Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1994.01.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1994 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, January 10, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Bill Reilly, Asst. Fire Chief MINUTES - The minutes of the December 13, 1993 meeting were approved with an adjustment to Item #4, special permits and variance findings, 224 Primrose Road (page 3, paragraph 2), adding: "C. Jacobs then moved to deny the application, noting that there is nothing exceptional about this lot from other commercial lots in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Many buildings in the area have storage mezzanines, if all intensified use there would be serious parking problems and the parking in the immediate vicinity of this location is very impacted by the heavy traffic and parking generated by Walgreens." AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 113 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 (REID F. & KIM M. GOTTHARDT,-PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Requests: What are the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property that would justify a variance; request any disclosure statements presented at time property was purchased; who/when was the walnut tree planted, does its size make it a protected tree under the City Tree Preservation Ordinance? Item set for Public Hearing January 24, 1994. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 page -2- 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSROOM USE AT 1245 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B (PHILLIP H. SHAMLIAN, PROPERTY OWNER AND JUDITH M. PISANO, APPLICANT). REQUESTS: Will the classes be staggered? Will this be in lieu of, or in addition to, the classes provided by the applicant at the Recreation Center? Need count of parking spaces available on Howard at noon weekdays. Are the PC classes personal or business oriented? Does the level of disabled access available meet Building Code specifications? Tentatively set, pending availability of traffic count, for Public Hearing January 24, 1994. 3. TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR COFFEE SHOP AT 1158 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED C-1 (DAVID HINCKLE, PROPERTY OWNER AND GIULIANO POLLANO, APPLICANT). Requests: How will employee parking be identified? Why does business need to open at 5:00 A.M. Will outdoor seating be allowed? Would like impact assessment/best estimate of parking availability during peak customer activity'period. Item set for Public Hearing January 24, 1994. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1219 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A (PAUL A. OHM, PROPERTY OWNER AND ISMAIL UNLU, APPLICANT). Requests: Why is there one space change in the parking requirements when it is proposed that the restaurant will increase one-third in size? What is peak time lunch/dinner? Why 900 angle parking proposed? What is status of alley; is it public, private, one-way, who controls? Need to verify the disabled access to the restrooms. Would food service become available in the bar service area? Is the wood structure at the rear of the building legal; is it fire resistant? Would the review procedure be different if more restaurant seating were proposed instead of a bar area. Item set for Public Hearing January 24, 1994. 5. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR COURIER SERVICE AND OFFICE EXPANSION AT 1625-1635 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (FOLKE AND GUDRUM OHLSSON, PROPERTY OWNERS AND BILL ROGERS, APPLICANT). CP noted that there were SF changed subsequent to distribution of the staff report causing differences in the parking required. Requests: what type of vehicle repair work will be done on this site? Do they intend to use the existing pole sign? Do they propose radio communication and if so, what type antennae will be requested. In light of the number of daytime staff, will the TSM process be encouraged? If more parking is required will the notice include a parking variance. If all necessary information is received the Item is to be set for Public Hearing January 24, 1994. Burlingame Planning.Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 page -3- 6. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN EXCEPTIONS AT 819-849 MITTEN ROAD AND 863 MITTEN ROAD/866 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1 (PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT, PROPERTY OWNER AND LISA GEIGER, APPLICANT). Requests: Will the 11' 5" sign be retained, plus the addition of the deli sign? Is the 11' sign visible from the freeway? Are these two signs absolutely necessary? What are the street frontage dimensions? Item set for Public Hearing January 24, 1994. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION AT 700 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 (CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK, PROPERTY OWNER AND ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT). Requests: Do they need a sign of that magnitude, how many local people and how many people from outside the area will come to this business at this site? Would like to see rendering of parapet sign and elevation of building. What are the exceptional circumstances that apply to this property alone and not to all other office properties in the area? Pending receipt of all required detail this Item will be set for Public Hearing January 24, 1994. ITEMS FOR ACTION S. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1609 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1 (THOMAS RISE, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 1/10/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If recommended to Council for approval, 4 conditions were suggested. Commissioners asked about the 2,0 foot setback requirement and the mass and bulk issues. Also asked the height at the peak of the new roof as compared to the existing roof .ridge. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Thomas Hise, AIA, applicant and property owner, 1609 Quesada Way, Burlingame, CA, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hise explained that at the time the house was purchased they developed a set of long term improvements, their plans were at that time in accordance with the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinances. Since the second floor front setback requirement has changed, renovations done to vault the kitchen ceiling and replace the bathroom as well as existing vaulted ceilings in the living and dining rooms make a second floor addition over the other areas of the house a major problem. The proposed addition is a modest one and the lot is not typical of other lots since it is triangular with a 65' frontage and 45' in the rear, it is a challenge to remodel. The 4' grade difference and slope right to left dictating the split level of the existing house was also noted. The height at the new ridge of the roof is less than 31 above the original roof. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 page -4- Commissioner Galligan then moved based on the facts presented to approve the application with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the planning Department and date stamped December 6, 1993, Sheets 1 and 2; (2) that the new bedroom over the garage shall only be accessed from within the residential structure; and (3) that as built the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kelly and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised., The item is set for January 19, 1994 City Council meeting. 9. FENCE EXCEPTION AT 841 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 (DORIS AND MIKE RUDOLPH, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 1/10/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If recommended to Council for approval, 4 conditions were suggested. Cms. felt City should not require applicant to install the stop sign since CE memo indicates need for one now anyway. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Mike Rudolph, 841 Fairfield Road, applicant addressed the Commission. Lot is on a corner, little useable yard for one year old child. Began construction without a building permit because did not know needed one; previous elevation of yard is an extraordinary circumstance since most of the fence height is measured from the higher grade level except in the 15' sight line triangle; there are 2'x4's buried on the adjacent city right of way which present a safety hazard to pedestrians, they would be removed. The lot was subdivided prior to purchase it years ago by current owner. Corner is "T" intersection. Because the lot is raised 2' by a wooden retaining way a reduced fence height would not keep animals and children in the yard. Neighbors are not opposed to fence and its appearance is consistent with others in the area. Public hearing was closed. Commissioners comment: Approaching from Edgehill the brick columns merge so that they block the visibility'of cars entering from the "T" intersection, this is a bigger problem from Edgehill than from Fairfield; a stop sign at this intersection would encourage people on Edgehill to go faster; the "T" intersection is exceptional, most are full intersections; applicant should not have to pay for stop sign if warrants are there; important for children to have fence. C. Graham moved approval of the fence with staffs conditions. Motions was seconded by C. Mink. Discussion on the motion: procedure is an issue, don't want to tell applicant can't have fence because City Council denies the stop sign as Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 page -5- required in conditions; can the poplar tree which is required in conditions to be removed be removed under current city ordinances; if the bush is too high and removed what vegetation that will not grow as high can be installed; even if the columns in the 15' triangle area were reduced to 3' the placement of the columns outside of the triangle would line up to block sight lines for motorists. Further discussion on CEs conditions in his December 20, 1993 memo noting that the second condition notes that both the park and public works department want the tree removed and the condition three requires the removal of the bush but does not preclude planting some lower vegetation in the spot. The applicant would be responsible for implementation of both of these conditions. It was noted that the CE's recommendations should stay as they were proposed. The motion to approve was called to a vote with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 7, 1993, Site Plan, and Wall/Fence Elevation; (2) that the City Engineers' December 20, 1993 memo shall be met; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Commissioners voted approval 5-1-1 (C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. It was noted that the stop sign placement and the encroachment permit would have to be approved by the City Council before this fence exception action was final. The commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 9:05 P.M. and reconvened at 9:15 P.M. 10. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1540 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (RICHARD R. COSTA, PROPERTY OWNER AND BAY AREA SUNROOMS, INC., APPLICANT. Reference staff report, 1/10/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If recommended to Council for approval, 4 conditions were suggested. There was clarification on the need for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and the variance procedure. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Al Harris, Bay Area Sunrooms, 17 West 41st Street. San Mateo, CA represented the project. It was stated that Bay Area Sunrooms felt they will be able to meet all the City's construction requirements. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jacobs then moved that since the addition was behind the house, narrow and lower than the existing roof ridge it would not impact existing views and if it weren't for the HACP the side setback would be a minor modification because of the minimal encroachment, to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 page -6- approve the application by resolution and with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 8, 1993 and construction drawings date stamped December 15, 1993; (2) that the height of the solarium shall not exceed 8'-2" as measured from the top of concrete; (3) that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant sign the Public Works Department "Conditions of Issuance of a Building Permit" sheet, which requires applicant to drain to the street and to show how this drainage will be accomplished; and (4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Galligan and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES AT 1131-1141 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Reference staff report, 1/10/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If recommended to Council for approval, 3 conditions were suggested. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Robert Beuthel, Superintendent, Burlingame Elementary School District, 2303 Trousdale Drive, represented the project. He noted that the district had just completed a facilities master plan which identified considerable maintenance work to be done to the district schools. Roosevelt school is one of the older schools and there is considerable dry rot repair needed. They felt that Roosevelt was a more central location for the district offices and expanding enrollment was placing serious space demands on the existing operating schools. He noted that this proposal did not include a district corporation yard, once considered for the Roosevelt site. The plans do include a modular building for storage of text books but it would not be placed as a part of the initial construction. They are aware of traffic issues, particularly parking. They are providing parking on site, but want to do that without reducing available play area for students, both tenant and if reused for a public school in the future. The parking areas proposed would be lit only on the nights when the board meetings were held, so the impact would be minimal. It is not usual for the school district to be an applicant before the city, in this case it occurs because only the district offices will be moved; if this were reopening the school with the office, a city use permit would not be required. The district would like to work with the city to have a positive relationship. In response to commissioners questions Mr. Beuthel noted that the vehicles now stored in the upper play area may have to be relocated if they will affect available parking required; the parking proposed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 page -7- behind the multipurpose room will be adequate for the district offices; they would be willing to keep the board meetings at Franklin school where facilities are now adequate and use the kindergarten room for a small meeting room/storage; if Roosevelt school were to reopen as a public school it would be on a different model from existing schools, growth projections indicate 3 to 5 years before that decision; current leases are year to year with 30 day notice; they anticipate that if the vans cannot be in the upper parking area they will be kept on the street which could cause an access problem in the neighborhood; there is no onsite parking for the present tenants. In support.: Rick Caldera, Franklin School Principal, 2385 Trousdale Drive, asked that the community keep education as a priority; Franklin school is already overcrowded and needs more space. Kristi Pangrazio, President Burlingame School Board, 2710 Easton Drive, explained that this solution is the best possible given the increase in enrollment and the community requested reduction in class size along with needs of special education classes and day care and the resources available. In opposition: James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, CA spoke against the project, does not want portables and lighting of parking areas at night. He presented petitions with 98 signatures, objecting to the proposed plans to remodel the Roosevelt School Auditorium into school district offices. Concerns addressed the traffic problem already present from out of area attendees at tenant schools, this would add to them, its not safe and the use is incompatible with the R- 1 Residential Zoning. Hoped that a fair and equitable solution could be realized without adding to the current congestion problem. Robert Kane, 1221 Broadway, felt problem was use of facilities as private school with everyone brought to the site by car, this would be increased by number of district employees; questioned the Fire Department's ability to turn in the radius available given the on street parking on Broadway. Trash problems and weed abatement problems noted and documented with photos. Vans parking in site without permission. To mitigate District needs to eliminate independent contractors use as district school and see facilities are maintained. James Walsh, 2116 Broadway, Burlingame, CA concurred with previous comments and questioned the lighting of the area where the vans are parked and expressed a concern about increased vandalism in that area that would require lights all the time. Vic Bogan, 1201 Vancouver, acknowledge all the problems mentioned and asked if making Broadway a one-way street with an entrance into the school yard and a drop off point within the school grounds, hence exiting on Vancouver, again a one-way street, would be feasible. Harvey Bracken, 2100 Roosevelt, questioned the environmental impact of the carbon monoxide omissions. The fire hydrant in front of the house is usually blocked by the traffic and would be a problem if access were needed. The ramp put in before for maintenance use is still in place. Public notice should be at least 30 days. Pauline Irons, 2108 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 ` page -8- Broadway, asked if Roosevelt School would ever be opened to its original use. Enrollment numbers seem to justify its use as a public school. If not use a public school, sell building and develop houses. John DeHoney, 1120 Vancouver, spoke about the parking problems which would become worse with project. Robert Lent, 2010 Broadway, asked that the Planning Commission withdraw the current Use Permit as he felt current use is an abuse rather than use. Austen Welt, 1150 Vancouver, expressed concern about the traffic situation and concurred that a one- way street could be a viable option. Wayne, Parker, 1245 Armsby Drive, Hillsborough asked what could be done about the fencing as a privacy issue, i.e., landscaping or some kind of site barrier. No landscaping is drawn in the proposed plans to screen new portable or added lower parking. He also commented about the traffic flow, new parking would relocate baseball, parking and lighting problems. Robert Beuthel, Burlingame School Superintendent, spoke again, advised the Commission that it is not the intent of the School District to create an adversarial situation and requested to continue the public hearing in order that they might continue the request to another date after meeting with the community. He expressed concern regarding the lease questions and advised the Commission that the income derived from the use of the Roosevelt site is 2.5% of the district budget. There were no other comments. Commissioner Jacobs then moved to continue the public hearing to an unspecified date. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Mink and approved on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Ellis absent). The CA noted that the item would be renoticed when it was ready for the agenda again. 12. AMENDMENT TO MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1160 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 (KWOK WONG, PROPERTY OWNER AND MAX FATEMI OF CLASSIC IMPORT RUGS, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 1/10/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If recommended to Council for approval, 4 conditions were suggested. Comments were made regarding code enforcement at two of the businesses. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and there were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Galligan then moved to deny the application noting a sign exception is a discretionary action the proposed signs do not accomplish the uniform intention of a master sign program, they add to the clutter on site property; need better rendering of how the existing signs style will fit with existing marquee sign. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 page -9- Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kelly and approved on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES AT 1160 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED C- 1 (DAVID AND ANNE HINCKLE, PROPERTY OWNERS AND LEON CATCHATOORIAN. APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 1/10/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If recommended to Council for approval, 5 conditions were suggested. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Leon Catchatoorian, 216 Myrtle Road. addressed the Commission noting space is small so number of students will be small, at noon student will need to walk from parking. He will park in space on site. He will be giving his students Chamber of Commerce Maps and ask that they find alternate parking. David Hinckle, 1616 Sanchez Avenue, property owner, answered the Commissions questions. The owner was asked if he would considered merging the properties in an effort to conform to parking requirements on the site. He noted that any sale would then be for the entire site. As it now stands, the wall opening is the only consideration if a sale were proposed. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mink then moved to approve the application by resolution and with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 12, 1993; (2) that classes shall be scheduled Monday through Friday 7:00 am, 12 noon, 6:00 pm, 7:45 pm and Saturday and Sunday 9:00 am and 1:30 pm, no classes shall be scheduled closer than 15 minutes apart and no class shall continue for more than 90 minutes; (3) that the maximum class size shall be 12 people with no more than two instructors on site at one time; (4) that one employee parking space shall be provided adjacent to the building at 1158-1160 Capuchino; and (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Galligan and approved with conditions on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis Absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 10, 1994 page -10- PLANNER'S REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council actions/discussion at its January 3, 1994 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary MIN1.10