Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.01.24 1 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 24, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the January 24, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. Chairman Luzuriaga then introduced Ralph Osterling, the newly appointed Planning Commissioner who was seated. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: C. Bojués (note C. Bojués arrived at 7:10 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Janice Jagelski; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the January 10, 2000 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. C. Bojués arrived at this time. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS 820 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. (EFREM EYVAZOV, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked: half-timber patterns on second story appear random, need further study. Problems with consistency of drawings depicting the dormer on the right side, does not reflect same in floor plans and elevations. Could affect appearance of structure; landscape plan could use attention, plantings not too well thought out with redwood trees on 5'-0" center spacing, appears to have a lot of paving; tudor design is a viable approach in this neighborhood, but the house appears too contemporary and tract-style Tudor components need to integrate first and second floors better; bring second story components straight to the ground, rather than stack on first story; need a steeper roof pitch - there is ample height available to use, don=t let the declining height envelope dictate appearance of house; the brick wainscoting appears layered on, work with detail to encompass the bay window; look at examples of other recently approved Tudor-style houses, note level of detail and treatment of components, bulk needs to be addressed. There were no further questions about the project from the commission. The item was placed on the action calendar, for the February 14 2000, meeting if the needed information is provided to the Planning Department in time. 734 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE. (GERRY AND PAULA MURNANE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 2 CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Commission questions: would like more landscaping, the detail showing added plant material, plans identify existing planting; what a strategy will be employed for construction, provide sample sections and details to show construction method and materials, show detail around windows and gable ends; did applicant intend to identify the siding as wood shake, or is this really wood shingle in conjunction with a composition roof. Commission has no control over color palette, but curious whether color scheme has been considered; further define the rear elevation and clarify whether the barge rafter is 2'-6" deep; the barge rafter on the garage can go to property line; confirm the topographic elevations on site plan; figures given look too level. There were no further questions from the commission. The item was set for the regular action calendar for the February 14, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted in time. 1033 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT SPLIT. (LOUIS ARATA, APPLICANT AND ANN PAVAO KRAEMER AND WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, PROPERTY OWNERS) CE Erbacher presented the staff report. Commission asked: can Commission designate trees to be preserved from development impact;. CA noted: Planning Commission can and have them certified on the map. Commission asked: could developer note whether any other trees will be removed beside trees identified in arborist report; want development site plan to identify lateral root area of each tree and what would be removed for construction; note that Planning Commission action would not approve house shown on plans; any new house to be built will require design review; when house plans submitted, they should identify type of foundation proposed (continuous foundation vs. gradebeam, etc.) and look at meeting the tree ordinance in effect at the time of construction of the house. There were no further questions about the project from the commission. The item was placed on the action calendar for the February 14, 2000, meeting if the needed information is provided to the Department of Public Works 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. At the request of the business owners, Chairman Luzuriaga removed from the consent calendar the conditional use permit amendments for the food establishments at 290 Primrose Road and 234 Primrose Road. AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA: A. 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (LORENZ & LOUISA KAO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) B. 299 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - (CHEESE PLEASE CATERING, APPLICANT AND SANDRA H. YORK, PROPERTY OWNER) C. 1215 DONNELLY AVENUE - (ST. CLAIR=S, APPLICANT AND HAMMER I L.L.C., PROPERTY OWNER) D. 322 LORTON AVENUE - (ECCO, APPLICANT AND MELROZ LORTON LIMITED PARTNERS LP, PROPERTY OWNER) E. 224 PRIMROSE ROAD - (YIANNI=S, APPLICANT AND FRANCIS G. & O.M. DUFFIELD TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) G. 347 PRIMROSE ROAD - (CAFE MILANO, APPLICANT AND NICK DELIS COMPANY INC., PROPERTY OWNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 3 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) Chairman Luzuriaga then called for a motion on the remaining items on the consent calendar. Discussion on the motion: can the wording of conditions of approval for the project at 1152 Cabrillo Avenue be clarified so that condition 3 reads A...should the house be demolished (more than 50% of its value taken away) whatever zoning codes are in effect at that time shall control the replacement of the structure and accessory structures.@ C. Vistica noted that he would not vote in favor of 1152 Cabrillo but had no problem with the rest of the consent calendar. C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The motion passed 7-0 for all items except 1152 Cabrillo whose conditions were amended as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 8, 1999, Site Plan and Elevations; 2) that the lot coverage and floor area ratio variances are granted based on the fact that this is a 172 SF trellis open to the sky covering a patio; this area shall never be covered by a solid roof or converted to an enclosed living area; 3) that the lot coverage and floor area ratio variances are being granted by the City because of a pre- existing nonconforming condition on the property, which would impose an unfair burden on the owner to correct or remove as part of the remodel; however, this condition shall be corrected if this structure is demolished and replaced, therefore, the variance approved for lot coverage and additional floor area ratio shall automatically expire should the trellis be removed; should the house be demolished (more than 50% of its value taken away) whatever floor area ratios are in the City zoning code at that time shall control the replacement structures;4) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal=s December 13, 1999 memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Regular Calendar 290 PRIMROSE ROAD - (BEN & JERRY=S, APPLICANT AND KARIM A. SALMA TR, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 01.24.00, with attachments. City Planner briefly presented the staff report, reviewed the criteria and Planning Department comments. Fifteen conditions were proposed. CP corrected condition 2 to reflect that there were 25 SF of indoor on-site seating in this limited food service business and the seating area shall be enlarged only by amendment to the conditional use permit. There were no questions of staff by the commissioners. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Roger Kaufmann, owner of Ben and Jerry=s at 209 Primrose Road, spoke. He noted that when they picked this site for a store the did an economic study on a business with inside seating, this was a factor in determining the viability of the business, changing the seating area to 25 SF could affect the business; he measured the area available on site for seating and found it was 98 inches by 68 inches, don=t know how city got 25 SF but it may have been because often two of the three tables are on the sidewalk at the front not inside the store, maybe the 25 SF is the area that was occupied by one table. He would like the on-site seating number to be 66 SF which is the area occupied by the tables when all three are placed inside the store. There were no questions by the commissioners and no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he would make a motion, have been in this business, could easily put three tables inside, have no problem with increasing the on-site seating area to 66 SF so would move the amendment to the conditions, by resolution City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 4 with the conditions as amended: 1) that this business location presently occupied by a limited food service use, with 66 SF of on-site seating and 329 SF of roof deck seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the changed classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 2) that the 66 SF of indoor on-site seating of the limited food service establishment shall be enlarged only by an amendment to the 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 retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 6) that the food establishment at this site sha ll occupy 520 SF at street level in the southwest corner of the property adjacent to Parking Lot J with a maximum of 66 SF of seating area on the premise and access to 329 SF of roof deck seating area immediately above the tenant=s space on the street level with a maximum seating for 32 people (141 SF of the roof deck is unusable for seating area because of the placement of the air conditioning unit); 7) that no food preparation or food and drink sales shall occur on the roof deck; 8) that the use of the roof deck area will be limited to eight tables and a maximum of 32 people, use of any kind of sun shade which extends above the tables including umbrellas shall require review of the Building, Fire and Planning Departments and any necessary amendment to this permit; 9) that the business may be open Sunday through Thursday 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 11:00 a.m. to midnight with a maximum of three employees including the proprietor on site at one time; 10) that no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the site and the business shall only sell ice cream and food items typically associated with an ice cream store; 11) that all deliveries shall be made to the site before 9:30 a.m.; 12) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle inside the door to the store and a second trash receptacle in the sidewalk area along Primrose Road in front of the store at a location approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; the latter trash receptacle shall be the model selected by the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Study and shall be installed no later than January 1997 or within 60 days of occupancy of the site; 13) that the business operator shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and in planters in front of the store along Primrose Road and within 100 feet of the store in each direction including within the portion of Parking Lot J adjacent to the sidewalk along Primrose Road; 14) that, if determined by the city to be necessary, the business operator shall wash/steam clean on a regular basis the sidewalk in front of the premise from Burlingame Avenue south to the southern end of the street frontage of Parking Lot J; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Municipal code and of the 1998 edition of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the change to the on-site seating area to 66 SF and corresponding corrections to the conditions of approval. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 234 PRIMROSE ROAD - (CLIFF WOODS, CHICKEN! CHICKEN!, APPLICANT AND FRANCIS G. & O.M. DUFFIELD TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 01.24.00, with attachments. City Planner presented staff report. Eleven conditions were suggested in the staff report. CP Monroe noted that condition 1 should be clarified to note that when one business replaces another of the same type it may occur if the Aleased@ area occupied is the same or less. There were no questions from the commissioners. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Cliff Woods, business owner at 234 Primrose Road spoke. He noted that the objective of the food establishment ordinance is to restrict the expansion of food establishments within Subarea A. When they took over this premise there were over 100 seats on the site, they reduced the number to 48 for a more intimate dining experience. The kitchen facilities were too small, and they felt that was a factor in the success of the previous business and also impacted their decision on the size of the seating area. Businesses need to change over time, concerned about a restriction on this site which limits it to the current square footage of seating area when has a 2900 SF City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 5 site at his disposal to use; he would like to be assigned the same amount of seating area that was there when he bought the business. In addition, the new ordinance eliminated the need for a take-out permit, so this condition should no longer appear in the permit, may be misunderstood in the future. CP Monroe pointed out that for those food establishments businesses now without conditional use permits, all the conditions in this application will be required except 6 and 7 which address site specifics of his remodel. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comment from the Commissioners: understand request, understand that 652 SF is small when compared to 2900 SF but am reluctant to change since it would set the precedent of using total establishment size as a basis for seating for all food establishments and it was not the intent of the ordinance that future businesses could add all the seating that they want without review; based on this request you would only need a conditional use permit if you wished to extend the square footage of the premise; could add a note in condition 2 that the premise size is 2900 SF so it would be clear in future if an expansion of the seating area were to be requested that it was low at the time this permit was issued; the point of the ordinance is to fix the size and operation at a point in time, you can come in at any time and request more; this ordinance was adopted to stop a black market in the buying/selling of restaurants rights in this area; owner noted that he had paid more for the business site at this location because of the city=s limitation on number; other food establishments in the area have come in and asked for expanded seating as a part of remodeling and received approval because commission was sure that the change would not impact other uses, so if the business changes you can amend this permit. C. Vistica moved approval of the conditional use permit as presented based on the concept that this is consistent with the adopted ordinance and that the operator may ask at any time for something different, with the following conditions as clarified by the city planner: 1) that this business location, occupied by a specialty shop with 652 SF of on-site seating (562 SF indoors and 90 SF in a patio area but within the premise) may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same (2900 SF) or less leased square footage subject to the condition of the existing conditional use permit, or shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment with a new conditional use permit; and that if this specialty shop food establishment is changed to any other type of food establishment classification, this site shall not return to specialty shop use; 2) that the 652 SF area of on-site seating of the specialty shop shall 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 retail or any other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 6) that the business may be open 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week with a maximum of five employees at any one time and no delivery of food shall be made from this site; 7) that the applicant shall provide and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle, as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements, at the door along Primrose Road, or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 8) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently, all take out debris on the sidewalk in front of the store, in the gutter, and in planters and within 50' of store; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit with corrected conditions. The motion was approve on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. 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) Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 6 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, 3914 - 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, applicant, noted that the roof pitch was reduced from 10/12 to 12/12 and a true ridge established in response to previous commission comments. The second floor bedroom has been further extended to create a 2'-0" cantilever. Roof detail was modified to expose rafter tails. Garage roof pitch increased and no longer appears flat. Commission added: can the applicant replicate the house rafter detail on the garage; applicant noted that it would be okay to add rafter detail to the garage. Ronald Daher, 1273 Balboa Avenue and Rosemary Psaila, 1277 Balboa, commented; will the Black Acacias along the rear property line will be removed in order to construct the new fence proposed with this house, the roots are breaking up his patio and are under his foundation he would like them removed; architect noted he would work with neighbor; also other trees block his sunlight and he would like them either removed or trimmed; the applicant was unsure whether the existing trees were part of the new landscape plan; CP noted that if trees were of protected size, a removal permit would be required; Commission noted that tree trimming is outside the commission=s jurisdiction and the neighbor should speak directly with the applicant regarding this issue; the developer erect a temporary barrier along the property line when the existing garage is removed? The garage currently sits on the property line and there will be a gap in the fence between the time the garage is demolished and when a new fence is constructed; applicant stated that they will erect a barricade fence along the portion of the fence when the existing garage is demolished. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the applicant did meet with him and showed him the plans and discussed the project prior to the hearing. There were no m ore questions from the public and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Well designed house, designer understands concept of the Design Review Ordinance. Notes that this house has a 10'-0" first story plate height which is normally not acceptable, but because this house is sandwiched between two tall houses, the exceptional plate height is okay in this case; commend the applicant on the design which does not include any >layer cake= detail, but don=t would not like to see this same plan used fora number of new houses throughout Burlingame. C. Bojués moved approval of the project with the stipulations that a temporary barrier fence be erected along property line when the garage is demolished and that the applicant work out the tree removal and/or trimming with the neighbor before receiving a building permit, by resolution with the amended conditions in the staff report as follows: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 18, 2000, sheets A1 through A6, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations, and Sheet L-1, Landscape Plan; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s November 22, 1999 and the Chief Building Official=s November 29, 1999 memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that the applicant shall address the concerns of the neighbor at 1273 Balboa Avenue regarding the trimming or removal of the black acacia trees, and that the applicant shall apply for a tree removal permit for any protected tree they proposes to remove; 6) that upon demolition of the garage, the applicant shall erect a temporary barricade fence along the property line where the garage stands and a permanent fence shall be erected in this location prior to the approval of the final building permit inspection. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. On the motion: reiterate that house exhibits traditional forms and avoids the layer cake appearance demonstrates that design review can work and be a positive process; would like to add the condition to repeat the rafter detail on the garage, maker and second of the motion agreed that the Black Acacia is of protected size and removal will require the applicant to go through the process defined in the tree removal ordinance. Regarding the letter requesting that the commission ensure the house is built within the height limits permitted in the R-1 zoning district, confirmed that this house does conform with the 36'-0" maximum height allowed with a special permit, this type of design is what the commission strives for with the design review process. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 7 Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 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) - CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 10, 2000 Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked what Condition No. 8 means. CA specified that the location was limited to real estate sales and leasing, and that it could not accommodate a development company, mortgage lending or title insurance company. Commission asked for clarification of whether the mezzanine area was a second floor; CA stated that it is important for the commission to treat eac h application equally and to consider whether this request is an intensification of use, other projects could site what is done here. Why parking variance not included in original construction, CP replied original construction included storage area which did not require as many parking spaces so use came in at provided on-site parking; what would happen if building changed hands, what would become of the second story? CA reminded commission can=t condition a project based on its occupancy and can=t require the removal of the mezzanine with end of this applicant=s occupancy; how Condition No. 5 would be enforced, what details would be included in an annual report, is there any standard to assure a true and responsible report; use payroll tax. CA replied that a lot of independent contractors would not show up on payroll tax, however, if the number of employees was manipulated, the declaration could be subject to perjury. Enforcement and need to verify the number of employees would probably be based on complaints from the neighbors. will adjacent businesses would be notified of the decision of the commission. CP said notice of decisions is not mailed, but adjacent businesses are provided notice of the application and agenda of action hearing. C. Osterling noted that he had listened to the previous tapes on this item so was able to act tonight. How are in-lieu parking fees implemented, presently there is no in lieu fee for parking, it would be up to City Council to adopt, with Saks project it was estimated that an in-lieu fee might be $30,000 per parking space, but an ordinance is needed to establish fee and implement; when will the parking study be ready, the study to be available in February; concerned about acting on a project with a large parking variance before discussion on an in-lieu fee, can conditions be included for applicant to abide by future conditions; no. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mike Nilmeyer, architect, 128 Pepper Avenue and Charles Moore, the applicant, addressed the commission. He noted the CBC definition of a mezzanine depends of a percentage maximum of the FAR of the building; if it exceeds certain percentage, then mezzanine is categorized as a second story; the proposal includes a maximum of 32 people working in the building, the same number as currently there, but with addition of private offices occupying more space which would be accommodated on the mezzanine level. With respect to requesting an in-lieu fee at this time, the applicant would probably be acceptable to a $6,000 - $8,000 fee per space, but it is more difficult for the city to negotiate in lieu fees if they have not already been established; applicant struck by the willingness of this commission to listen; he is willing to have a certified policing of the number of employees at this site; the DRE Registration is public record; and this information is accessible. Commission asked: if 32 employees is a maximum, what is the expected average number of employees on site, is it different between employees and contract employees; 4 employees and 28 sales/independent Realtors would work from this office. 16 could be on site at any time; with 32 employees on site, there would be 167 SF/person, it wou ld be crowded, at the upper end, he expects 20 people at one time; on special occasions, once a week there would be 32 people, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 8 they will not host parties or convene additional meetings beyond the scheduled operation, a maximum of 20 employees is not feasible for the overall operation, but it is okay for the average. Is there more space in each private office than the current operating pattern, there would be 28 work stations, maybe 16 of these would be private offices, rest would be open modular office spaces with an average size of 8' X 10', these would be one person per office with modular work station and walls. There were no further questions from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: the applicant said they would not increase intensity of site, but wanted to provide more space for 32 employees. Can the site be restricted to a 32 employees, can the site be restricted to a 32 employees, CA clarified that the applicant would not be able to intensify the number of employees on the site without amending their C.U.P. ; still concerned about parking, it is a large variance; would acting on this application now set precedent; should commission wait for conclusion of the parking study? CA responded that it=s hard to determine what would set precedent but other developers in the area could consider this an example. Applicant is trying to preserve condition of number of employees not per se expansion; too many negative elements of proposal out of City control, numbers reflect 28 work stations (8 x 10') = 2240 SF where 3119 SF of area is proposed. Control could be difficult to transfer to a future user; would a future amendment of the C.U.P. impact the variance, variance would be affected by physical change if the square footage were increased; can a sunset clause be added to this permit to limit the approval to 12 months or 24 months; Commission comment continued: don=t know the availability of parking in this area; what constitutes an exceptional hardship; is not being able to intensify use or enlarge a work space a hardship; find it hard to see the hardship, even though not a fan of protecting cars in downtown area; whatever impacts exist for 32 employees will continue to exist, but this proposal would make work conditions better; would like to wait for results from parking study and consider in lieu fee, without the study can=t support the project. C. Bojués moved denial of the project. C. Dreiling seconded motion. CA noted applicant would have to wait one year to resubmit if project denied. C. Bojués withdrew his motion, the second agreed. C. Bojués revised motion and second agreed and moved to denial request for a parking variance without prejudice. Motion seconded by C. Dreiling. On the motion: not comfortable with an 8-space parking variance; have to plan for today as well as plan for future; denial without prejudice provides option for appeal or wait for parking study; it is necessary to act now; without decision application would be on hold. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the parking variance without prejudice. The motion passed 6-1 (with C. Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. 1411 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DEMOLITION OF TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING. (JOSEPH KARP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) - CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1999 Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked for clarification of colored renderings and which scheme was proposed for review? Scheme B, on Page 2 was proposed design; a thorough effort to redesign the site and reconfigure parking, but is this a readily maneuverable parking area, concerned about parking for SUV=s, CE Erbacher own a larger van and would consider these spaces a 3-maneuver City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 9 assault; unistall alternatives were too small for this situation, need to look at vehicle size demand; will this parking configuration work out or is it creating a problem and not fulfilling a need. C. Osterling noted he had listened to the tapes of the previous meeting for this project. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney for the applicant, noted that this is an infill project on a small, irregularly shaped lot. The proposal combines the best parking and building design. The applicant is not just coming down to ask for a parking variance - they are donating land to the city to provide an economically feasible building. The project exterior was redesigned to more effectively mirror the garden center using the prevailing brick architecture adding a red brick facade. On the renderings Scheme A is the smallest and corresponds with the application. It includes a short brick wall to help screen cars from view from Chapin. The other proposals include different parking to building ratios. The proposed project has the smallest building with the post parking. Contrary to having to push the parking stalls back two feet further on each side to accommodate the parking meters, the meters can be placed between the stalls, as in the Donnelly lot. This is an unusual project in that the commission only makes a recommendation, because the project includes a land donation, which requires City Council=s approval. Commissioners asked: at last review, commission asked applicant to change the architectural style of the building from the design proposed at the study meeting, but this is now just a different skin, not a different style, the Athin brick veneer@ gives a look, it is not a brick building; it is intended to look akin to the Garden Center not bo be built in the same way. Concern was that this site not to become Aback water@ to Burlingame Avenue and wanted to provide for more pedestrian access across site and not have asphalt up to the walls of the buildings. Why wasn =t this addressed; Option B, with more landscape addresses this; what about pedestrian amenities. Option B still doesn=t include attractive pedestrian walkway, does not need to be 8'-0" wide landscape strip, but could serve as both access to building, provide access to rear of Burlingame Avenue buildings and include garden-like landscaping; what is the net gain of parking spaces with reorientation of spaces and easement? Project is short 9 (8 credit pus 1) public lot gains 1 space with perpendicular parking on west side. There were no further questions from the Commissioners or comment from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: at last meeting we hoped to see project with creativity, some has started with the front elevation but not there; there is also good brick vs. bad brick - it=s a matter of selection; appears that City is giving up property and a parking variance so that the building can be bigger; parking is extremely tight fit; want to see distance between cars and building; building is too big, lost amenities from what have now in tot B-1; not enough landscaping, ground cover under cars not enough; not clear on use of building, maybe accounting firm, but not shown as private offices; not enough benefit to City to be justified with retrofit parking area for bigger building; planning study show 5000 SF building with parking on-site, not 8000 requested; parking for building should be self sufficient and not rely on city lot. City giving away space without return; five variances on this project indicates it is too much, why can=t project fit; parking lot lacks pedestrian access, landscaping, opportunity for garden connection between existing buildings, rear of Malouf=s; could support variance, but project needs more work with pedestrian access emphasis; expecting smaller building, front elevation okay, but rest is massive; not enough articulation; design removed existing landscaping to provide more parking with no break in asphalt. Building in a sea of parking; on secondary street need to penetrate blocks to facilitate use of other streets, this proposal provides no alley pattern or back alley use like other towns like Los Gatos, even Stanford Shopping Center fabricated a back alley shopping area to their benefit. C. Dreiling made a motion to deny the project without prejudice based with direction on commission comments. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 10 Discussion on motion: no problem with variances, in favor of variances, but project not worthy; size of building doesn’t need to be drastically reduced space could be reconfigured, does need pedestrian space. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 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, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if self framing was to be allowed on the site, no only 40% of the floor area would be used for direct retail sales, the rest would be used by staff to assemble frames; what is the parking situation on the site; during the hazardous waste clean up of this old gas station site the parking requirements changed and this development was required to provide one ADA accessible parking space on site which reduced the number of on site parking spaces from 4 to 3, Chief Building Official notes that since the disabled accessible space is on private property is could be signed in order to allow others to also use it, so could consider three parking spaces available for customers. There were no other questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Warner Schmalz, architect, 612 Howard Street, San Francisco and Peter Gumina business owner spoke. Frame-O-Rama has been in the city at its present location 25 years, patronage is similar pattern to bulk merchandise; be willing to accept a condition of approval to sign the ADA space so that others could use it as well, there is 7 feet left over which someone could also get a car into so that there would again be 4 parking spaces on site, 7 foot space may not be legal but if the ADA space does not need to be used for disabled all the time, it could be viable at those times; need to move business because of the increase in rents in the Burlingame Avenue area, want to stay in Burlingame; have done parking study by a licensed traffic engineer; in the last 10 years the business averaged 4.3 customers a day, it is rare to have more than one or two customers on the site at one time; there will be enough parking since it is for customers only and this is a low intensity use. Commissioners asked: how many employees do you have now and will you have, have two full time and one part time and the number will stay the same; because the nature of the business has changed, customers no longer want to do their own framing; is space the same size, no this is slightly smaller but adequate we only need 800 to 900 SF for a showroom the rest of space will be used to make frames, think the slight down size will be all right without people doing their own framing. Chairman called for comments from the public, Mr Coffee, owner of the apartment building at 1210 Oak Grove, noted he has been before the Planning Commission about several projects on this site and in the area; parking in this area is hard to come by, people double and triple park on San Mateo Avenue, they park in front of the carports and garages of his building; the applicant is not just asking for one or two spaces, he says his employees will park off-site in the residential area, there is no place available; first business he commented on proposed for this site was a framing shop, then a dance studio, both denied, the Japanese restaurant nearby was denied an expansion because of parking, Mrs. Bubbles leases some parking, only one with parking except the Danish catering. When heard about parking study downtown thought this area might be included, it is not; commission has duty to citizens and business but also to residents who have to have some place to park, San Mateo Avenue is particularly bad. Would ask that the city do a parking study of this area and commission not grant this variance or approve a business here until a parking study i s done. There were no further comments from the floor; and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: a bulk merchandizing business would have the same number of employees as this business; did the downtown parking study extend to this area, no because it was designed to address specific parking issues in the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 11 Burlingame Avenue area; think this proposed business is a lot like bulk merchandise, rarely see more than one customer in this shop; there is parking across the street along California which the employees can use; given the number and timing of customer visits am comfortable with the parking provided; why is parking requirement less for bulk merchandise, because the goods take more space to display; am reluctant to grant a parking variance, commission could call this use bulk merchandise, 60% of the space is storage or work room area; the apartment owner needs to be aware that something has to be allowed to go into this building; think the conditions work well. C. Deal moved to define bulk merchandise to include framing shops which have a maximum retail area of 40% of their leased floor area, with the conditions and by resolution. C. Keighran seconded the motion. On the motion: would it be easier to grant a variance based on limitations on the goods made and sold from the site, the hardship is the way that the space in the building is used; this particular use would have a low impact. C. Deal withdrew his motion; second agreed. Continued discussion: if change assignment of framing to bulk merchandising, other businesses and zoning would be affected. CA Anderson suggested that application might be continued to the meeting of January 31,2000, so that staff could bring back alternative approaches based on commission=s discussion. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 31, 2000. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: is one week enough to come up with needed alternatives and doesn=t item have to be noticed; CA noted staff will try and when an item is continued to a date certain additional notice is not required. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. The item was continued to the meeting of January 31, 2000 there is no appeal available at this 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 COLOR COPY, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 2.14.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Hudack, attorney for the applicant, commented. He noted that at study they had heard that the commission=s primary concern was that the sign would become a flashing neon eyesore, can make two assurances: Color Copy=s business does not lend itself to 2 for l specials and technical restrictions on the sign will keep the bulb wattage down and sign to black and white; they propose to change the copy on the changeable copy area only once a day; he noted that there are other message boards and signs of similar size in the area, so this is not special privilege, they are asking for less than others. Commissioner asked if the purpose of the sign is not to attract the general public to the site why does the applicant need changeable copy and you noted that you were not asking for special privilege, where in the area are there changeable copy signs. Hudack responded need to advertise to executives, traveling on freeway the special services provided by Color Copy; there is a changeable copy sign at Les Vogel which changes often, also at the Accura building which seems to change once a minute, these sites are in this corridor and set a precedent. How often would you advertise public interest messages; Hudack noted fairly often, Color Copy does not offer that many services so much of the time will be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 12 available. What kind of things would color copy advertise on the changeable copy sign; Hudack noted specialty in annual reports, eight color printing, that they are a Heidelberg House (term meaningful to their users), there would be four to five words on the sign and they would stay all day giving brief technical descriptions of their service. There were no further comments from the floor or public. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: concerned with the reasoning that because there are a couple such signs in the area, this sign must be approved; if all the properties along here had signs of this size with changeable copy, the corridor would look terrible, this sign is not good for the city; the freeway is a street through the town and we need to be concerned about how it looks; do not see any basis for granting the exception, only one offered by the applicant is that the name of the business does not make it clear what the business does, this is not sufficient. Applicant really wants to increase his advertising, if they do annual reports the executive is not the one who decides on a printer, printing annual reports is based on relationships; afraid that in order to attract attention they will do something outrageous on the sign, and depending upon how outrageous it is, it will be detrimental to the city; there are a lot of small businesses in the area if this is done all ought to be equally entitled, don=t see the hardship; city can=t control the messages, am concerned that in the future; as you used Les Vogel=s sign-this one will be used to justify others, they will grow; do not see that the applicant has a valid rational for the sign. Continued discussion: not see as much of a problem, what is proposed is not as bad as other signs already there; there will only be one message there all day, often they will have community messages, does not seem boisterous so maybe OK; no problem with this sign, it is smaller than others around it; the duration of each message will be a full day, will provide public announcements. CA noted that a public service@ includes non-profits and would not be limited to those present in Burlingame. Am opposed to changeable copy, it is a dangerous precedent, compliance is a problem, a lot can happen later when the sign is not carefully reviewed by the owner; feel that it will be an enforcement problem, could become visually chaotic, these are the reasons that such signs require Planning Commission approval. If the tenant changes can he put whatever he wants on the sign; CA commission can set the size of the letters and the timing of the change of the copy and the amount of illumination; not opposed to signage, need it to convey a vibrant business life, am opposed to the scale of this sign. C. Bojués moved to deny this sign exception application. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. On the motion: this is not a loud, boisterous sign, it will allow commuters to see a different sign each day. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Keighran, Vistica, Osterling dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. 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) Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked who has the responsibility for enforcing NPDES. CA Anderson responded that environmental compliance is lead by the staff at the wastewater treatment plan, they have staff that do compliance inspections and enforcement. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steven Lesley, project architect, spoke noting that with the remodel proposed the site drainage will be changed and will connect to the nearest storm drain; when his client purchased the site it was in disrepair and flooded regularly, does not want this to happen again, so will regrade the site and connect the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 13 storm drain at the front. CE Erbacher noted that still need to take impurities out of the water because the storm drains empty into the bay as well as the creeks. Commissioner asked: you are a new tenant, did you have a 20 to 25 foot tall structure on your last site, h ow was equipment stored there; came to area to work at airport, was in Fresno before, had a bigger property for storage with less exposure to the public street, don=t want stored items to be visible from the street and need them to be stacked out of the weather, need the height because the property is too narrow. There were no further questions or comments from the floor. Commissioner discussion: can support with the condition that the creek is properly protected, understand the need for the height; feel that in this case the 10' setback from side property line is not needed and because of the configuration of the site that area can be effectively used; concerned about the architecture, lots of drivet used out of keeping with the type of the building, so that the structure becomes an advertisement, is the design appropriate in an industrial area. C. Bojués noted that he had no problem with existing building being placed at property line, this is a small lot prefer moving to side property line protects creek, move to approve the side setback variance by resolution with the following conditions from the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 6, 1999, Sheets 1 through 6; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s December 8, 1999 memo shall be met; 3) that the following best management practices shall be adhered to during construction, failure to comply with these practices shall result in the requirement to install on-site pretreatment facilities prior to final inspection: a) store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly, so as to prevent their contact with stormwater; b) control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; c) use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment from dewatering effluent; d) avoid cl eaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated; e) delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive and critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses with field markers; f) protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; g) perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; h) limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; I) limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; j) avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 4) that the following best management practices shall be adhered to during operation of the facility, failure to comply with these practices shall result in the requirement that the contracting business cease operation, that on-site pretreatment facilities shall be installed, and the application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and appropriate action taken to insure compliance: a) store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly, so as to prevent their contact with stormwater; b) control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; c) avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated; d) limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; e) avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 5) that the applicant shall install oil-absorbent pillow filters in the existing catch basins on site and shall change the filters every six months; 6) that the property owner shall be responsible for cleaning up all the trash and refuse along the creek bank which front his ownership prior to receiving a building permit and shall be responsible for maintaining the creek bank area adjacent to his ownership in a natural state, complaints about the maintenance of this area or failure to maintain this area shall cause this conditional use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: feel that the application should have a condition which requires them to clean up the trash and refuse on the creek bank the length of the property, it looks poorly; both the maker of the motion and the second agreed to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000 14 adding a condition requiring that the property owner be required to clean up the creek bank along his ownership and maintain it in a clean state. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the side setback variance with added condition. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNERS REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed briefly the City Council meeting of January 19, 2000. - Because of the hour the commission asked that the discussion of the General Plan amendment for the segment of Rollins Road between Toyon and Rose Court Extended East be moved to the special meeting of January 31, 2000. Commission also noted that the discussion of how to count basement areas in FAR was also set for that meeting. - Commission reminded CP Monroe that the lights on the wall at First Republic Bank still have not been removed; the business is not in compliance with their conditions of approval. CP Monroe said she would report back at the meeting of January 31, 2000. - Commission noted that little time of this meeting was devoted to residential design review. Asked if staff could try to track the time spent on each item on the agenda in the future so that the commission could have a better idea of how the time is used. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. MINUTES1.24