HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.05.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 23, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Graham on Monday, May 23, 1983 at 7:32 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 9, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and
adopted.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN
CP Monroe reviewed. Reference staff report dated 5/13/83 with the following attachments:
Specific General Plan Map and Text Revisions; General Plan map indicating proposed
revisions; Exhibit 0, Specific Area Plan (revised); Negative Declaration ND -340P
posted May 10, 1983; Planning Commission study meeting minutes of May 9, 1983 and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1-83. CP briefly reviewed the recommended
amendments and Negative Declaration ND -340P. She also referred to her responses in
the staff report to comments/concerns expressed at the study meeting. Following the
public hearing this evening Commission should act on Resolution No. 1-83 recommending
the General Plan Amendment to City Council.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Marilyn Mahaffy, 4 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame,
resident of the city for 20 years and representing the Neighborhood Traffic Watch,
spoke in favor of the amendment to the Specific Area Plan deleting reference to Howard/
Humboldt/101 egress. Her comments: strongly oppose southbound ramp to 101 which would
affect the quality of life in the neighborhood (noise, air pollution, hazardous traffic
conditions); support staff's proposed amendment of the General Plan; this deletion
would not have a negative effect on Anza Area development and would have a positive
effect on the Howard/Humboldt/Peninsula neighborhood. CA Coleman assured Mrs. Mahaffy
that if reference to southbound ramps is deleted from the General Plan the city could
not proceed with such a project even if it was a mitigation in previously certified
EIR's. Howard J. Pearson, 713 Howard Avenue expressed his opposition to the Howard/
Humboldt proposal and spoke in favor of removing this reference from the General
Plan. He noted present traffic hazards in the area and was concerned that residents
on Howard had not been notified when the Specific Area Plan was adopted as part of
the General Plan. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
declared closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
May 23, 1983
C. Giomi moved for approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1-83 Recommending
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Burlingame General Plan and its attachment
(Exhibit A) Specific General Plan Map and Text Revisions (1-5) and maps. Second
C. Leahy; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Staff will forward this
recommendation to the Council and anticipates Council hearing on the amendment to be
held June 20, 1983.
2. REVIEW OF FINAL EIR-59P FOR THE FOUR SEAS HOTEL PROJECT, 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2-83 RECOMMENDING THE FINAL EIR TO CITY
COUNCIL
CP Monroe reviewed. Reference staff report dated 5/13/83; Planning Commission Resolution
2-83 with attached Exhibit A, Significant Effects, Mitigations and Findings; and
Response to Comments Addendum dated May 1983. CP noted responses in the Addendum refer
to written comments received prior to the public hearing and all verbal comments during
the hearing as well as Commission input. All comments received subsequent to the
public hearing will be forwarded to Council for inclusion in its public hearing.
Commission action this evening will be on Resolution 2-83 with attached Findings of
Fact, if the DEIR and Response to Comments Addendum are found to be complete. CP
pointed out that the Addendum recommends the mitigation addressing Howard/Humboldt/
101 access be eliminated from the EIR; concern about this mitigation was expressed
at the public hearing on April 25.
C. Garcia moved that Commission find EIR-59P to be complete, after review of the
Addendum and Findings of Fact, and moved for approval of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2-83 Recommending Environmental Impact Report EIR-59P to the City Council. Second
C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Staff will forward to
Council and expects Council hearing to be scheduled for June 20, 1983.
3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE HOME AT 221 BAYSWATER AVENUE, BY GARY
AND JUDITH HELLMAN
CP Monroe reviewed this request for an addition to a single family structure which
has a nonconforming side yard. Reference staff report dated 5/17/83; Project Applica-
tion & CEQA Assessment received 4/27/83; "no comments/objections" memos from the
City Engineer (5/9/83) and Fire Marshal (5/4/83); May 16, 1983 memo from the Chief
Building Inspector; applicant's justification for variance date stamped April 27,
1983; letters in support from James P. & Kristine H. Nuss, 34 Channing Road (4/25/83)
and Libby Todaro, 213 Bayswater Avenue (4/24/83); aerial photograph; and plans
date stamped April 27, 1983. CP discussed details of the application, staff review,
applicant's justification for variance, letters in support from adjacent neighbors,
code requirements. One condition of approval was suggested in the staff report.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the
hearing was closed. Gary Hellman, the applicant, was present. He advised a side
yard variance was the only variance he was requesting, that the rear yard meets code;
that the existing home has a second story presently and his request is basically for
restructuring; it is part of a six year long remodeling of this 1906 home.
Commission discussion and determination: the driveway to the garage will be completed
later; the second story will not extend over the first story; need for an additional
post to support the porch area; a licensed contractor is being used for this project.
C. Garcia found there were exceptional circumstances in this house built in 1906 which
needs structural reinforcement; that redesign of the roof would be necessary for the
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1983
preservation of the property rights of the owner; that additional living area is
necessary for a growing famiiy;.that it would not be detrimental to other property
owners or their enjoyment of their properties; and that this 1,200 SF remodeling
would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Garcia then moved
for approval of this variance request with the following condition: (1) that the
condition of the Chief Building Inspector's meo of May 16, 1983 be met. Second
C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
4. REVIEW OF CARDEN PRIVATE SCHOOL AT 2109 BROADWAY, WITH BERYL OLMSTEAD, DIRECTOR
Reference staff report dated 5/17/83; Monroe letter of action dated April 20, 1982;
Planning Commission minutes (April 12, 1982); aerial photograph of the site; Olmstead
letter of March 22, 1982 with attached Arrival and Departure Schedule and Modes of
Travel of Carden School Students; site drawing, Roosevelt School, 1151 Vancouver Avenue;
April 8, 1981 letter from Glenn A. Stewart, Director of Business Services, Burlingame
School District; Carden School "Use of premises" statement and statement of enrollment
dated March, 1981; Olmstead letter to the Planning Commission dated May 12, 1981;
Carden Private School Traffic Survey received May 14, 1981; City Engineer memo
(4/28/81) and Fire Marshal memo (4/20/81).
CP Monroe discussed the permit granted in 1981 and amendment approved in 1982 as well
as staff review at this time. A public hearing is not required. Four conditions
were suggested in the staff report for Commission consideration. Mrs. Olmstead,
director of Carden School, was present. She advised she expects the enrollment this
fall to be 100-110 students. CP stated no complaints have been received concerning
the operation of the school.
C. Giomi moved to grant a continuation of this use permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the operation of Carden Private School should be consistent with the May 12,
1981 and March 22, 1982 letters from Mrs. Beryl Olmstead and other materials filed
with this application; (2) that the conditions of the April 20, 1981 memo from the
Chief Fire Inspector be satisfactorily met; (3) that all staff parking be on -street
adjacent to the portion of the building leased by Carden School; and (4) that this
permit be reviewed at the close of the 1985-86 school year. Second C. Cistulli;
motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNING SIGN AT 231 PARK ROAD, BY DARLENE SWEENEY
CP Monroe discussed this request for a 20 SF sign on the awning of "Such -A -Sandwich"
with lettering which exceeds 8" in height. Reference staff report dated 5/17/83;
Sign Permit application filed 4/27/83; Sign Exception application filed 4/27/83;
sign drawings received April 27, 1983; "no objections/comments" memos from the
Fire Marshal (5/2/83), City Engineer (5/2/83) and Chief Building Inspector (5/6/83);
and aerial photograph. CP discussed details of the application, staff review,
applicant's justification and code requirements, particularly findings of
circumstance necessary for approval.
Commission discussion: code requirements for awning signage; applicant allowed up to
50 SF of signage on the primary frontage; if approved, the proposed awning sign
would become a logo. Darlene Sweeney, the applicant, informed Commission that once
the awning sign is in place, giving her identification, all other temporary signs
would be removed. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience
comments and the hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
May 23, 1983
Further Commission discussion: many awning signs in the city have lettering larger
than 8" since they were erected -prior to the present Sign Code, the difficulty
is enforcement; difficulty in finding special circumstances to approve this signage
request, there are many new businesses in the city, is the fact this is a new business
a valid reason?; possibility of reconsidering awning signage regulations; applicant's
desire to use an existing awning; believe approval of this request would be a grant
of special privilege and set a precedent, nearby businesses have smaller lettering;
if this 20 SF sign were on a wall it would be within code regulations; applicant
could have a much larger sign on the wall within code, this awning request is more
aesthetically pleasing.
C. Taylor found there were special circumstances applicable to this property in that
it has a very small frontage and a sign on the wall would not accomplish the applicant's
identification needs. C. Taylor then moved for approval of this sign exception with
the following conditions: (1) that all existing signs be removed; and (2)that no window
signs be allowed. Second C. Schwalm.
Discussion on the motion: proposal is in harmony with the environment and other
businesses in the area; this is a very small building, exact size of lettering not
given, add a third condition: (3) that the lettering be proportional to the diagram
presented with the application (this third condition accepted by Cers Taylor and
Schwalm). A further comment: size of building is not relevant, any lettering over
8" is not according to code. Roll call followed. Application approved on a 4-3
vote, Cers Cistulli, Garcia and Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNING SIGN AT 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, BY ANTHONY
AWNING CO. FOR JUDEE BRASESCO
CP Monroe reviewed this request for a 4.9 SF logo type sign on an awning which extends
5'-6" from the front wall of the shop (4' projection allowed) and exceeds the 8" height
limit for letters on an awning sign. Reference staff report dated 5/17/83; Sign
Exception application filed 5/3/83; NEMESIA logo; Sign Permit application filed
5/3/83; "no comments" memos from the City Engineer (5/3/83) and Chief Building
Inspector (5/16/83); May 6, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; aerial photograph;
and sign drawing dated 4/26/83. CP Monroe discussed -details of the application,
staff review, applicant's justification and the need for findings of circumstance
before taking action on this request.
Anthony Rafello of Anthony Awning Co. was present representing the applicant, Judee
Brasesco. He advised the lettering would not exceed 8" in height but the logo (circle)
would; the logo is the trade/service mark of this business. Chm. Graham opened the
public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/determination: this is a gift/plant shop; hours are approximately
10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.; if only the proposed lettering were put on the awning it
would be conforming, it is the logo which makes the sign exceed code regulations;
extension of the awning to 5'-6" indicates the main entrance to the shop; maximum
extension allowed by the UBC is 7', the city's Sign Code is more restrictive and
allows a 4' extension.
C. Schwalm found this proposal would improve the visual environment of the street and
area and moved that this Sign Exception application be granted. C. Leahy commented
he was unable to find special circumstances for extension of the awning beyond code
limits. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Schwalm then moved to approve this logo
sign with the condition that the awning extension be restricted to 4'. Second C. Leahy;
motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
May 23, 1983
7.. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AWNING SIGNS AT 327 LORTON AVENUE, BY THOMAS VANNONI
CP Monroe reviewed this request for awning signs which exceed Sign Code requirements
for height as well as one sign which would extend more than 4'-0" over the public
sidewalk. Reference staff report dated 5/17/83; Sign Permit application filed
4/27/83; Sign Exception application filed 4/28/83; sign drawings; May 17, 1983 memo
from the City Engineer; May 15, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; May 13, 1983 memo
from the Chief Building Inspector; and aerial photograph of the site.
CP discussed details of the request; staff review; applicant's justification; Planning
staff comments including the fact that the sign on the Lorton Avenue frontage would
exceed UBC extension requirements; it was the CA's determination that the Commission
cannot approve an illegal structure or a sign affixed to one. CP noted the necessity
for findings of circumstance; Planning staff recommended against the Lorton Avenue
sign and, if any part of this application were approved, one condition was suggested
for Commission consideration.
Robert Cooper, representing the applicant, Thomas Vannoni, was present. There was
some discussion regarding the illegal sign; applicant advised he would reduce the
awning extension from 10' to 4'. Commission then requested resubmittal of the complete
application, and noted the next meeting is three weeks from now.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING LIMITATIONS ON RETAIL FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE M-1 ZONE
CP Monroe reviewed staff/Commission study of this matter since City Council's moratorium
on snack bars in M-1 in December, 1982. The draft ordinance presented this evening
is the result of recent Commission discussions. One omission was noted, add under
Section 1: (i) retail sales of alcoholic beverages.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the
hearing was closed.
C. Giomi moved that Commission recommend to the City Council draft Ordinance
Establishing Limitations on Retail Food Establishments in the M-1 Zone. Second
C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting.
C. Taylor explained his "no" vote in that he did not agree with the prohibition
of retail food establishments within 300 feet of the Waterfront Commercial District
if this establishment met all the other criteria.
9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 477 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BY
HOWARD HICKEY FOR OWEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Reference City Engineer's May 17, 1983 memo with attached map. CE Erbacher discussed
conditions of approval for this development which required the owner to resubdivide
a portion of the land and provide a detailed traffic study of this area. The study
is now complete. He noted, as a result of the study, the need for traffic signals
at the two entrances as well as access easements. The tentative and final parcel map
shows a land swap to create two new parcels which would allow the parking structure
of the Owen development to be built in future; map is complete and CE recommended
it be forwarded to Council.
C. Garcia moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this Tentative
and Final Parcel Map. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on voice vote.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1983
Recess 9:12 P.M.; reconvene 9:20 P.M.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A PRE-SCHOOL DAY CARE PROGRAM AT 1505 SHERMAN AVENUE,
BY TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH
Comments/requests: handicapped access will be required as a condition of approval;
suggest extending the time between the two sessions to one hour to reduce traffic
conflict; this is dangerous corner, suggest program for ingress/egress. Set for
hearing June 13, 1983.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE ADDITION IN AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE AT 340 BEACH
ROAD, BY PHIL HYLAND FOR TPS AVIATION INC.
CP explained that two site plans had been submitted: one based on current code
requirements for parking and less landscaping, the other based on parking requirements
at the time of construction which would allow more landscaping. Commission requested
both plans be presented for its consideration. Set for hearing June 13, 1983.
12. SIGN EXCEPTION - 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - HOLIDAY INNS, INC.
Request: measurement of the faces of the building and signage requested for each.
Set for hearing June 13, 1983.
13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A RENTAL CAR FACILITY AT 1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY
ALAMO RENT A CAR INC.
Requests: status of BCDC review; status of Apple Rent -A -Car's operation at 1484 Bayshore
Highway. Set for hearing June 13, 1983.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its May 11, 1983 study meeting and May 16, 1983
regular meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT - May 7, 1983 letter from Margaret and Alonzo Richardson regarding
proposed life care retirement community on Peninsula Hospital site.
OTHER BUSINESS
- Restaurants on Burlingame Avenue/Broadway: think Commission should study the trend;
don't think Commission should interfere. Commission's recent discussions on this
matter will be taken to Council; staff suggested Commission await direction from Council.
- Request a review of awning regulations in the Sign Code.
- Request staff provide Commission information on Sign Code enforcement actions it is
now pursuing.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary