HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.01.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1987
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, January 12, 1987 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the December 8, 1986 meeting were unanimously
approved with the following correction: page 3, item 3,
second paragraph should read a one year extension
. . . to January 21, 1988."
AGENDA - The Chair moved item VIII, From the Floor, to follow
item #10 and requested future agendas place 'From the Floor'
prior to the study items.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. REVIEW OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR-66P) ON SEALING
THE SANITARY LANDFILL, PLACEMENT OF A LEACHATE BARRIER, PUBLIC
ACCESS AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
her staff report, noting procedures for review of the Draft EIR
document and staff's responses to comments received which are included
in the Response to Comments document; if Commission finds the responses
to be adequate they should recommend by resolution that Council certify
the Final EIR. During discussion Commission determined that staff
believed the Response to Comments document was complete and legal;
requirements and comments of the Regional Water Quality Control Board
have been addressed.
C. Jacobs moved for adoption of Commission resolution recommending the
Final Environmental Impact Report to City Council for certification.
Second C. S.Graham; motion passed unanimously on voice vote.
2. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING GARAGE, WITH
CONDITIONS, AT 1136 BALBOA AVENUE
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. C. S.Graham stated
she would abstain from participation because of pending litigation and
a potential conflict of interest. CP Monroe reviewed the history of
this existing oversized garage, staff discussion and procedure to
prevent such an occurrence in the future.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
January 12, 1987
A resolution accepting the -existing garage has been prepared for
Commission action which includes a condition stating this garage is
nonconforming and if it is destroyed or damaged as defined by code for
nonconforming structures a special permit may be required for
reconstruction under the ordinance in effect at the time of damage.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
C. Schwalm moved for adoption of Commission Resolution Regarding
Nonconforming Garage, 1136 Balboa Avenue. Second C. Garcia. Comment
on the motion: since this was an administrative error and the citizen
did not know he was doing something illegal, would prefer to grant a
variance for the existing garage; resolution action will not penalize
the present owners; as long as full disclosure is made to the buyers it
is possible to sell a property prior to finaling a building permit.
Motion was approved on a 5-1-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting,
C. S.Graham abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. USE DETERMINATION FOR A PROPOSED CHANGE IN USE AT
1521 RALSTON AVENUE
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request to determine whether an existing second floor storage area
over a garage which has no interior connection to the existing home
should be reviewed as an accessory structure in order to establish
whether a use permit is required to convert the storage area to a game
room.
Commission/staff discussion: the word "storage" was placed on the plans
by staff in 1984; interior finishing has not been completed; the garage
abuts the house along a 5'-6" portion of the existing master bedroom
addition; storage area of the garage is reached by an interior
stairway from the garage below.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicants, Jean and David
Lombardi, were present. They commented they were before Commission
because they were told by staff this was necessary to finish the garage
project, they had thought everything was O.K., had submitted plans to
build a garage and coordinated with the Building Department at all
times, their contractor discussed the project with the Building
Department, they wanted some storage area but hoped to be able to use
the garage as a family room also, they would do the interior work
themselves, the contractor's part (all outside) has been completed.
Applicants/Commission discussion: contractor's plans were approved by
the applicants, they wanted the stairs inside the garage, landing hall
space was put in so that the floor line of the house and the addition
were the same, there was no intention to connect the two structures,
they did not want a hole in the master bedroom closet. A Commissioner
commented that generally an attached garage is constructed to allow
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1987
entry from the house, the city has concern that this type of addition
could become a second unit. Applicants replied there is no plumbing,
they have added some electrical plugs, a forced air furnace and a wall
to separate storage from the game room and have no intention to use the
garage as a second living unit; the previous garage was small, they did
not consider applying for a height variance since the city let them
build; contractor discussed the project with the city and was told in
order to avoid the height restriction the garage would have to be a
part of the main structure. Commissioner comment: the present problem
is not the plans approved by the city but the fact that the applicants
want to add something more than what those plans show. Applicants
stated the windows were part of the original plans and reiterated they
were not aware of any problem, had worked with the city on this project
and do not need the amount of storage provided in the new garage.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission/staff comments: the structure is either attached or
detached, demolition permit was for a detached garage, building permit
is for an attached garage, if it is attached and permitted at its
present height it is not the fault of the Lombardis', regulations that
apply to an attached structure should apply to that structure whether
there is any interior access or not, the code is not specific in that
area; code definitions are not specific and open to interpretation;
the building permit allowed the garage to be attached to the house, it
also allowed the house and garage to have the same height, garage and
master bedroom closet were allowed at the same floor level, am
convinced this is an attached garage and not an accessory structure;
unless there is ingress/egress between the two structures it is an
accessory structure; building permit was issued as an attached garage,
would consider it a separate structure with a common wall; think the
code should be changed and clarified, the definition of building is a
matter of interpretation, would be willing to vote on a motion which
requires the garage have access from the main structure; agree the
matter is open to interpretation, if code required interior access it
would prevent situations such as this in the future; may not be
necessary to change the code but Building Department should understand
what the code is, a common wall does not constitute an attached
garage.
C. S.Graham moved that this garage structure as built be considered an
attached structure and therefore no special permit will be required.
Second C. Garcia.
Comment on the motion: garage and loft are attached in a token manner
in order to get height to put in a play room, they are not connected
because there is no door or corridor to the main building; this is an
accessory structure with a common wall but because the building permit
was issued for an attached garage would like to approve it; in view of
some slight fault on the part of the city would go along with the
motion; if it is an attached structure it must be connected to the
house internally, attached means useable access.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
January 12, 1987
Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Leahy and
Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN APPROVED BALLOON/GIFT SHOP
TO MOVE TO ANOTHER LOCATION IN THE SAME RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING
AT 1199 BROADWAY
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request (the relocated area is slightly larger). No
complaints about this business have been received.
Discussion: staff has received no complaints about parking on this
site; have the handicapped railings been corrected. Chm. Giomi opened
the public hearing. Casey Wulfert, applicant, stated the safety
railings have been replaced; he wishes to move from Unit #5 to Unit #2;
the additional outside sales person will be an independent operator, he
will not park on the premises and will be a temporary sales person for
approximately two months. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
It was determined there was no problem with signage for this particular
business. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the Special Permit Amendment
with the following change in condition #2 of the original approval:
(2) that the business selling balloons and gifts shall operate in a
1,185 SF area from 8:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. seven days a week with two
people on site, the owner and one full time employee. Second
C. H.Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote.
5. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE 2/6/84 SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR A TRAINING CENTER AT 866 MALCOLM ROAD
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the approved special permit and this request for extension.
The permit runs with the property, if applicant were to move and a new
tenant come in the conditions state an expiration date for this use.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant was present. There
were no audience comments and the hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this request for special permit
extension and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special
Permit Extension with the following conditions: (1) that only 2,531 SF
in four rooms of Building E be used for classroom/training purposes;
(2) that the maximum number of participants on site for training at any
one time be 28; (3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of
December 19, 1983 be met; (4) that GTE Sprint shall be responsible for
notifying the city of termination of its lease agreement on Building E;
and (5) that this permit for classroom/training use expires on
February 6, 1988. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved unanimously on
roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
6.
SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIZE,
FOR MIKE HARVEY TOYOTA AT
(CONTINUED FROM 12/8/86)
Page 5
January 12, 1987
AMOUNT, NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SIGNAGE
1007 ROLLINS ROAD/1008 CAROLAN AVENUE
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of this signage request (primary and secondary frontages),
previously approved signage on the site, staff review, applicant's
letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Discussion: there is no time limit on illumination of any of the signs;
signage for the Auto Row area was designated when the new sign code was
adopted in 1977; auto sales have expanded to the M-1 area where this
site is located, M-1 is not subject to the signage advantage of the
Auto Row area.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Michael R. Harvey, applicant,
was present. His comments: the pole sign on the primary frontage is
35' high; the 20' pole sign on the secondary frontage is illuminated
all night, it provides security and is 80'-90' from residential
neighbors' lot lines. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Schwalm found this is an important dealership for the city, the
total signage is about the same as the dealer with the highest amount
of signage on Auto Row, applicant has cut down on existing primary
frontage signage and is not excessively over on the secondary frontage.
He saw no problem with the request as long as it is not more than that
granted to others. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the Sign Exception
with the following conditions: (1) that the condition of the City
Engineer's memo of November 10, 1986 shall be met; and (2) that the
sign program as installed shall conform to the individual sign
descriptions included in the sign permit dated October 29, 1986 as
corrected and the summary table prepared by the Planning Department
dated November 18, 1986 as corrected. Second C. H.Graham.
Comment on the motion: there is too much signage in that area but will
go along with this request; regarding rotating pole signs, staff
advised applicant's pole sign is fixed. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW A DISH ANTENNA AND TO ALLOW
CLASSES AT 1501 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, parking on site, staff review, applicant's
letter, alternative locations for the antenna, study meeting questions.
Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing
for the classroom use and four conditions for the dish antenna. It was
suggested the conditions for the dish antenna include the CE's October
27, 1986 memo and the CBI's October 24, 1986 memo.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
January 12, 1987
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Joe Ferem, applicant, stated he
understood and agreed to the suggested conditions of approval but would
appreciate being allowed to hold classes three nights a week, rather
than two; transmissions are taped and managers train agents in the
evening, not necessarily the same day transmissions are received;
agent/trainees have other jobs which are full time and train for this
in the evening. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Noting the antenna is only 5' high, not too visible and away from
landscaping, C. Garcia moved for approval of the special permit for the
satellite dish antenna and for adoption of Commission Resolution
Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the
satellite dish antenna shall be installed as shown on the roof plan
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 17, 1986
(47' from the west corner of the structure, 27' from the edge of the
roof); (2) that the dish antenna as installed shall not exceed 6' in
diameter and no part of the dish antenna structure shall exceed the
height of 5' above the roof surface; and the conditions of the City
Engineer's memo of October 27, 1986 and the Chief Building Inspector's
memo of October 24, 1986 shall be met; (3) that the dish shall be
painted a nonreflective white color and the applicant shall maintain
the nonreflective surface or shall be required to remove the dish; and
(4) that this use permit shall be reviewed four compliance with the
conditions in four months time (May, 1987). Second C. Schwalm; motion
approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit for classroom use
and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with
the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City
Engineer's December 2, 1986 memo shall be met; (2) that the classroom
use shall be limited to a maximum of 30 people week nights (Monday
through Friday) between 7:00 P.M. and 9:30 P.M. and all day on
Saturday, and to the office area of 2,208 SF in 1501 Bayshore Highway;
(3) that classes shall not be held on the site more than three evenings
per week and Saturday, and full time company employees on site shall be
limited to five; (4) that any changes in employees, training schedules,
the number of persons being trained or any other aspect of this use
shall require an amendment to this use permit; and (5) that this use
permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in four
months time (May, 1987) and in one year thereafter. Second
C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSROOM USE AT 1308 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY,
SUITE 101
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, on-site parking, staff review, applicant's
letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1987
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Clyde Wilson, applicant,
requested class size be increased to a maximum of 20 during the day and
15 in the evening. He stated parking appears to be sufficient even
with popular movies being shown at the theater. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: concern about classes on this side of Bayshore
Highway, with the Hyatt Hotel closed -the area is at low density now and
does not reflect normal traffic/parking patterns, an increase to 20
students is a concern; have attended popular movies at the site and
parking can be difficult but this is not a highly intensive use and the
conditions of approval include a review period and expiration date;
believe some buildings across the street would be better suited for
this use, there are empty buildings there.
Stating he was uncomfortable with classes in this area because of
parking but applicants would use only 10% of the total and he felt this
is the right side of Bayshore Highway for classes, C. H.Graham moved
for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission
Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1)
that the classroom use of this site shall be limited to a 740 SF area
identified in January, 1987 as Suite 101; (2) that the classroom use
shall be limited to 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon and 7:00 P.M. to 9:00
P.M., Monday through Friday, no classes on Saturday or Sunday, with a
maximum class size of 20 students during the day and 15 students in the
evening; (3) that any change in the class size, hours of classroom use,
or size of leased area shall require an amendment to this use permit;
and (4) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its
conditions in one year (January, 1988) and shall expire in three years
time (January, 1990). Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-1 roll
call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO CREATE TWO LOTS, ONE WITHOUT
STREET FRONTAGE, LOT 12 AND PORTION LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 6,
UNIT NO. 3, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK (1731 ADRIAN ROAD)
Reference staff report, 1/12/87, with attachments. CE Erbacher
reviewed this request to create two parcels one of which has no street
frontage, ingress/egress easements are proposed to gain access to the
parcel in the rear. CE discussed staff review of the proposal, site
development must comply with zoning requirements; currently there are
at least nine sites in the commercial and industrial zones developed
without street frontages and a large number of industrial sites with
shared access. Four conditions were suggested for a recommendation of
approval.
Commission discussion: would not want to create a hardship by allowing
these parcels if they could not meet code requirements for parking and
landscaping; 20' fire lane is required by the Fire Department, will
parcels be able to provide 10% landscaping and does the property owner
understand he must meet landscaping requirements; both buildings may
have to be downsized slightly; what is difference between spur track
and drill track as shown on the map.
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1987
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant was present as well as
his engineer, Hans Mulberg. Mr. Mulberg explained the spur track is
that track which goes into the building, the drill track takes cars
from building to building and connects with the spur track. He stated
he and the applicant understand all restrictions of the city with
regard to these lots. Applicant, Bob Devincenzi, discussed his reasons
for the smaller parcel in the rear; they wish to be an owner occupant
and would occupy the building in the rear, their business does not need
visible access from the road; they will meet all landscaping and
parking requirements. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission/staff discussed drainage lines and sanitary sewer line.
Further comment: subdividing in the industrial area is somewhat
different than subdividing in residential, if applicant wishes to
divide in this way see no problem with the proposal. CE requested an
additional condition: #5. that all utilities be installed underground
to these parcels.
C. S.Graham moved that this tentative and final parcel map be
recommended to City Council for approval with the following conditions:
(1) that no site development is approved by approval of this map; (2)
that all ingress and egress easements shall be as finally approved by
City Engineer and shall be at least twenty feet (201) wide unless
otherwise approved by Fire Department, and shall be posted "no parking
fire lane"; (3) that on-site hydrants, to Fire Department approval, be
provided on site at time of development; (4) that mutual drainage,
sewer and other utility easements be included in this map as approved
by the City Engineer; and (5) that all utilities be installed
underground to these parcels. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a
6-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting.
Recess 9:30 P.M.; reconvene 9:40 P.M.
10. MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 132 CHANNING
ROAD WHICH DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS
C. Jacobs called this item up for full review. Chm. Giomi set the item
for public hearing January 26, 1987.
Commission requests: letter from applicants on why they need the
variance, what is the hardship, since lot coverage is so low why not
some other alternative to a second story addition.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the audience.
STUDY ITEMS
11. SPECIAL PERMIT - CHILDREN'S THEATER TRAINING OPERATION -
2220 SUMMIT DRIVE
Requests: how long will applicant want this use permit to be in effect;
what is in operation at 1220 Howard; do they have nonprofit status
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1987
with the State; School District authorization of the use; is a State
license required to run a nonprofit children's theater program; will
there be an admission charge for the performances; clarify busing -
from where, who is responsible, how will overflow be handled; will this
be a noisy operation; where has applicant worked in the last 18 months;
will they sell costumes/instruments to the participants. Item set for
hearing January 26, 1987 provided all requested information is received
by the Planning Department by 5:00 P.M. Wednesday, January 14. If not
received item set for hearing February 9, 1987.
12. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Requests: understanding of applicant that he must meet master signage
program as approved; exact location of the signs; require address
labeling at the rear. If information is complete item set for hearing
January 26, 1987.
13. SPECIAL PERMIT - SPECIALTY GROCERY SHOP - 346 LORTON AVENUE
Requests: schedule of deliveries; clarify type of grocery store, amount
of traffic in and out; will kitchen requirements, restrooms, etc. be
met. If information is complete item set for hearing January 26,
1987.
14. PARKING VARIANCE - 1209 HOWARD AVENUE
Requests: letter explaining why applicant is not asking for a use
similar to the previous use and why he wishes to use the second floor
for other than storage; applicant's reasons for not using the adjacent
lot which he owns as a part of this application, if there is a hardship
why can't he use that property at this time; are there bathrooms on the
second floor; what commercial uses of the site are anticipated. If
information is complete by 5:00 P.M. Wednesday, January 14 item set for
hearing January 26, 1987.
15. THREE VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS
TO EXISTING AUTO SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY - 1025 ROLLINS ROAD
Requests: letter from applicant clarifying why this is the only way he
can use this site; why is parking on Carolan on the west side; is
Toyota meeting its on-site parking requirements; clarify interior
parking, will there be marked public parking inside. If information is
complete by 5:00 P.M. Wednesday, January 14 item set for hearing
January 26, 1987.
PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of Special Permit, 50 Star Way acknowledged.
- C. H.Graham reviewed Council actions at its January 5, 1987 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:37 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary