Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.07.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 8, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the July 8, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES CP Monroe noted that the minutes of the June 24, 2002 regular meeting and the July 2, 2002 special meeting of the Planning Commission would be included in the next Commission packet for approval at the July 22, 2002 meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that at the June 24, 2002 meeting the Planning Commission requested that the project at 1310 Burlingame Avenue be placed at the beginning of the regular action items for this meeting. The project was mistakenly placed on the agenda as Item #7. CP Monroe recommended that Item #7, 1310 Burlingame Avenue, be moved to the first regular action item, between Items # 1 and 2. The agenda was approved with the proposed amendment. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 36 ARUNDEL ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (STORAGE) (MICHEL C. MINERVA, APPLICANT; JIM GARCIA, DESIGNER; RITA MINERVA, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE ZT Lewit presented a summary of the staff report. C. Vistica noted that he lived within 500 feet of the proposed project and stepped down from the dais. Commissioners asked: the applicant is asking for six exceptions to the code and this is a large request. The proposed structure raises many red flags: it is almost as large as the existing house; applicant should re-evaluate their needs on the property or provide a stronger justification as to why such a large accessory structure is needed; the proposed structure is too large, plate height is too high; it is massive and would have a large impact on the neighboring properties; landscaping should be provided to help screen the structure. In addition, because of its size more thought should be put into the materials and details proposed for the structure. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. C. Vistica returned to the dais. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 2 VII. 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. There were no items for Consent Calendar review. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 7. 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED – C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MAHER FAKHOURI, APPLICANT; KAHN DESIGN ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; STEVEN G. GENSLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 7.08.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Charles Kahn and Tiffany Leichter, Kahn Design Associates, were present to answer questions. They submitted samples of the proposed tile and window frame. Commission asked if the proposed window frames were aluminum or metal; what type of outdoor furniture will be used; and how does the proposed awning compare to the existing awning. The applicant noted that the window frame was a metal and aluminum composite and would be painted to look like wood. The patio furniture has not been chosen, but will be of quality material and will not be molded plastic outdoor furniture. The proposed retractable awning is a true awning, 6 feet deeper and also shorter than the existing awning. The applicant also noted that the proposed Heath tiles are hand made in Sausalito. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: asked that the maker of the motion to consider a condition to insure that the patio furniture is not molded plastic, which tends to look dingy. Chair Keighran re-opened the public hearing. Maher Fakhouri, applicant, stated that he was committed to using quality materials for the project. The patio furniture would probably be coated in plastic, but would be heavyweight and made to wear well for repeated outdoor use. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission stated they hoped the furniture would be of quality material, but not sure how this could be included as a condition. CA Anderson noted that the patio furniture is not subject to review as part of the commercial design review application. C. Bojués revised his motion, removing the proposed new condition and moved for approval with the following original seven conditions of approval: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 7, 2002, sheets A0.0 through A2.0, and sheet A4.0, with powder coat painted aluminum frames on the clearstory windows to match the aluminum sliding windows and doors at grade, and green patterned glazed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 3 ceramic tile trim; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first floor or mezzanine level, 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 commercial design review; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s and Recycling Specialist's May 6, 2002, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 5) that three minimum 50W recessed light fixtures shall be installed in the patio area and the fixtures shall be activated during all nighttime hours; 6) that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The second to the motion agreed. Discussion: Commission thanked the applicant for designing a good project that used quality materials. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7 -0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. 2. 750 WALNUT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (ASI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FITALI RUSLI, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report 7.08.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented a summary of the staff report and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if staff knew the height of the existing house? Staff responded that the applicant might be able to provide that information. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Thomas Woo, designer, was present to answer questions. He noted that the existing structure is approximately 25 feet in height. Commission commented that the style for the proposed dwelling does not seem to match any of the houses in the neighborhood, nor does it match the character of Burlingame. The Commission asked the applicant to clarify the lines around the dwelling, separating the first and second floors, shown on the plans; these details are not called out on the plans. Also, why is the existing house being demolished. The applicant responded that there is a line in the stucco between the first and second floors and a stucco veneer along the bottom of the first floor, as well as between the first and second story windows on the front elevation. The existing house is poor condition, the interior has been badly treated and not worth saving. Mark Grandcolis, 754 Walnut Avenue, noted that there has been a lot of progress made on this project since the initial submittal. He feels the West elevation is still bulky in appearance and also thinks that true divided light windows would improve the appearance of the proposed dwelling. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: have some big concerns about the style proposed for the dwelling; does not seem to match any existing houses in Burlingame; there are opportunities missed in the design: divided light windows could have been added throughout; there are two-story walls that could be broken-up by changing the plate height on the second floor; more landscaping could be added along the West property line to help screen the new second story of the proposed dwelling; the North and South elevations need fine-tuning; detail for the window installation and trim should be shown on the plans; and the vertical elements at the front right side and rear right side are tower-like and should be reduced in appearance. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 4 This is a large lot and the floor area of the proposed house is large, but appropriate if landscaping provides the proper setting and the details of the house are fine-tuned to downplay the massiveness of the dwelling. C. Vistica moved to deny the application without prejudice, with the direction given to the applicant for modifications to the project. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. Discussion on the motion: this project has made many improvements since its initial submittal, b ut with further alterations as directed by the Commission, the proposed dwelling will fit into the neighborhood and be consistent with the character of Burlingame. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7- 0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. 3. 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TOM BAZZONE, APPLICANT; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER; MIKE WILSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report 7.08.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments, noting the design reviewers comments and recommendations. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if the limitation on the void spaces ever being converted to living space would run with the land. Staff noted that it would. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. James Chu, architect, represented the project. He noted that this project is particularly difficult because the house is already built; current proposal makes major modifications from the previous design; removed the dormers on the right side and reduced the declining height exception by recessing the second floor wall back into the building, which also reduced the FAR; the building height now complies with the code at 30 feet; they will comply with all the conditions. Commissioners asked if the buyers had entered into a contract and who would be responsible for paying for these modifications to the structure; architect said there was a sale contract on the house he did not know who was responsible for the cost of the modifications. Why is there lattice work in two places on the left elevation, would vines be grown on both the lattices, the landscape plan shows 24 inch box trees in front of one lattice. Architect noted that in the original design there was a window removed in the kitchen, and the lattice replaced the window to break up the wall, there would be vines planted on that lattice. Commissioner noted that the landscape plan showed substantial vegetation in front of the lattice toward the rear on the left elevation, so it could be removed. Architect noted that jasmine would be planted on both trellises. Commissioner noted that he had a problem with voided areas, why could the void in bedroom 3 not be removed; the void in the master bath could easily be removed in the future with remodel and turned into a shower; existence of these voided areas creates a precedent which is not acceptable because they contribute to the mass and bulk of the building. Architect noted amount of voided area has been reduced to 895 SF, at last meeting commission recommended that these areas be filled with a blown insulation material and the walls be made of plywood, so they would be difficult to remove; since this project the commission has a new policy which counts all area over 5 feet in height in the FAR and directs staff to allow no voided areas, don’t think this will happen again. Commission asked if habitable space on the second floor went away with the dormers. Staff noted that the volume in the rooms may be less but not the floor area because all area with a 5 foot or greater ceiling height will be counted in FAR. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 5 Steve Pade, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue, would like to see this project get moving, have lived across the street for 7 months with construction debris and fencing; have problem with the way the height of the house has been reduced by clipping the roof, it will not be consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood; do not feel that the declining height issue was resolved properly, both loose, owner gets thick walls and the neighbor does not get light; feel that the design has lost architectural style, would like the leaded glass window back at the front and the slate roof, without these features there is nothing about the house which is unique, the block is composed of 70 to 80 year old houses each of which has some unique feature, this one needs an architectural feature to mark it, otherwise it looks like the monster houses built o n Broadway at Cabrillo. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: concerns raised were discussed in the design reviewer's report included in the staff report, reduced declining height envelope encroachment, left a small amount which will have no real effect on the neighbor; appreciate changes, the report addresses all the items raised by commission; difficult with voided areas, they do increase mass and bulk, the amount of void area has been reduced and addressed by the design reviewer. Still opposed to voided areas, could remove walls and reduce this square footage, especially in the master bathroom, should stay within the FAR. Design reviewer did a wonderful job, really studied, think changes are a big improvement, reduce apparent height and mass, recognized that if cut off roof need to be attentive to finish detail at top and how it is done, if it is done poorly at cut it is a problem, if done well it will look like a ridge; have been working on this project for some time, better now, in favor of it as presented. Long review has benefited community, changes proposed by designer are best, it reduced declining height, 12 inches remaining will not make a big difference to neighbor, taking off the dormer did a lot to decrease the volume; project is within the FAR; voided areas are a concern, spoke to a contractor, this insulation material will be difficult to break through, project as resulted in increased awareness of this problem in the future. Chair Keighran moved to approve the project as revised, by resolution with the following conditions:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, L-1,site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that the applicant shall pay a deposit, in the amount to be determined by the City Planner, to the City of Burlingame to hire an experienced construction consultant to supervise all corrective and other construction, and report weekly in writing to the Building and Planning Departments on the compliance of the construction at 1204 Cabrillo Avenue; this deposit amount shall be based on an estimate from the construction consultant for his/her hourly fee and the estimated number of hours required for inspection of this project through the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; 3) that there shall be no more than 89 SF of cavities within the second floor as shown on the schematic plans date stamped June 21, 2002, and the applicant shall completely fill-in the cavities noted to be closed off and not counted in the FAR calculation on the proposed second floor plan (sheet A.3.1) with Icynene insulation; the applicant shall contact the Building Department and arrange for an inspection once the Icynene insulation has been sprayed into these spaces and before they have been permanently sealed off; and that these spaces, totaling approximately 89 SF shall never be converted to living area; 4) that bushes/shrubs shall be planted along the left elevation to fill in the space where the kitchen window was removed; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), or changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design review; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s April 29, 2002 memos shall be met; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof framing inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot and establish the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height; 8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification to the Building and Planning Departments that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 6 as shown on the approved plans; 9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11) that slate shall be required on the roof or an equivalent material approved by the Planning Commission before removal of the red tag and issuance of a building permit for the currently approved modifications to the structure; and 12) that the builder shall install leaded glass windows as shown on the original plans for the project, to be shown on the plans and approved as being equivalent by the Planning Department prior to removal of the red tag and issuance of a building permit for the currently approved modifications to the structure. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Commission comment on the motion: Glad to see the condition which requires a construction consultant to oversee construction on this project based on the plans presented; troubled by the project, originally felt should remove the second floor and begin again, but feel that the wrong people would pay the price for the correction, real problem is that the house was originally designed to the maximum; feel that should convert the roof to the original slate, its too late to add other architectural distinction, would like to add a condition regarding the slate roof. Would like to add slate also if the roof structure will carry the weight. CA noted could add a condition requiring applicant install slate or an equivalent approved by the Planning Commission, could bring back on Planners Reports if not able to install slate. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to adding a condition requiring the use of slate on the roof or an equivalent approved by the Planning Commission. Continued Commission discussion: concerned that the windows in the bay at the front of the house be leaded glass as shown on the original, an important way to add character to this structure and make it stand out as special in this neighborhood. The maker and second agreed to the addition of a condition requiring the builder to install leaded glass windows as shown on the original plans for the project. Noted the importance that this building now be built exactly as shown on these approved plans with changes added by the Planning Commission, can a fine be imposed to insure compliance this time? CA responded builder has suffered loss of time and will pay to be supervised by another contractor who will submit regular reports that he is in compliance or the job will be stopped until he is in compliance. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the plans as revised for this project with the staff conditions and two conditions added by the Commission. The motion passed on a 6-1(C. Bojués dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 4. 1217 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED – R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STELLA P. HUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 7.08.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked staff why the proposed chimney terminated so close to the roof of the dwelling? Staff responded that Building code requirements regulated the height of chimneys based on vertical and horizontal separations from adjacent structures. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer and applicant, was present to answer questions. He noted that the chimney is purely decorative because the fireplace is not a wood-burning fireplace, therefore separation standards do not need to be met. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 7 C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Discussion on the motion: have reviewed the landscape plan and found it to be totally inadequate. There is no large-scale vegetation proposed on site to screen the second story for the proposed dwelling; cannot approve the project with the submitted landscape plan. Chair Keighran re-opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer and applicant, stated that he would get a revised plan from the landscape architect, as well as consult with the City Arborist about appropriate landscaping. Would not like to see the project delayed. Can the Commission take action on the project and review the landscape plan separately? There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Continued Commission discussion: CA Anderson noted that the Commission could approve the project at the hearing tonight with a condition regarding the landscaping on site and request that a landscape plan be brought back for their review as a Planner's Report at a future hearing. Commissioner recommended an added condition to require a new landscape plan showing more vertical, large-scale elements at the front and rear of the proposed structure and along the driveway areas of the property to soften the second story addition from the view of the neighbors and the street, and to require that an amended landscape plan be brought back to the Commission for review comment and review if necessary: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 28, 2002, Sheets 1-6, and G-1, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and 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; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official’s memos dated May 28, 2002 shall be met; 4) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 5) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 9) that large-scale vertical vegetation shall be added to the front and rear of the property, as well as along the driveway side of the property to screen the second story addition; and that prior to a final inspection by the Building Department, a revised landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the proposed landscaping shall be installed on site; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 8 5. 1137-1145 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE FOR DWELLING UNITS IN THREE BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT, AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE (3) STORY, TWELVE (12) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FU-LEN CHENG, PROPERTY OWNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN a. Variance and Condominium Permit b. Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Merger and Tentative Condominium Map Reference staff report 7.08.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Forty-seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran acknowledged a letter submitted from Mark Benson, 1133 Paloma Avenue. Commissioners asked staff: applicant indicates that they have increased affordability by making two more units one bedroom instead of two bedrooms, is this what city intended. Staff noted no, affordable units are those which are priced in rent for sale to be affordable to low and moderate income individuals or families and which are kept at that level in the market, usually by a third party. Project does not seem to address construction staging or parking for construction employees, does city review this at some point? Senior Engineer noted that it is hard to police where construction employees park in an area like this, tend to use metered spaces like everyone else; CP noted that employees could be required to park in the Chula Vista lot and walk since the distance is short. CA noted that Commission could add a condition requiring the construction plan to be approved by the Planning Commission before issuance of a building permit, use of the Chula Vista lot by construction employees would be enforced on complaint. Presently there is a loading zone closer to Broadway, could it be extended across the front of this lot during construction; SE yes that would help, but would remove some on street parking. What is the code requirement for common open space in a condominium; CP as established by Commission and Council resolution, 100 SF per dwelling unit, 50% of which must be in soft landscaping, the area must be useable. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 857 Burlway Road, architect represented the project. He reviewed the changes made since the last review; note that since a contractor has not been selected it is difficult at this time to do a construction parking plan, depends where the contractor’s yard is located, each will stage differently; would be willing to submit later, closer to the time of construction, when they have a contractor. Commissioners asked: neighbor raises question of Redwoods; noted during on site inspection that these were small, vigorous trees located on the neighbors property, would not be a problem during construction, landscape plan shows added plant materials adjacent which will benefit Redwoods and not complete. Glad to see front setback met and the towers lowered to meet height limits, had asked to raise to natural grade but did not change, why? Architect noted that spoke with Chief Building Official and if raised building to grade it would be classified as three story and a second exit extending along the third flo or with stairs to the ground would be required, this balcony exit could not be added without cantilevering over the driveway access or encroaching into the side yard setback. Commissioner noted if built at grade would match better what is existing on the block; thought about raising height of middle building to reduce footprint; Architect noted that felt he was directed to eliminate height exception. Outdoor common area does not seem to be adequate, as designed has poor usability, hard to get too by res idents since area is blocked by two sets of parking spaces; seems to be calculated to the closest inch, too much building on the site. Architect noted that the area is 20’ by 44’, lawn surrounded with shrubs, on south side of site with the best light, easy to get to via garage doors, the parking spaces are 24’ away on both sides because of the location of the back up areas. Commissioners asked about making units affordable, had considered making some units rentals. Architect noted that they were building housing for sale. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 9 From the Floor: Rudolph Horak, 131 Los Robles Drive; Mike Jilley, 1117 Paloma Avenue, noted that when moving from a single family house into a condominium need to look for units large enough to have a broom closet, have looked at other condominiums and they are not big enough to include a broom closet; these units are big enough, square footage may look large but the calculation includes balconies, decks and garage, when take that out they are reasonably sized with enough living space. Live across the street also own the property, this is a good idea, will be an asset to the neighborhood, increase the opportunity for people to buy in an area with good mass transit access; people who own condominiums generally take better care of the neighborhood than renters. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: concerned with the size if the project, there is a lot of building on the site, common open space does not meet standard, its too finely calculated and poorly located to be useable; building is nice, feel that the recesses on the wall are too shallow (l inch or less) so will look like a stucco box because the articulation is too minor; would be OK to reduce front setback if able to incorporate deeper articulation on the front façade of the buildings and facilitates better common open space; front setback exception would be OK if it matched the setbacks on the rest of the block; noted that the block average was 16’+ because of the setbacks of the three houses being replaced by the project. Right track with design, concerned with open space, could reduce structure size and increase open space; perfect location for affordable housing, future projects will be required to provide. CA noted that while the General Plan has been amended to encourage affordable housing, the ordinance requiring its inclusion has not yet been adopted. Important to include affordable unit when legislation requires it, was not a requirement when this project was submitted, this is a good location close to mass transit for affordable housing. Need to find a way to merge the split open spaces provided at the rear to achieve a more useable common open space, location good. C. Bojués noted that the direction seemed to be clear and moved to continue the item for revisions based on discussion, then the commission will act on the project, noting that requiring affordable housing for this project which has been in the review process seems to be up to the applicant. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: don’t feel that the open space provided will be used, it is too small, would not want to trade off parking for open space in this area where on street parking is such a problem; proximity to transit corridor is unique in this project, encourage fewer cars, like more open space. The commissioners noted the following: • suggest that four uncovered parking spaces be put together so share 24’ back up area and open space extended along rear of lot to incorporate second 24 foot back up area and small piece of landscaping at rear corner, so able to retain parking, unit size and increase useable common open space by increasing its size. • Would like applicant to look at front setback and increasing depth of articulation on the front of the building. • Should add extra tree at the front to balance the screening of the existing street trees. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to a time when the plans have been revised to reflect the issues discussed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. CA noted that because this item was not continued to a date certain it would be renoticed. The action is not appealable. The item concluded at 9:45 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 10 6. 1399 BROADWAY AND 1160 CAPUCHINO AVENUE – ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (DAVID HINCKLE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BRYAN G. TAYLOR INC., LAND SURVEYORS) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report 7.08.02, with attachments. Senior Engineer Phil Monaghan, presented the staff report. CP Monroe noted that in the future, if commission agreed, lot mergers could be placed on the consent calendar. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Ann Hinkel, 1616 Sanchez, property and business owner, of the site, noted she would answer questions and asked for approval. CP Monroe noted that this merger would join the parking area and site with the building on it into one parcel which was a benefit. There were no questions by commission and no further comments from the floor. C. Auran moved approval of the lot merger map with two conditions: (1) that the lot-line adjustment shall be recorded and a copy of the record shall be sent to the City; and (2) that the future development of the new lot shall be subject to design review by the Planning Commission including the effects of site development, proposed paving, irrigation and storm drainage. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the lot line adjustment. The motion passed on a 7- 0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 9:47 p.m. 8. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, #B – ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE (CARL AND GRACE BREDL, APPLICANTS; HARRY MORROW, DESIGNER; MANSA EXCHANGE TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 7.08.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff if sidewalks in this area are power-washed by the City; could this be added as a condition of approval for the project? CP Monroe and CA Anderson noted that this sidewalk is not routinely power washed by the City. Power washing is an expensive service and in any case, if the business becomes a public nuisance for any reason, the conditional use permit will come back to the Commission for review. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mark and Grace Bredl, applicants, were present to answer questions. They noted that they clean the sidewalk themselves twice a month. Commission asked why the amended conditions did not include the option of preparing and selling salads on site. The applicants stated that they had not thought of adding salads to their menu; they already prepare vegetables on site for the smoothies and salads would not be that different; salads are a good idea and would agree to amend the conditions of approval to include the preparation of salads. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that she would like to see the business succeed and moved to approve the application to expand the product sold, by resolution, with the amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 21, 2002 (floor plan) and site plan (8½” x 11") and shall not have tables and chairs for customer seating; 2) that the store may not be open for business except during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 11 p.m., Monday through Friday, and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays; 3) that all deliveries to the site shall be scheduled twice a week between 5:30 to 6:00 a.m.; 4) that no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the juice bar and the take-out food service business shall be limited to sale of coffee, juices, smoothies, sandwiches, salads, soups and prepackaged foods; 5) that all employees shall park off-site; 6) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle inside the door to the store and on the sidewalk along California Drive at a location approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department, the trash receptacle on the sidewalk shall be of the design approved for the streetscape improvements; 7) that this application shall be reviewed for compl iance with its conditions in one year (July 2003) or upon complaint; 8) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all take-out debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and within 50' of the store in each direction; and 9) that the use and 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. Bojués. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:57 p.m. 10. 1616 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR PARKING IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PETER O’HARA, PACIFIC PROPERTY ASSET MGMT., APPLICANT; NEAL MARTIN, PLANNER/CONSULTANT; SANJAYLYN COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report 7.08.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: if this is not long term airport parking how is its operation different? Staff noted users do not drive to the site themselves and take a shuttle to the airport and come back to the parking site when they pick up their cars. Cars are driven from the hotel site to the storage lot by valets, then returned to the hotel site to be there when the travelers return to the hotel from their trip. Who are the drivers? Hotel employees. When will the Army Corps of Engineer decide whether a permit is required. Staff noted that after the City acts on this application the Corps will review and decide what they will require. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Bob Lanzone, 939 Laurel Street, San Carlos, attorney, and Peter O’Hara, representative of the property owner, represented the project. This project has been in process for 1 ½ years, done a full report of the site, Corps will need to evaluate use as it relates to an isolated wetland and whether protection proposed is sufficient; accept the conditions, this is a low intensity use, 16 cars a day in and out during off peak hours; will take care of damaged drainage pipe, mitigations will require full compliance with NPDES, will preserve the limited habitat area, will provide the 9 parking spaces for neighbor, although he needs to apply for a variance in order to use them; this shifting of parking to the easement area will allow the trucks to load and unload across his property as they are now; there is a remaining issue between the property owners of a prescriptive easement, but this is a private matter and would not affect this use since adequate access for the parking in the drainage area is provided on site. Commissioner noted that this area will play a part in the overall planning for the Rollins Road area, and committing it to some use now may be premature since that planning study is at its inception. Applicant noted that he had been contacted by economist and discussed the impact of the new BART station on the potential uses of his property; his view was that the drain was suitable for limited uses and parking was probably best for it. How does one know that the K-rails will be effective in protecting the frogs. The professional biologist who has had experience suggested them; frogs outside the habitat area tend to follow City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 12 the edge of the rails until they find an opening. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that with the mitigations it would reduce any potentially significant effects of the project to levels acceptable to the community and to amend the conditional use permit because the effects of the use would be minimal, by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 17, 2002, site plan, parking plan, and grading and drainage plan, sheets 1 through 5; with the parking for the ambulance serve and their employees shifted to the south end of the site and 185 parking spaces for auto storage at the north end of the site, a fence shall separate the two parking areas and only the area to the north shall be used for auto storage without amendment to this use permit; 2) that the site shall be used for long term hotel/motel parking only for up to 185 vehicles to be brought to and from the site from hotel/motel employees and/or valets; the site shall not be used for airport self parking; personal vehicle owners are not permitted to bring their vehicle to the site to and from the site; 3) that the long term hotel/motel parking use on the subject property shall be subject to the regulations of resolution 87- 2001 approved by the Burlingame City Council on July 23, 2001 requiring a business license tax on operators of commercial parking facilities in the City of Burlingame; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s March 12, 2001 memo shall be met; 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) the project shall obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies including: California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 7) the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Engineer and approved by the City Engineer before a grading permit is issued. All applicable requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including the following listed below; 8) the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system and the drainage ditch at the rear of the property; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil; 9) the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system and the drainage ditch at the rear of the property; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of the project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 10) off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 11) methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 12) all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 13) each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site; 14) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 13 and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 – April 1); 15) as part of this proposal, the applicant shall replace the broken 21 inch stormwater drain that is located in the rear easement (behind 1600 Rollins Road, in front of the three PG&E towers), that is part of the subject property, with a new 21 inch re-enforced concrete pipe that will daylight at the rear drainage channel below the top of the bank in the drainage channel at a point in the channel approved by the City Engineer; 16) the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 17) all vehicles to be stored on-site for long term hotel/motel parking shall not be moved during the peak traffic hours, and shall only be moved during off-peak traffic hours from 9:30a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the weekdays, with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday and Sunday; 18) a K-rail barrier shall be installed along the top of the drainage ditch. This barrier shall include 13 one-way ramps to allow the movement of frogs back into the drainage ditch, should they be trapped in the parking area; 19) all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; 20) the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance with the drainage easement. The City of Burlingame shall be held harmless for any property damage which might occur as a result of flooding within the drainage easement adjacent spur track right-of-way. The property owner shall repair, to City standards, the 21 inch drain line and extend it to the drainage channel; 21) the property owners shall prepare an access plan for the maintenance and repair for all the power towers on the site which shall be approved by the City Engineer and proper representation of PG&E before a grading permit shall be issued; 22) the improvements over the drainage channel shall not compromise the surface drainage flow to the drainage ditch at the rear of 1616 Rollins Road and shall not compromise the holding capacity of the basin during flooding. No fencing shall obstruct existing surface drainage into and through the easement from the adjace nt parcels. All the vehicles shall be relocated during flood situations; 23) fencing shall be required around the site except where it might obstruct drainage during flooding in the drainage easement; and 24) if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comments on the motion: concerned about approving this project in the drain at this time with the SAP work at its inception, don’t know how this open area will contribute to the open space plan for the industrial area, could recommend pedestrian access or something else in the drain in the future, if this would block such use would vote no on this project; CP noted that the biologist is reviewing all the drain and creek areas in the Rollins Road area at this time, he is identifying potential and also where sensitive habitats may be, do not have results; commissioner noted there are other drains and creeks in the Rollins Road area more removed from US101 with better open space potential and which provide better pedestrian access within the area than this one; applicant could stack parking which would leave some open space for other uses. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amendment to the conditional use permit to add hotel/motel parking storage in the drainage area. The motion was approved on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 14 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 543 CORBITT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DANIEL AND LAURA BERTERRETCHE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, and Daniel Berterretche, property owner, were present to answer questions. They noted that the original character of the house was Spanish and the proposed additions are an attempt to match and enhance this character. Commissioner asked if the brick veneer at the front of the existing dwelling would remain? Applicant replied that this detail is consistent with some original Spanish-style structures and they wished to keep it. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address these items on the revised plans: • applicant should prepare an more detailed landscape plan and arborist’s report to propose trees at the front and rear of the property to screen the second story addition and to address tree protection measures for the existing vegetation; • can applicant provide an outline of the footprint for the adjacent neighboring houses (sides and rear) so Commission can see their relationship with the proposed addition; • the left elevation is a large empty wall and should have some detail to add articulation; and • will a tile roof be used? applicant should specify roof material, as well as whether the existing brick veneer at the front elevation will remain on the plans submitted for action. C. Vistica made a motion place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. 12. 1033 BALBOA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, and Charles Schembri, property owner, were present to answer questions. The architect noted that he was excited about the Craftsman character of the project because that style is his passion and he feels it is appropriate for the site and the neighborhood. The property owner noted that during the subdivision of the subject property and lot 5B, there was a lot of concern about the large trees on lot 5B. There are no substantial trees on Lot 5A. Currently there are currently no plans to develop lot 5B next door to the subject property. Commissioner noted that the landscape plan includes a "plant # 14" that is missing from the plant list. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 15 Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address these items on the revised plans: • applicant should prepare an arborist report to address the protection, pruning, and maintenance of the trees on lot 5B during the construction on lot 5A; and • conditions of approval for the project should stress the proper NPDES measures to be taken during construction on lot 5A to prevent run-off and debris from going into the creek. Marianella Iraida, 1037 Balboa Avenue, and Andrew Styoa, 1024 Cortez Avenue, spoke to express their concerns about the trees located on lot 5B. They are a spectacular resource and should not be damaged or compromised during development. The neighbors also noted that they felt the design was nice but the proposed dwelling was very massive compared to the other homes in the neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the arborist report has been submitted and reviewed. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the requested information had been submitted and reviewed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 13. 1462 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KEVIN AND LAUREN O’SULLIVAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MICHAEL PALZA, HUNT, HALE AND JONES, ARCHITECT) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Michael Palza, Hunt Hale Jones Architects, and Kevin and Lauren O'Sullivan, property owners, were present to answer questions. They noted that their intent with the addition was to give character to the existing boxed- shaped house. The design of the proposed dwelling proposes to do this by repeating some of the existing half-timber articulation at the front elevation on the other sides and by adding a gabled roof similar to those seen throughout the neighborhood. Commissioner noted that the majority of the additional floor area being added to the property was in the proposed single- car garage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address these items on the revised plans: • the half-timbering, especially at the left elevation, looks a little forced and awkward; designer should look at reducing this detail on second level and perhaps adding some to the first level; should achieve a simpler effect, similar to the existing half timber and articulation on the front elevation; • there are some details missing from the plans, such at the window detail, will the proposed new windows in the addition have a stucco stopper trim; note on plans if existing windows, particularly the leaded glass windows, remain with the new construction; provide a window and window trim detail; • the trees at the front of the property are a great asset and should be protected during construction; applicant should provide an arborist report which includes tree protection measures with the landscape plan; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 16 • note on the landscape plan what will be planted on the trellises shown. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council Regular Meeting of July 1, 2002 CP Monroe reviewed the planning related actions taken at the July 1, 2002, City Council meeting. She noted that the Council has cancelled its second meeting in August. - Review of Safeway Study Session & Conclusion Staff noted that Planning Commission continued the Special Study Meeting on the Safeway project, 1450 Howard Avenue to 6:00 p.m. before the next Planning Commission meeting on July 22, 2002. The meeting will be in Conference Room A in City Hall. Staff asked if the Commission would like to setback the regular Commission meeting to a 7:30 p.m. start in order to allow them enough time for discussion. Chair Keighran made a motion to move back the start time of the Regular Planning Commission meeting on July 22, 2002, to 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. Staff noted that the materials for the study meeting would be included in the regular packet which would be delivered the Wednesday before the meeting. - Review of STOPPP (NPDES) model development policies CP Monroe noted that under the current permit with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board the City was required to adopt administrative planning policies regarding water quality. The enclosed memo notes those policies. We will be required to amend our General Plan goals and policies to reflect these department policies within the next year. Staff will review the current General Plan policy document and determine what new policies will need to be added. The commission can consider these within the next year at the same time we are considering other amendments to the General Plan. - Review of sign at 1070 Broadway CA Anderson reviewed his memo regarding the issue of maintaining the face of the nonconforming, illuminated sign on the property at 1070 Broadway. The issue revolves around the fact that the technology of the current sign is obsolete and changing the face (which is allowed for nonconforming signs under the current code) means installing new technology. The city did an illumination study and established that the typical illumination of signage was 20 to 50 canellas at 30 feet and, since it is a replacement, the new sign face will be held to that range. Commissioners noted that the new technology will mean that there will be a qualitative difference in this sign from what was there. CA Anderson acknowledged that this is so, and that was the reason that the Commission was FYIed on this change. Unfortunately the conditions of approval made at the time the sign exception was granted, years ago, did not place limitations on the timing of the change of the face of the sign. However, he noted that the sign could only provide advertising for the type of car sold from that site, off site advertising is not allowed presently or under the terms of the sign code when this sign was originally approved. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2002 17 - FYI – Canvas carport addition at 530 El Camino Real Commission acknowledged the addition of a canvas structure over an exterior parking space for the convenience of a unit owner since it did not encroach within the 20 foot setback established in the previous planning approval for the site and did not cause the site to exceed lot coverage maximums. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES7.08.02