaces are employed for this duration. Motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: is there a required review for the entire conditional use permit, yes in condition 36, two years (2001) and every two years there after; condition 29 refers to oil separators in on-site catch basins would like to have them checked for compliance, staff will see that they are on the compliance check list for the regular inspections of the site; should we change the date in the condition for the first regular review to 2002, yes, maker of motion and second agreed to amend condition 36 to have first required review in 2002. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the request to increase the short term parking rate to $1 for each of the first four hours and to change the required review for compliance with the conditions on the site to 2002. The motion passed on a 5-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 1216 BURLINGAME AVENUE - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA: (COPENHAGEN BAKERY, APPLICANT AND ARCHIE L. OFFIELD, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. CP Monroe noted the memo from the fire inspector at the commissioner=s desks indicating that there are some other fire code violations on the site in the retail area (basement and first floor) which need to be corrected, also by February 1, 2000; along with the Fire Marshal=s requirements of connecting the fire sprinkler system. Commissioner asked staff how exact was the measurement of the remaining seating area (248 SF) in the original leased space, measurement was taken from the plans used for the building permit for the remodel. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ralph Neilson, Copenhagen Bakery, 1216 Burlingame Ave., spoke noting that they have a problem with the sprinkler connection, felt that the Fire Marshal had been patient, landlord is responsible for installing the sprinkler system, spoke with him today to try to see when he could get it done; the water main that needs to be connected to is on the other side of Burlingame Ave. had hoped that the main would be relocated by city closer to their point of connection but it never happened; they will try to get a contractor to make one connection City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 10 to do this but don=t know if it can be done by February 1; there are a few other items not taken care of, inspector has asked that these be done, need to get an electrician in to do them, he has not come, these include holes in the ceiling in the basement; he noted that his insurance would go down once the site is hooked up to the sprinkler system; he would like extra time to get these things done. Commissioner clarified sprinkler system has been installed, it just hasn’t been connected to the water supply, yes; feel an unsprinklered building is a major problem; Copenhagen has been in this building 23 years without sprinklering, had to add because of seismic work and improvements made; could not do any work in the street during the holidays; was the sprinkler system a part of your remodel, no the landlord provided it; how much time would you need to get the system connected, do not know. Sr. Engineer noted installing the connection will require an encroachment permit from public works, once have acceptable plan this should take 20 minutes will also have to post a bond to get the work done. CA noted applicant has had three and a half years to create the design and drawings, needed this work to design system installed in building, there must be drawings. Commissioner noted that the building owner has no motivation. CA the commission cannot extend any enforcement times in this case, on February l, 2000, the Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official will shut down part of the restaurant and basement, the property owner and merchant made that choice. The owners did not appeal the Fire Marshall=s December 14, repair order. Commission asked if site could keep the full service food establishment designation. CA noted that installation of an operational sprinkler system was a condition of the original permits issued by the commission to expand the food establishment and grant a take-out permit, this applicant is in violation of that permit as well. Commissioner, does not seem to make sense to change designation and then require applicant to reapply to change back once sprinkler system connected, makes work for the commission; would it be better to postpone action on this conditional use permit. CP and CA pointed out that without the expansion area site does not meet the criteria in the ordinance for a full service food establishment, meets criteria for limited food service. Commissioner, if another restaurant reduced its size and service what would it be required to do, CP apply for an amendment to its conditional use permit. Commission condition proposed would allow full service food establishment up to February 1, and beyond if fire sprinklers are connected, if not Fire Marshal will close off part of the site and, under the condition, the classification will change to Limited Food Service. C. Bojués moved to approve the conditional use permit amendment with the conditions proposed by staff as follows: 1) that if the on-site fire sprinkler system is not properly connected to the water supply to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Fire Marshal by February 1, 2000, this business location presently occupied by a full service establishment, with 980 SF of on-site seating, shall have its food establishment designation changed to Limited Food Service Food Establishment with a seating area of 248 SF; with either designation this site may change its food establishment classification only to a full service, limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment; 2) that the 980 SF or 248 SF area of on-site seating for the full service food establishment or limited food service may be enlarged only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 4) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 5) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any other retail use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 6) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 24, 1996, Sheets 1, 2, A-1 and A-2 with the change that the door at the rear from the site into the parking be relocated so that it leaves the parking space unobstructed; 7) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal=s June 24 and July 15, 1996 memos and the Chief Building Inspector=s July 15, 1996 memo shall be met; 8) that a maximum of 3625 SF of the basement area shall be used for food assembly, the remaining 1875 SF shall be used for storage only; 9) that the hours of operation for the business shall not exceed the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, with a maximum number of employees of 17, including the manager on site, on site at one time; 10) that seating on site, inside, shall not exceed 110 and seating outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 11) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least once a day, more often if necessary, two trash receptacles placed on the sidewalk outside the building at a location approved by the City Engineer; these two trash receptacles shall be of the type approved by the city as a part of the streetscape plan adopted by the City Council and shall be installed no later than January 1, 1997; 12) that all deliveries to this business shall be made from the Donnelly Avenue side of the premise; 13) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently if the City determines it to be necessary, all debris on the sidewalk, on sidewalk tables fronting this premise, in the gutter and in planters within 50 feet of the store; and 14) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes 1995 Edition as amended by the City and that any lack of compliance with these conditions or change to the business or use on the site which results in a change which would affect any one or more of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; including the change in classification from full service to limited food service if the area of the business City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 11 is reduced on February 1, 2000, by the Fire Marshal and/or Chief Building Official. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. On the motion: why do anything, on February 1 they will shut down the business, this action will just add a layer of Planning Commission activity, if we give them the full service designation they will not be able to use it; CP noted that the issue is that the requirements of the classification will change and compliance with ordinance will not be maintained; the conditions here tidy up the ordinance, yes. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions as proposed. The motion passed on a 4-1-1 (C. Deal dissenting, C. Keighran absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed briefly the City Council meeting of January 4, 2000. - Discussion of basements in calculating FAR Commission directed that the FAR for basement development be placed on the agenda for the special meeting on January 31, 2000; noting that the proposed project at 301 Airport would not be ready for hearing on that date because the applicant has indicated that he will submit a revised project for consideration. Commission will discuss the time for a special meeting for 301 Airport at the meeting on January 24, 2000, when staff has a better idea of what is involved in reviewing the proposed revision. Commission also noted that if it fit the timing the discussion of the General Plan issues on Rollins Road also could be included in the agenda for the meeting on January 31, 2000. The availability of the downtown parking study was also discussed. CP indicated that she would get copies to the commissioners for their information when it was available. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. MINUTES1.10