Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.04.24 page -1- MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 24, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the April 24, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioners Deal and Dreiling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The Minutes of the April 10, 2000 regular meeting and April 18, 2000 special meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved although CP Monroe noted that representatives of Item 8, 1200 Cortez and Item 10, 1705 Murchison Drive asked that their item be placed at the end of the action agenda if they were not present at the time the item came up on the calendar; both were traveling into the area via SFO. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS 810 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED C-R, APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, PARKING VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING FRONTING ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE (RICHARD PENNINGTON, DESIGNER AND JOHN A. L. JONES PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: have they considered other options for the covered parking besides access off California; concerned the new building has a galvanized metal roof, metal doors, can it be softened; what is the width of the driveway off Edgehill. Concerned about safety using t he garage; too much galvanized metal on the front of the structure, no other building on California is finished like this, it is not a good solution; is the garage now being used for parking on a regular basis; there is no neighborhood pattern to support the proposed design of the commercial/garage structure, the applicant should address the consistency with the neighborhood issue. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on May 8, 2000, providing all the information required is submitted to the Planning Department in time for the notice and packet. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -2- 712 CONCORD WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE (FRANK AND AMELIA WALSH, OWNERS; ALFREDO REYES, STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) 217 CHAPIN LANE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A HALF-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (DOUGLAS SNOW, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; LYNN AND MARSHALL BEHLING, PROPERTY OWNERS) 1136 BROADWAY - ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (CHEZ ALEXANDER, APPLICANT; RALPH T. BEHLING TR, PROPERTY OWNER) 1160 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (STANAWAY=S MARKET AND DELI, APPLICANT AND JAMES M. STANAWAY ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) 1184 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (TOWER DELICATESSEN, APPLICANT AND DAVID R. AND ANITA KORN TRS AND RICHARD R. PEDRETTI, PROPERTY OWNERS) 1219 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (IL PICCOLO CAFFE, APPLICANT AND RONALD C. AND ELIZABETH L. ROUSSEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) 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. Vistica. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal, Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:10 p.m. REGULAR CALENDAR - 1421 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1421 BENITO AVENUE (JOHN AND CATHY FUNGHI, APPLICANTS; JOHN AND CATHY FUNGHI, OWNERS) Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicants, John and Cathy Funghi, 1421 Benito Avenue, noted that the study responses are in the packet and that the new design will level the driveway removing the existing 25% slope driveway hazard, locates garage to the rear of property, allows house to fit in to topography; arborist conclude that the oak tree would not be damaged by construction; the lot slopes up 7', so while there is a height exception, the height of the structure at the rear will be 24'-6" from adjacent grade, height measurement is a function of the steepness of the lot; the neighbors had reviewed the design and the design review architect recommends approval. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -3- Commission questions: had concerns about creating a dark cavern, would you consider changing the iron gates to garage doors, it would take away the cavernous look; there appears to be light well in the back corner, is that open to the garage space; the plans call out concrete tile, do you mean clay tile. The applicant noted that the intent of the light well is to provide light to reduce the tunnel effect, light will enter the basement area through a light well and light courts on the side, recommendation was made earlier to remove the garage door from streetscape; that they intend to use clay tile. Public Comments: Dan Luttrell, 1417 Benito Avenue, Don Noviskie, 3084 Nightingale Place, Phil Taurian, 1380 Alvarado Avenue, Robert Smith, 1411 Benito Avenue, Maureen Rossi, 1425 Benito Avenue, Randy Vandenbrink, 1412 Alvarado Avenue, Gina O=Neal, 1516 Drake Avenue, Kathy DieKroegrer 1420 Benito Avenue, Mark Grandcolas, 1432 Alvarado Avenue, James Cody, 1416 Alvarado Avenue, Mike Reitsma, 1431 Benito Avenue spoke regarding the project; the plans look like a great addition to neighborhood, building is very Burlingame, had similar challenge on our block, thought new home would be out of character, it was not; this will fit into neighborhood, house is big, but need bigger houses for large families, current property is an eyesore; hope it will be clay tile roof, huge difference from concrete tile; would urge you to require spanish style clay tile; concern with false chimney, could it be lowered or removed; because of the slope of the lot, any house built will block view from Alvarado. Continued comments: house located to rear and have clear view of the property, disagree that it fits in with neighborhood, this house is substantially larger, when basement is included house is 5762 SF, only 3877 SF is included in FAR measurement, most houses in area are 2000 to 4000 SF, concerned about precedent; concerned about mass, from my lot where bay view was, there will now be house ridge line, false chimney was added for balance, from front is fine, but clutters view from back, ask that it be removed. In response the applicant, John Funghi, noted that the rear portion of house will be 24'-6" from existing grade, existing landscaping will block much of home; homes on Alvarado are extremely tall, objective was to achieve privacy, done by bringing house forward on the lot, it is now placed 50' from rear property line; false chimney put in for massing, could lower and convert fireplace to gas. Commissioners asked staff why this project did not require a hillside area construction permit. CP Monroe noted that it is not within the boundaries of the hillside area which includes those areas where the minimum lot size is 7500 SF or larger, the minimum this area is less. Commissioner questions: Height limit is 30', allow between 30' to 36' for traditional design, can the roof be lowered from 33' to 30' by reducing plate height and flattening roof pitch; could the false chimney be lowered. The applicant notes that the current pitch is 4/12 and the plate heights are varied to vary the look from the street, would be willing to lower false chimney and have gas fireplace. Commissioners noted that the lower garage area creates a dark hole and rendering shows it is quite dark, would you consider a garage door at the front to eliminate the tunnel look from the street. The applicant notes that the proposed light wells and openings would provide natural light, would consider option of locating garage door in front, but concerned with effect on streetscape. Commission questions continued: is the basement area for garage, storage and access to utilities; noted that there is a 21'-6" back up area for parking, is that adequate; what is the height of the existing house. The applicant noted that the basement is only for garage, storage and utilities; access to that parking space is not the best, but made model of car to scale and it will work; the highest point of the existing house appears to be 14', lowest is 11'-6" above existing grade. There were no further public comments and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -4- Commission discussion: concerned with tunnel look, landscaping will increase shadowing, question actual light level; regarding architecture, is a welcome addition to block, would be open to putting garage door where gate is, there are a variety of garages on this block, garages toward front are not pedestrian friendly, like to leave it where it is, prefer to see second chimney lowered; houses on Alvarado are at higher elevation, do not think views will be blocked because of difference in elevation, need the height to articulate architecture, lot is larger compared to others on the street, architecture nicely done, will become a landmark on the street, some views will be obstructed no matter what gets built, need to use Spanish clay tile. Chair Luzuriaga made a motion to approve the project, by resolution, with the following added conditions: 1) that the roof material shall be Spanish clay tile; 2) that the living room chimney on the west elevation shall be lowered by 2 feet; and 3) that the basement area shall not be used as habitable living area, as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 12, 2000, with construction detail including windows, trim, wrought iron, tile and brick as shown in the rendering date stamped April 12, 2000; 2) that the project shall be constructed as presented in the plans approved by the Planning Commission and that any future changes to the size or envelope of each building from the plans shown and approved, which would include adding a dormer (s) or changing a roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s October 25, 1999, memo and the Chief Building Official=s February 25, 2000 memo shall be met; 4) that during construction, the applicant shall protect the oak tree as directed in the March 30, 2000 memo from Mayne Tree Service; 5) that during site preparation, demolition of the existing residence and construction of the new house, the applicant shall conform with the requirements of the City=s Storm Water Ordinance and install and maintain appropriate storm water protection devices as necessary to protect the quality of stormwater draining from this site; 6) that the roof material shall be Spanish clay tile; 7) that the living room chimney on the west elevation shall be lowered by 2 feet; 8) that the basement area shall not be used as habitable living area; 9) that prior to the final building inspection, the landscape plan included in the plans dated April 12, 2000, shall be installed; and 10) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Commissioner Keighran seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: not concerned about dark hole given natural light, applicant wants to do this and neighbors don=t object, could consider using textured paving. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 roll call vote (C. Deal, Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 2004 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON MARCH 13, 2000 Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Lincoln Lue, architect, 1567 - 33rd Avenue, San Francisco, noted project had been turned down before because it did not fit into neighborhood, think this design blends well, does not have high gable roof and arched windows, appreciate advice on design. There was no public comment and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -5- Commissioner comments: this project has come a long way but could use some more massaging, it is a lot closer, scale of detail is finer, not as bold, but there are still a couple of things that could be reworked; the skylight over the entry could be eliminated, is there a way it could be put on back side and then boxed to come down to stairwell; the shape of the windows above the front door should be rectangular, concerned about skylights at night and creation of night glow; object to the curved windows at front, do not relate to other windows, is much larger; would applicant entertain making modifications in these windows. Chair Luzuriaga reopened the public hearing so the applicant could respond to questions. The applicant notes that in the earlier design there was a dormer, but that was not well taken, felt the skylight is less obtrusive, it won=t stand out; curved windows were introduced to add variety, would consider changing if requested; would appreciate if conditions added rather than come back. Chair Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: concern with skylight on the front and round windows, there is no consistency, could place project on consent calendar if modifications made, or can add conditions to make modifications and mimic windows on rest of house. C. Vistica made a motion to approve the project, by resolution, with the following added conditions: 1) that the window above the front door and the second floor window behind the plane of the front door shall be proportionally the same as the other second floor windows, horizontal and rectangular; and 2) that the skylight shall be tinted, as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 10, 2000, sheets A1 through A6; 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 window above the front door and the second floor window behind the plane of the front door shall be proportionally the same as the other second floor windows, horizontal and rectangular; 4) that the skylight shall be tinted; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Bojués seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (C. Deal and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 1516 CAROL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (RAY BRAYER, BC & D, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT AND TERRI S LINENBACH AND PAMELA LEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, Ray Brayer, 920 Morrell Avenue, noted that this is an addition to a 1950's tract home, intent is to usually change it to a 1920's bungalow, not building a monster home; residence is on a narrow, busy street, when car swings into driveway, need to swing wide, thus makes entry to driveway tight; second story addition is set back, is a small addition. Commissioner questions: regarding front entry, currently 15' from front property line, concern is proposing 10' setback where average is 18'-2", as it is now, it is closer to the street than others on the block, has applicant considered reorienting the porch to the side where driveway is 13' wide; regarding front facade, master bedroom has blank wall, asked if applicant would consider reorienting the bed to add window for articulation. Applicant notes that he did look at adding a window in the bedroom on the front facade, not going 5 foot further out from current eave at front porch, going a foot further, did explore other options, working with existing structure; original design included window, design reviewer recommended change in shape or removal, would be open to putting it back in. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -6- Public comment: Robert Lowe, 1520 Carol Avenue; Ann Merics, 1537 Carol Avenue; Fred Bauer, 1564 Carol Avenue;Tess Leswick, 1512 Carol Avenue; and Mike Mustachia, 1533 Carol Avenue commented on the project; it looks like a box on top of another box, at a loss how it got through design review, why does plate height have to be so high, will be looking at 2-story stucco wall, like to see plate height come down, put in dormers, lacks details of a bungalow; do not want to see entry come out further, could be redesigned to side; like to see something done with the house, it needs architectural work; like to keep setback the same as it is, like to see contractor=s sign taken down in front; walking down street house already reaches out, porch would push it out even more; existing house is an eyesore, would like to see it improved, but agree need to take design elements into account. Applicant=s response: clear that neighbors oppose front setback variance, could clean up with knee brace and keep same eave line, would not oppose condition to do that without pushing out. There were no further questions and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: have asked about relocating entrance to side; driveway is 18' wide, driveways are usually 10', have about 8' to play with, can relocate entrance; asking for 10' front setback where average is 18'-2", when you grant a variance you need to find a hardship with the property, there are alternatives; from beginning have recommended entrance on side, don=t see limitations, there is plenty of room, if bring out any further, will crowd the sidewalk; regarding the architecture, it is important to articulate the second story, need to look into this, does not now portray a bungalow, should look at Cypress Avenue has some beautiful examples. C. Keighran made a motion to deny the project without prejudice for the reasons given. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comments on the motion: working in right direction, think encroachment towards street is not warranted, could be entrance on side; also cathedral ceilings are proposed on second floor, plate line could be dropped and add ambience to use rooms, the bed wall on the second floor needs a window on top, or the roof plane of the bed wall could be separated from the other roof plane; make it less like a box on top of a box; look at windows on sides as well, there is a lot of blank stucco; can relocate entrance to side, there is 27' between curb and house, plenty of room to maneuver from the street; direction to go back through design review and assign to a different reviewer. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Deal, Dreiling absent) voice vote appeal procedures were advised. 1200 CORTEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW TWO-CAR DETACHED GARAGE (WILLIAM C. AND NOREEN ELLEN WEST, OWNERS; ALAN D. OLIN, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, 2086 Mills Avenue, Menlo Park, architect, was available for questions. Commissioner questions: concerned about skylight in front of house, solution would be to move it on a plane at the back of the house, can this be done; how about clerestory instead of skylight; or dormer on back side of roof. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -7- Applicant response: skylight located in front because it projects light into hallway, woul d not get light if in rear, clerestory as high as it is might have a greater impact and might not integrate with design since it would have to be angled inside, dormer to provide light would require building a well to bounce the light and would not fit wit h traditional style. There was no further public comment and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: project is in keeping with the intentions of design review, maintains the traditional style, fits in perfectly, comfortable with adding a condition regarding tinting of the skylight, in full favor; variances are the result of existing conditions and for architectural integrity. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to approve the project, by resolution, with the added condition: 1) that the skylight shall be tinted; as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2000 Sheets 1-6; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s and Chief Building Official=s March 6, 2000 memos shall be met; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the skylight shall be tinted. and 5) 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. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and it passed 5-0-2 (Cmsrs Deal, Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 1333 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR ADDITION OF A 546 SF MEZZANINE TO AN EXISTING APPLIANCE STORE. (RAY BRAYER, BC & D, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT AND MICHAEL AND ATHIA GIOTINIS, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Commissioners had noticed that there is still attic storage in the existing building, is that allowed; Planner Brooks responded that storage in the attic is not permitted, the Fire Marshall stated that if storage use continued in the attic area, the owner would be asked to remove it and if it was not removed, the matter would be referred to the City Attorney for action. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, Ray Brayer, 228 Lorton Avenue noted that the ceiling is being removed to expose the barrel trusses, now storing boxes in attic, most have been removed, intent is to now store the empty boxes and small inventory items above the kitchen display area. There were no questions of the applicant and no public comment. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commissioner comment: regarding the proposed mezzanine, it is less than 600 SF, is not enlarging the building footprint, in that area of Howard Avenue there is parking, do not want them storing boxes in the attic if it is not allowed, concern that this area only be used for storage, note that there is a condition addressing that. C. Keighran made a motion to approve the project, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report as follows: 1) that the mezzanine addition shall be no more than 550 SF and built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 30, 2000, Sheets 1 and A1 through A3; 2) that the appliance store may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no more than 5 employees on site at any one time; 3) that the use of the mezzanine shall be limited to the storage of appliance boxes, any change in this use will require that the mezzanine be removed and the one space parking variance shall expire; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official=s March 13, 2000 memo City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -8- and the Fire Marshal’s March 13, 2000 memo shall be met; 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. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comments on the motion: only concern is that the mezzanine only be used only for storage, exposing trusses where the attic is now is a great idea. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Deal, Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE - ZONED C-3 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR NEW SIGNS (APPLICATION PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) (CALIFORNAI TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNER; JIM CHIN, SIGN-A-RAMA, APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration on this revised submittal. Commission asked if the 153 SF of signage on the primary frontage included the address, staff responded no. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chin from Sign-A-Rama, represented the application along with Tommye Hutto an employee of CTA. They noted that there has been a substantial redesign of the sign program, hope it can be accepted. Commissioner asked: do signs 1 and 10, the two logo wall signs need to be lit; applicant responded the site is used a lot at night for public meetings and even as a polling place; is lighting absolutely necessary, applicant noted lighting will be a soft glow, not open neon, it will be tasteful and not a visual problem for anyone driving by; commissioner asked is the proposed time limit for lighting 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. all right, applicant noted that it was. Commissioner noted that the signage still seems excessive, can=t find the special circumstances; applicant responded reduced their letters from 5 feet to 3 to 3.5 feet in height; CTA is well known, has been at this location since 1959, logo is 3 small letters, this is a big building facade and these will be small compared to it; this is also the corporate headquarters for CTA, they have 300,000 members and visitors from throughout the state and world, they need a prestigious sign and a professional look; they are a single non-profit occupant not one of a number of tenants. Commissioner noted concerned about sign 1 (wall sign on primary frontage) address signs look good, could sign 1 be put on the ground, it would identify the building at night and would allow them to keep the logo on the front; applicant noted the original application had a ground sign, thought it was harder to see, certainly not as easy to see at night as the wall sign, Executive Director thought needed sign on the building so moved to the halo light alterative. There were no more questions or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: previously expressed concern about the size and illumination proposed, they have reduced the size and number and the hours the signs were to be lit, this has reduced concerns, this is a large building occupied by a single professional organization, do question the amount of advertising that needs to be done. Feel that for identification of the building could use smaller size, favor reduction. Surrounding neighbors have no signs, so not competing with any other signage; a monument sign on the ground would be a nice solution to announcing the building rather than an illuminated sign on the wall; could remove both wall signs (1 and 10) and put in monument sign on ground, wall sign will be a light spot which will exist nowhere else in the neighborhood. Feel application is an improvement, moved from 10 signs to 3; feel sign 6, California Teachers Association is at a good location and size, sign 1 could be placed as a monument/or ground sign; this is a large building people will not miss it; the building is located in the middle of residences and the wall signs are too bold; sign 10 with illumination will affect a lot of homes in the area; appreciate the reduction in letter height. Sign code for this zone allows 25 SF of signage, initially asked for 449 SF which was massive, reduced it to 153 SF, am concerned about the process here, don=t want someone to ask City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -9- for the universe so the commission will settle for more than they would otherwise; sign 10 can be removed, sign 1 can be made a monument ground sign; the addresses signs 5 and 6 can stay. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to approve the sign exception with the condition that sign 10 be removed, sign 1 be removed from the wall and placed as a monument ground sign at the same size (3'-6"x8'-9"/30.6 SF) on the primary frontage and the ground sign can be illuminated between 5:00 am and 9:00 p.m.,with the other conditions in the staff report as modified by the new condition and with the action being taken by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: the motion would include the staff suggested condition that sign 1, now the ground sign, would be illuminated only between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.; yes; agree with motion but am concerned about approving this exception without seeing the monument sign. Chairman Luzuriaga noted would amend the motion that the applicant bring back sign 1, now the monument ground sign for the commissi on to review on the consent calendar at the next meeting if they are able; action on the exception would not be final until the revision has been reviewed and approved by the commission. C. Bojués the second agreed with the amendment to the motion. The amended conditions to be considered at the subsequent review of the sign exception request were: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 31, 2000 (82@ x 11" visual simulations, photo #1 and #6) and April 14, 2000 (11" x 17" site plan, building elevations and 82@ x 11" visual simulation, photo #10), except that sign # 10 shall be eliminated, sign #1, to be kept at the same size, shall be relocated from the wall on the primary frontage and converted into a monument ground sign on the primary frontage, the ground sign may be illuminated by means allowed by the sign code in the C-3 district; 2) that the CTA logo ground sign (sign #1) facing Murchison Drive, the only illuminated sign on the site, shall be illuminated only between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.; 3) that any increase in the sign area, height, number or letter height of the signs on the primary or secondary frontages shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 4) that the temporary CTA logo wall sign located at the entrance on Murchison Drive shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the approved signs; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Lurzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion which was to bring the sign exception revised with the removal of sign 10 and the relocation of sign l to a monument ground sign at the same size as the wall sign to be illuminated between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. back to the commission for review on the next consent calendar. The motion was approved 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal, Dreiling absent) on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 10:00 p.m. 600 AIRPORT BLVD. - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PARKING LOT AT AN EXISTING HOTEL(SHERATON GATEWAY HOTEL, APPLICANT; HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CA Anderson asked if the applicant understands that the hotel cannot promote room rentals by allowing people to park their cars in the hotel=s required parking while they travel out of the area, as stated in condition 5, it is an issue because have had a problem with this in the past with this hotel; applicant noted that he understands that the hotel cannot rent rooms and store cars with this parking. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steve Sanfilipo, 900 Deville Drive, San Leandro, representing the project spoke, he noted that the condition regarding the room rental with long term travel parking had not been City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -10- mentioned by his client as a problem; CP Monroe pointed out that this permit to charge for parking was only good until the applicant got a building permit for the proposed addition to the hotel; applicant noted that they understood this. There were no further comments by the applicant, questions from the floor or from the commissioners and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Keighran moved to approve the conditional use permit for the controlled access to the parking lot at 600 Airport Blvd. She noted in the past they were concerned about the amount charged and the charge in this case was in line with that of the other hotels providing managed and valet parking; so she could support this request by resolution with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 12, 2000, Site Plan and date stamped February 23, 2000, Lower Level Parking, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 2)that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 per hour with a maximum of $12.00 for a 24-hour period; the fee for valet parking shall be a $9.00 flat fee for the first six hours and a $16.00 flat fee for hours 6 through 24; and any change to these fees shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing; 3) 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; 4) that any change to the operation of the controlled and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 5) that the hotel on-site parking shall be reserved for hotel guests and employees and no parking spaces shall be rented or uses as a part of a room rental or any other promotion which shall require or allow customers to leave their cars on the hotel site with or without payment while that customer is not present on the site as a registered guest; employees shall not leave their vehicles on site for longer than their shifts at the hotel; 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; 6) that this proposal for controlled access to parking providing 423 on-site parking spaces is for the existing 404-room hotel; a plan for controlled access parking for a proposed addition to this hotel shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 7) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 8) that the applicant shall provide an airport shuttle service to pick up and deliver customers and which shall include connections to the local CalTrain and Bart stations to accommodate employees at shift changes, failure to do this shall result in review of the hotel=s conditional use permit; 9) that the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term parking or converted to useable/leasable space as a part of any hotel promotion; 10) that hotel employees shall not be charged to park in the hotel parking lot; 11) that the hotel shall contribute its proportional share to the operation of the City=s freebee shuttle service; 12) that the applicant shall provide 8 public access parking spaces to be located outside the access control gates at the south entrance from Airport Boulevard, these spaces shall be posted with Ashore access parking@ signs per BCDC requirements; and a decomposed granite pathway shall be installed between the parking area and the paved public access pathway along the lagoon; and 13) that this 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. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with staff suggested conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal, Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 10:07 p.m. The Commission broke to review the desk items they had received this evening for the next agenda item, and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -11- 999 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A THREE-STORY STORAGE FACILITY WITH A BASEMENT AND ROOFTOP PARKING (JOHN HANSEN, HOWARD MYRTLE STORAGE, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. CP acknowledged three letters which were desk items Judy Davidoff, Baker & McKenzie , April 21, 2000; Howard/Myrtle Storage, LLC; April 21, 2000; Doris and David Mortensen, April 24, 2000, and a note from Bill Wohler, 1508 Arc Way in opposition. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration; staff noted that the conditions (1 and 12) provide that the facility shall be closed to customers daily between 9:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to address noise levels at the time when the ambient noise in the area is lowest; two conditions were amended by staff to reflect comments by applicant (April 21, 2000 letter), number 10, add at end Aa site manager shall supervise each new customer to observe that no prohibited materials shall be stored by the customer@ and number 16, add at end A and the property owner shall be responsible for enforcing this egress movement@. Commission asked staff how often does the commission receive a petition signed by 280 people, staff noted that the commission may get a petition on a project a couple of times a year; asked does a mitigated negative declaration include project alternatives, staff responded no; decision being requested is accepting the environmental analysis of the mitigated negative declaration, if not accept then what, CA Anderson responded the course of action would be to identify the gaps in the negative declaration and have the consultant answer them or do additional study; asked how the visual analysis was done, Barbara Beard, Thomas Reid Associates, the environmental consulting firm, described the techniques of preparing the visual analysis. There were no further questions of staff by the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jessie Manseta, 6077 Rancho Consito Drive, Rancho Santa Fe, partner in the project, Paul Davis, architect, Monterey, and Judy Davidoff, attorney, Baker and McKenzie, presented the project. Applicants bought the property three years ago, came to the Planning Department staff to determine what use could do within C-2 zoning; local relators did not think site was suitable for retail use and the limitations on office use (no medical, financial or real estate) limited that option; prepared a project with a parking variance which planning staff and neighbors opposed so withdrew project; now returned with project which complies with all the requirements of the zoning code with 82 on site parking spaces, 40% smaller than zoning allows (FAR) and including landscaping which zoning does not require; still under environmental regulations need review if more than 10,000 SF; city hired Thomas Reid to evaluate the project at the expense of the developer, concluded with mitigations no potentially significant effects; realize the project is not popular, site has been unused for a number of years, proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood across the railroad tracks, at that location there are large, flat three story walls without landscaping. Commissioner asked will this be a Storage USA; applicant responded the site and improvements would be owned by John Hansen and himself, they would license the operation to a storage company, at one time discussed Storage USA; applicant then presented slides of the existing development in the immediate area; looking at a high quality storage facility with tight security-24 hour video camera, customers pay rent in advance, each user has his/her individual access code, experience theft is low because not much of what is stored is high value. Architect noted that he was making a good building at this location, C-2 zone structures usually have large, flat, blank walls; use requires a large building, zoning allows a large building; presented rendering showing that they have taken away the box look, Mediterranean theme is consistent with the city, arches relieve the facade, decided to use real glass windows with dark glass which will give the structure a commercial rather than an industrial look, he presented a slide showing a new rendering of the facade at Howard and Myrtle; placement and design of the building favor people on Howard and Myrtle since the parking, parking access and circulation all occur on the railroad side of the site away from the uses on these streets; will block present view of the horizon, but the new buildings will look better than the backs of the buildings against the opposite side of the railroad tracks; have setback and landscape strip not required along the street which will be augmented by the street trees which they will add to. Commissioner asked the siting of the building appears to be weighted toward the front, why; applicant responded lot is a triangle and the use a square, so City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -12- began design at the corner of Howard and Myrtle which is square, placement screens the parking from the street which is better than it being in front and visible, provided a ramp inside the building to access roof top parking so the ramp is not a visual variation. Attorney spoke noting that the use proposed is permitted and the project proposed conforms to city requirements, the only action by the Planning Commission is on the Negative Declaration; many technicians with different specialties have evaluated the project and there is no substantial evidence in the record of a significant effect caused; staff report details additional issues requested by commission they also concluded no significant effect from the project; under CEQA public controversy based on unsubstantiated opinion is not a potential signifi cant effect, economic or social effects are not significant effects in an EIR; in their view only need mitigations to reduce significant effects to less than significant, not have to reduce to community standards; on condition 2, though analysis concludes that noise was an impact, not justification for asking that the facility be closed from 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. to 7 a.m., would agree to have the facility closed during the time that the trains do not run which is 12:30 a.m. to 5:30 a.m. and to have no roof top parking between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; on condition 10 regarding on-site inspection of individual storage units by the Fire Department, agree to annual inspection of the building but it is not possible to access the individual units, customers have their own locks. There were no further comments from the applicant and Chairman Luzuriaga noted that they could respond after the public spoke if they wished. The following members of the public spoke: Victor Gray, 617 Howard Ave.; Kent Lauder, 449 Bloomfield; Eirae Bilsey, 112 Howard Ave; Tom Carey, 1404 Floribunda Ave; Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Ave; Dorothy Church, 140 Myrtle Road; Veronica Gray, 100 Stanley Road; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Ave; Dian Delantoni, Principal Washington School; Robert Leyliani, 988 Howard Ave; Linda Lees, 324 Dwight Way; Joan Davies, 122, Clarendon Road; Maria Pezzulich, 208-214 Myrtle (12 apartments); David Mortenson, 124 Myrtle Road; Jerry Nudd, 404 Howard Ave; Andreas Hildebrandt, 600 Bayswater Ave; Jess Roat, 101 Lorton #5; Kevin Morgenster, 409 Howard Ave; Mark Grancoles, 1442 Alvarado; Jeanine Culligan, 627 Plymouth Way; Charles Cox, Foster City; Avos Stoklia, San Carlos; Chris Knightly, 917 Howard Ave. Comments included: there are a lot of concerned neighbors a bout this project, applicant has made a last minutes, proactive pitch, cited letter dated April 21, 2000, but never responded to me when I tried to contact Mr. Hansen in 1998, has never approached the neighborhood; have office at Lauder Pluming on Myrtle, object to the size, a huge mass which will overwhelm existing businesses in the area, need to protect the quality of life by increasing limitations, own the oldest family business in the city (1918), project should be in proportion to the location. Can not understand negative declaration, this site is convenient to grade school, high school, Washington Park, we will loose parking in the area, in San Mateo they put such uses next to the sanitation plant, it will be the ABurlingame@wall. No architectural style, needs to be set back, 2 story maximum, surrounded by closely spaced redwood trees, in true mission style to reflect the train station, why should it look like an office building, its not pretty, commission should scale back the project, city should accommodate the neighbors not an out of town developer. Property owners have right of develop, not the right to seek maximum economic use; deny because it is an improper use would not be taking the property, cited case law to support point; problem is that outsiders should not preach to the city how to do something; Lou Papen is proposing legislation to increase income to city from housing in transit corridors; remember other projects which changed their requests because they did not want to offend the city and their future customers, why are we the customers being treated this way. Live directly opposite proposed facility, it should be in an industrial area, am opposed to three stories, will block all sunshine in my home and in my yard and garden. Commission should be dedicated to keeping Burlingame unique. Was approached unofficially in 1998 by Bud Harrison when he heard I was opposed, made threat if not like project proposed then would put parking on roof and build, now new representative John Ward sent letter and inaccurate rendering of project, not a case of NIMBI but NIMBY (no in my front yard); this oldest area of Burlingame, Myrtle narrow parked with cars, described errors in rendering: roads shown too wide, no parked cars, not shown to scale of new structure by leaving out all existing one story buildings; have seen cars back up on tracks because of access problem to East Lane, this existing hazard it is not addressed; will not be able to exit to Bayswater because one street filled with car transport carriers unloading, what is alternative exit path; zoning should be changed immediately. Presented boards prepared by friend Lynn Finni who could not stay-boards show information about other storage facilities on the Peninsula, they are not located next to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -13- residential areas and schools, the only exception is on Delaware in San Mateo, but not the same Delaware is a 4 lane road. Comments from the floor continued: Washington School is two blocks away from this site, children are on the school site from 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. participating in various before and after school programs; prefer to see site used as a parking lot for car dealers; despite signs, drivers who don=t know the area still speed on Howard; not see storage facilities near other schools in Burlingame; school already affected by vandalism and vagrancy, see this increasing with this land use so near by; Washington School opposes this project. Concerned about parking, 60 to 80 cars will be displaced into this neighborhood by the project, Mike Harvey Honda moved in behind his house, Mike harvey’s parking now over flows into the street, site saved for new cars; the unloading of new cars in the street will affect the access to the storage facility; this building 2 feet from the side walk is as big a problem as a monster house; shadow and paint and windows will not do it, the issue is the size and bulk of the building; neighbors have no money to fight their side of this issue. PTA president of Washington School, took less than one minute to walk from site to school, the petition with 280 signatures included all the past PTA presidents; have pride in our neighborhood schools, the schools are in crisis, PTA child advocates, concerned about the community and feel project would compromise the children=s safety. Think all the 51 people who got the developer’s letter are here, have no slides to show of the beautiful residential area and schools, children will not be able to see past this building and it will be a safety problem, the trains travel fast; do not know how the applicant can guarantee the number of cars which will come in and out each day. Concerned about the noise and decline in property values caused, wrong use to build in the middle of town. Live across the street, predominantly a residential area, 20-25 people, the rendering is deceiving; concerned about the fencing, the parapet increasing the roof height, the planting effectively being in boxes, signs being used to direct trucks, and parking RV=s on the roof which can be seen from the street. Have observed Howard Avenue change from a residential street to a non-stop commercial boulevard, trucks have discovered can make a straight shot to 101 except for a few stop signs; between 4 and 6 p.m. he counted 80 vehicles crossing Howard and Dwi ght; this facility will not alleviate traffic but make it worse; fail to see how added traffic at the hours proposed would not increase the impact on the neighborhood. Working on beautification of Burlingame, want to increase close to downtown, and this project is not appropriate, will sell house, concerned about who will use the storage units. Have an opportunity to incorporate a vision into a plan, work hard to provide for hotels near the water, here can provide for no commuting. This is our neighborhood, school, church, recreation all accessible by walking, developer should work with the neighborhood; no security problem with thieves because they don’t want the things stored because its junk; need to find a way to tell developer this is the wrong idea. See no alternative use, know that there is a shortage of office space, have made the structure look like a commercial building; visual analysis did not look at visual impact on views from the train station and downtown, or from the neighborhood. Is it good business strategy to put this use in an area where fixer upper residential units cost $600,000; with the cost of housing people live in storage units; an inspection once a year of the building without entry to the units is not enough for safety and hazardous materials inspection. Rent 8 storage units in the area, hardly anyone on these sites, less impact than the alternative, there would be more traffic from a retail use; costs money to store things so people do not rent them for junk. Know one person who used to live in a storage unit, do not have the right to check storage lockers once a year, can have the Fire Marshal walk around the parking lot. The one person who spoke in favor lives in Foster City. There were no further comments from the public. Chairman Luzuriaga asked the applicant if he wished to comment before the public hearing was closed. Applicant noted looked at zoning, selected self-storage as use because it was allowed; standards for the structure were established in the code, met them; there are 40,000 storage facilities in the country, half of them have no fencing, a third no on-site manager. General plan discusses other uses, auto repair, dry cleaning plant, restate brokers think that there is not a market, mixed use residential/office noise will be a problem before the train stops at 12:30 a.m.; many people think this is too close to the railroad tracks for housing. In retrospect maybe should have considered other uses, but have to move ahead with one we have; zoning code says no financial institutions, health services or real estate is a limitation, need a broader market to be able to rent office. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -14- Commission discussion: purpose of CEQA is to preserve environmental quality, noting that community values establish standards for preservation of environmental quality, planning commission interpret community values and weigh them against proposed changes to the quality of life in the city, project does not meet the community standards for preservation of environmental quality in the city; environmental document does not adequately evaluate the environmental effects of this project in particular: Negative Declaration fails to recognize community values as standards for development of its neighborhoods; does not evaluate the project as it relates to the community development goals of the General Plan, referred to April 22, 2000 Stan Vistica memo in which the specific goals and objectives not addressed in the document and are in fact impeded are cited including: creating barriers (visual and pedestrian) rather than linkages between the downtown and residential neighborhoods; reduction of the functional efficiency, character and quality of the business district including physical design of infrastructure as shown by egress restrictions on the project; does not address the requirement of visual quality because did not evaluate project in terms of adjacent residential neighborhood; did not evaluate the potential of the site to be developed in a use and fashion which would fulfill the requirements of the General Plan objectives for this Aspecial urban conservation area@ located at a transportation corridor. Noted the goals of the general plan, project was not evaluated for compliance, project was compared to California Drive when should have been compared to Howard Ave; mitigations do not reduce impacts to acceptable levels because there are still neighborhood impacts for example the loss of late afternoon sun is not addressed in mitigations, the traffic analysis does not address early morning and late afternoon effects of the school programs on traffic and pedestrian activity and safety; the landscaping issue is not addressed, with setbacks of 1 to 2.5 feet how will all the landscaping shown fit, how will it grow to shelter the project as required in the general plan; the issue of public safety has not been adequately addressed, CA needs to tell us jurisdiction and whether individual units can be inspected and more study needs to be done. May have a right to build but needs to be compatible with the neighborhood and this is not, CEQA seems to say that if a substantial body of opinion considers it to be adverse, then the lead agency should consider it adverse. Lot of variety of plant material in the landscaping, but the planting area is not a wide as this table, the objective is to enhance the project, this is a tree city, trees of appropriate size and character need a place to grow the proposed plan is not consistent. Needs to be clear that the city is not the property owner, the city did not seek out this development; problem is this is a residential neighborhood, we have no commercial design review, so have no tools, need public support to get them; have a 40 year old general plan, lot in it to support why this use is not appropriate, but would like to see it up dated; project is not in keeping with the General Plan, need to be sensitive to the neighborhood; site appropriate for mixed use office on the first floor and residential above. CA Anderson suggested to the commissioners that staff come back in two weeks with an outline of the findings given and see where that leads the commission in terms of a decision, staff can show how this process fits the CEQA framework. Commission asked what would be an appropriate motion, CA responded could move to continue this item to your May 8, 2000, meeting at which time you could review the feedback of items from this meeting and then give direction to the consultant and applicant. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to continue this item in order to develop findings which could be used to direct the consultant and applicant and/or define a focused EIR. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: CA Anderson noted that the city has an obligation to prepare a valid environmental document; city does not have the choice of stopping the project with CEQA. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the May 8, 2000, meeting. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal, Dreiling absent) voice vote. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that a continuance is not appealable. This item ended at 12:30 a.m. PLANNER REPORTS City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2000 page -15- - CP Monroe noted the FYI item for 1515 Chapin Ave. and asked commissioners if anyone wished to comment. There were no comments. - CP Monroe and CA Anderson reminded the commissioners that their packets for the project at 301 Airport Blvd. were at their desks tonight. The special meeting to hear this project is set for Wednesday, May 3, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers. Commission was also reminded about the special council meeting on May 17, 2000, to discuss land use and parking in the Burlingame Avenue downtown area. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at; 12:32 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES4.24