HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.06.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Graham on Monday, June 13, 1983 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor, Graham
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 23, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted.
AGENDA - Item #10 was dropped from the agenda and Item #9 moved forward (following
Item #5) to accommodate the applicant.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE HOME AT 17 CHANNING ROAD, BY DONA L. RYAN
CP Monroe reviewed this request to add an 8' x 10' breakfast nook to a home which has
nonconforming side and rear yards. Reference staff report dated 6/6/83; Project
Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/4/83; "no requirements/comments" memos from
the Fire Marshal (5/17/83), City Engineer (5/31/83) and Chief Building Inspector
(5/31/83); May 3, 1983 letter from the applicant; site drawing; aerial photograph;
and plans date stamped May 12, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, staff
review, applicant's justification, code requirements, Planning staff comments.
If approved, one condition was suggested for Commission consideration.
Dona Ryan, the applicant, was present. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There
were no audience comments and the hearing was declared closed.
C. Giomi found appropriate findings of fact as outlined in the applicant's letter of
May 3, 1983 and in the staff report, and moved for approval of this variance. Second
C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor abstaining (the
applicant being a member of his office staff). Appeal procedures were advised.
2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AT
1452 BENITO AVENUE. BY RICHARD AND JEANINE TRUDELL
CP Monroe reviewed this request to add an attached garage within 3' of the side property
line. Reference staff report dated 6/6/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 5/17/83; "no objections/no comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (5/24/83)
and City Engineer (5/23/83); May 25, 1983 memo from the Chief Building Inspector;
May 16, 1983 letter from the applicant; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped
May 20, 1983. CP discussed details of the application and code requirements, staff
review, applicant's justification for variance, Planning staff comments. Ms. Monroe
amended her staff report, noting the house is now a three bedroom home and two covered
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1983
parking spaces would be required. Therefore, the application requires two variances.
One condition was suggested for consideration should the variance be granted.
Discussion: CBI's requirements; possibility of extending the garage to create tandem
parking; possibility of moving the garage farther from the side yard and forward,
using the same dimensions but maintaining the 5' side yard.
The applicant, Richard Trudell, was present. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing.
There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Further discussion:
applicant advised he was aware of and accepted the conditions in the CBI's 5/25/83
memo; he further advised that creating a tandem garage or moving the garage forward
to create a 5' side yard would result in loss of at least one of the two living room
windows.
C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances in that all lots in this
neighborhood are small with 3' side yards; that the variance was necessary for the
enjoyment of the property rights of the owner; that it would not be detrimental
to other property owners; and would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning
plan of the city. C. Schwalm then moved for approval of the two variances with the
following condition: (1) that the conditions in the Chief Building Inspector's memo
of May 25, 1983 be met. Second C. Giomi; motion approved unanimously on roll call
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. REVIEW OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHILD'S WAY PRESCHOOL PROGRAM AT WASHINGTON
SCHOOL, 801 HOWARD AVENUE, BY NANCI ROTH LAWSON
CP Monroe reviewed this special permit granted in 1979 and amended in 1982. Reference
staff report dated 6/6/83; September 8, 1982 Monroe letter of action; "no comments/
complaints" memos from the Fire Marshal (5/24/83), City Engineer (5/31/83) and Chief
Building Inspector (6/2/83); August 23, 1982 Planning Commission minutes; aerial
photograph; and August 7, 1979 Yost letter of action when the permit was first approved.
CP discussed city staff review of this operation based on permit conditions; no
complaints have been received. Staff recommended the permit as granted and amended
be extended with review in three years time, June 1986.
C. Cistulli moved for extension of this special permit, as granted in 1979 and amended
in 1982, with review in June, 1986. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously
on voice vote.
4. REVIEW OF 2/8/82 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DELI IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 840 STANTON ROAD,
BY BOTRUS ZAAROUR OF FERIAL'S DELI (CONTINUED FROM 5/9/83)
5. AMENDMENT OF 2/8/82 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE FRONT SETBACK
AT FERIAL'S DELI IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 840 STANTON ROAD
CP Monroe reviewed this continuation of special permit review and applicant's request
to amend his permit and allow outdoor seating at the deli. Reference staff report
dated 6/6/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment for the amendment received
5/25/83; drawing of the proposed seating and photographs of the site; applicant's
letter of May 26, 1983; letter from Haig Kilijian, property owner, dated June 1,1983;
5/23/83 memo from the Fire Marshal; "no requirements/comments/concerns" memos from the
Fire Marshal (5/31/83), City Engineer (5/31/83) and Chief Building Inspector (5/25/83);
April 11, 1983 Planning Commission minutes; April 11, 1983 staff report (Item #2) with
attachments; Commission minutes of March 14, 1983; March 14, 1983 staff report (Item #2)
with attachments; and aerial photograph of the site.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1983
CP discussed staff review which indicated all conditions of the original permit have
been met; details of the amendment request; applicant's explanation; code requirements
for landscaping. Staff suggested one condition when considering the permit review.
Botrus Zaarour, the applicant, presented a petition in favor of the outdoor seating
amendment signed by 189 of his patrons. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing on
the amendment of the special permit. There were no audience comments and the hearing
was closed.
Discussion/concerns: intended role of coffee shops/delis in the M-1 district is to
accommodate the building where the business is located and adjacent buildings; this
proposal may set a precedent in the area; total amount of seating the proposal would
provide compared to the original application which provided seating for 28 persons;
A -Board signage in the front setback; maintenance of the front setback area; property
owner is responsible for landscaping requirements.
Applicant advised the asphalt in the front setback was installed, with the permission
of the property owner, at the same time asphalt was installed at the post office next
door and that no permit was taken out for this. He further advised there are two
full time employees and one part time clean-up employee in addition to his wife on
the site, that he felt the site was being kept much cleaner now than previously
when there was no outside seating. He explained he catered some conference meetings
in offices in the area. There was a concern expressed about the asphalt and outside
seating being installed prior to city approval. A majority of the Commission wished
to retain landscaping in the front setback area.
C. Giomi moved to extend the special permit for one year with review in 1984 and with
all of the original conditions. Second C. Cistulli. Discussion on the motion:
suggest the applicant is not in compliance with conditions of the original permit
at the present time; suggest condition of extension be the requirement to remove
existing blacktop and restore landscaping. C. Giomi amended her motion (and C. Cistulli
his second) to approve extension of the special permit for one year with the condition
that the tables, chairs and asphalt be removed and landscaping be restored within 90
days, and with review at that time. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
C. Giomi then moved to deny the permit amendment for outdoor seating at Ferial's
Deli. Second C. Cistulli; amendment denied on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1476 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY, BY ALAMO RENT A CAR, INC.
CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report dated 6/6/83; Project Application
& CEQA Assessment received 4/27/83; April 29 and April 26, 1983 letters from William
B. Nesbitt, Alamo Rent A Car; legal descriptions of Parcel One and Parcel Two; letters
from the property owners: John G. O'Hara, Trustee (April 22, 1983) and W. F. McClenahan
(April 26, 1983); 5/11/83 memo from the Director of Public Works; May 24, 1983 memo
from the City Engineer; May 18, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; May 17, 1983 memo
from the Chief Building Inspector; May 23, 1983 study meeting minutes; aerial
photograph of the site; and plans date stamped May 18, 1983. CP discussed details
of the proposal; staff review; Planning staff comments; and referred to study meeting
questions as discussed in the staff report. Nine conditions were suggested for
Commission consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: grease trap conditions would be made a part of the building permit; suggest
clarification of Condition #4 to read, "that the special permit be granted only to a
project which includes both the O'Hara and McClenahan properties".
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
June 13, 1983
Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, addressed Commission. He
contended this is an excellent project which would clear up a problem property
(O'Hara property) and would be an improvement over what is on the site now. He
advised Alamo would accept the conditions staff had proposed, that they do intend to
buy the O'Hara property and would accept the condition of "no project" without both
properties. He then introduced Norman Tripp of Alamo, Paul Salisbury who prepared
the plans and Alamo's current manager at the Burlingame location.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing
was closed. Discussion: BCDC negotiations and applicant's willingness to comply with
their requirements; CP advised there would be a wall all the way around the O'Hara
property. One Commissioner referred to the city's work and land use review when
adopting the C-4 zone regulations and expressed concern about allowing this use, a
long term use since they are buying the property, which is not indicated as a permitted
or appropriate C-4 use. Further discussion: if something like this isn't allowed to
go in on the site it will remain the problem it has always been; appropriate zones
for car rental according to the code; proximity of this site to existing and proposed
hotels which will have a real need for car rentals; would provide more open space
than projects consisting of large buildings; sales tax revenue, add Condition #10,
that all lease agreements be written in the City of Burlingame. Mr. Tripp discussed
Alamo's present operation nationwide, that it was a quality operation and they were
investing for the future at the Burlingame site. Alamo does not retail autos, the
1,000 car figure is an average figure, the company has a 100 car facility in San
Francisco.
C. Giomi moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of May 24, 1983, the Fire Marshal's
memo of May 18, 1983 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of May 17, 1983 be met;
(2) that no trucks delivering cars to the site make deliveries between 7:00 A.M. and
9:00 A.M. or 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.; (3).that no more than 1,000 cars be run from
this site, that dead storage not exceed 225 cars and that the operation of this
facility be as outlined in Mr. Nesbitt's letter of April 29, 1983 with attachments
and attached plans date stamped May 18, 1983; (4) that the special permit be granted
only to a project which includes both the O'Hara and McClenahan properties; (5) that
the two metal buildings on the Bayshore Highway frontage, one on the O'Hara property
and one on the McClenahan property, be removed; (6) that access to the site be provided
only from Burlway Road; (7) that the city staff negotiate with BCDC and the developer
a resolution to the landscaping/roadway improvements on the north side of the O'Hara
property adjacent to the wildlife sanctuary; (8) that an occupancy permit for this
use not be granted until all the conditions of the use permit have been met; (9) that
compliance with the conditions of this special permit be reviewed in 18 months time
(January, 1985); and (10) that all car rental lease agreements be written in the
City of Burlingame. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote,
C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HOLIDAY INN - CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL, 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,
BY LEWIS A. ELLIS, HOLIDAY INNS, INC.
CP Monroe reviewed this request to erect signs which exceed the Sign Code limitations
for the C-4 district. Reference staff report dated 6/6/83; study meeting memo
(Item #12, 5/23/83); Sign Permit Application filed April 27, 1983; "no comments/
conditions" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (5/6/83) and Fire Marshal (5/16/83);
5/9/83 memo from the City Engineer; list of approved hotel signage in the North Bayfront
Area; list of approved signage in the Anza Area; May 23, 1983 study meeting minutes;
letter of justification dated April 27, 1983 from Lewis A. Ellis, Director of
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
June 13, 1983
Architectural Development, Holiday Inns, Inc.; aerial photograph; and plans date
stamped May 16, 1983. CP discussed details of the request and code requirements;
staff review; Planning staff review of signage in the Bayfront and Anza Areas;
study meeting requests; applicant's justification for the request. Two conditions
Were suggested for Commission consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: comparison of the requested signage with Sheraton and Amfac hotels'
signage; Sign Code requirements for freeway signage. Lewis A. Ellis, Director of
Architectural Development, Holiday Inns, Inc., addressed Commission stressing Holiday
Inns' need for identification, particularly from the freeway in order to make an exit
decision in good time. This signage is important to Holiday Inns even though the
code does not allow it. He noted the pedestrian access along the bayfront dedicated
to BCDC which, however, is not considered a street. The Burlingame Holiday Inn hotel
is one of a new Holiday Inn chain called Crowne Plaza and Mr. Ellis felt it was most
important to bring the new product identification to air travelers arriving at SFIA.
The signage request may seem excessive but the building itself is large. Photographs
were presented taken from Broadway, Peninsula overpass and in front of the new
Holiday Inn; the applicant contended the signage proposed is relatively small in
relation to the building. Elevated signage is needed for identification when
approaching the Burlingame area and street level signage is needed for identification
in the project area. Further, the letters only will be illuminated, making the signage
request fairly small when looking at the overall volume of the building.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. A resident on Easton Drive spoke in opposition;
this building will be here for many years and feel Commission should be very careful
in allowing signage far beyond the intent of the Sign Code; acknowledge Holiday Inns'
need for identification but feel people will seek out and find the Crowne Plaza
without such excessive signage. There were no further audience comments and the
public hearing was declared closed.
Discussion: it is not Holiday Inns' intent to illuminate the entire wall area,
illumination there at present is for construction safety purposes; the building itself
is a statement, intent of the Sign Code was not to advertise to airplanes landing at
SFIA (would like to see the bayside signage dropped), do not feel signage from the
freeway will be necessary with the large number of hotels in the area; this is a
first class project, a permitted use in the area, and the applicant needs this
signage to make it a success.
C. Schwalm moved that this exception to the code be allowed, and moved for approval
of all the signage, including the one facing the bayfront. Second C. Cistulli.
Discussion on the motion: concern that this excessive signage will set a precedent
in the area; difficulty in finding special circumstances to justify approval, the
building itself is its own monument; find exceptional circumstances in the signs as
proposed on all three sides, they are in proportion to the building, but would not
approve the bayside sign; have no objection, this large project needs identification,
do not believe that Burlingame's bayfront will become a San Francisco skyline, the
hotel needs visibility for prospective patrons and the placement of the building
creates a need for more signage.
C. Garcia then restated the motion, and moved that Holiday Inns, Inc. be allowed
the signage as applied for in their application, and that the conditions of the
City Engineer's memo of May 9, 1983 be met. Second C. Cistulli. C. Taylor wished
to amend the motion to delete the San Francisco Bay frontage sign. This amendment
was accepted on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli and Schwalm dissenting. The
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1983
amended motion, that Holiday Inns, Inc. be allowed the signage as applied for in
their application with deletion of the bayfront sign and with the conditions of the
City Engineer's memo of May 9, 1983, was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Recess 9:40 P.M.; reconvene 10:00 P.M.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE ADDITION IN THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE AT
340 BEACH ROAD, BY PHIL HYLAND FOR TPS AVIATION, INC.
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 1,068 SF office addition to the existing
20,000 SF office/warehouse. Reference staff report dated 6/6/83; Project Application
& CEQA Assessment received 4/26/83; "no comments" memos from the Chief Building
Inspector (5/16/83) and Fire Marshal (5/16/83); 5/9/83 memo from the City Engineer;
letter from the applicant dated April 26, 1983; May 23, 1983 study meeting minutes;
June 1, 1983 letter from the applicant enclosing his letters to attorneys for the
lessors (May 6, 1983); aerial photograph; and plans date stamped May 6, 1983.
CP discussed details of the request and alternative plans for parking/landscaping
provided by the applicant; code requirements and the need for a variance if landscaped
area is reduced; staff review; applicant's letter of explanation. One condition was
suggested should the special permit be approved.
Melvin Nishida, representing TPS Aviation, was present and explained the purpose of
the proposed improvements. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no
audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Discussion/determinations: TPS occupies the entire 20,000 SF building; a part of the
building is presently leased to a freight forwarding company which will be moving
out by July 1, 1983; TPS has 28 full time employees; present parking arrangements
and parking congestion were discussed; there is no space inside the warehouse
available for parking. Applicant advised TPS is a lessee with a lease/purchase
agreement for this property and that they have been corresponding with attorneys
for the present property owners to obtain written consent for the application;
further, it is their desire to provide more parking spaces for their employees and
remove landscaping to accomplish this. One Commissioner wished to restrict the new
office space to TPS's use.
C. Leahy moved to grant this special permit with the following conditions: -(1) that
none of the office space be subleased; and (2) that the applicant have the consent
of the property owner in writing prior to receiving a building permit. Second
C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote.
C. Taylor then moved that the application for expanded parking in accordance with
Plan 1 date stamped May 6, 1983 be rejected and that Commission deny the application
for a variance from the landscaping requirement. Second C. Giomi; motion approved
unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRESCHOOL DAY CARE PROGRAM IN THE EXISTING BUILDING AT
1505 SHERMAN AVENUE, BY TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH
CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate a preschool and kindergarten program.
Reference staff report dated 6/6/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received
4/25/83; site drawings received 4/25/83; May 16, 1983 memo from the Chief Building
Inspector; May 5, 1983 memo from the City Engineer; May 2, 1983 memo from the Fire
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Marshal; April 20, 1983 letter from the
and aerial photograph of the site. CP
applicant's explanation of the program;
suggested for Commission consideration.
Page 7
June 13, 1983
applicant; May 23, 1983 study meeting minutes;
discussed details of the proposal; staff review;
study meeting requests. Six conditions were
Richard Haderer of Trinity Lutheran Church was present. He requested consideration of
the following hours of operation: 8:45 A.M. - 11:45 A.M. and 12:30 P.M. - 3:30 P.M.
He reported his communication with the neighbors; there were many favorable responses
and no negative responses. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no
audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Discussion: CE's request that drivers for the preschool program enter from Balboa and
exit onto Sherman; details of fence construction. Applicant was in agreement with
all conditions suggested in the staff report with the exception of a slight variation
in the hours of operation. A further condition was requested by Commission: that the
requirements of the Fire Marshal's May 2, 1983 memo be met.
C. Schwalm moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions:
(1) that a preschool for children aged 2.9 to 6 years operating in two sessions
8:45 A.M. to 11:45 A.M. and 12:30 P.M. tp 3:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, each
session not to exceed 24 children, be allowed in the 1,192 square foot house on this
site; (2) that the driveway onto the property on Balboa be used as entrance only and
the driveway onto the property from Sherman Avenue be used as exit only Monday through
Friday and that these driveways be appropriately posted and the church be responsible
for enforcement of their use; (3) that handicapped access, to the standard provided
by the city adopted Uniform Building Code, be provided prior to the use of the
structure for weekday preschool purposes; (4) that the alleyways not be fenced off
until permission is secured from the City Council and appropriate locks installed;
(5) that the requirements of the Fire Marshal's May 2, 1983 memo be met; (6) that
a license to operate a preschool facility of this size on this site be obtained from
the State of California; and (7) that this application be reviewed for compliance
with the conditions and with specific attention to on -street parking and access in
June, 1984. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
10. REQUEST FOR 12 MONTH EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
MAP, THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, 1299 EL CAMINO REAL
Item dropped from the agenda.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
11. AMENDMENT OF 4/26/82 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ENCLOSE THE UNDERGROUND PARKING
GARAGE AT 1500 SHERMAN AVENUE
Requests: are all condos having difficulty with security problems?; clarification of
applicant's statement that the gate will give tenants more control, will guests be
able to communicate with residents from their cars at the gate?; how secure will the
gate be if the side of the garage is open? Item set for hearing June 27, 1983.
12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DOG GROOMING SERVICE IN SUB -AREA D AT 217 WEST LANE
Requests: notify all tenants of the building of the public hearing; how will the
possible noise impact be handled?; is there a Health Code issue because of the
proximity of the deli?; information on plans for containment of the dogs until they
are picked up. Item set for hearing June 27, 1983.
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1983
13. USE DETERMINATION - CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-2 DISTRICT AT 903 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
Requests: number of parking spaces available; diagram of California Drive indicating
locations of safe crossing for pedestrians (CE advised location is at a corner with
intersection crosswalk); notification of lessee that the sprinkler system is not up to
code. Item set for hearing June 27, 1983.
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
14. REGULATION OF SECOND UNITS IN R-1 AND MULTIPLE ZONES
Reference staff memorandum (P.C. 6/13/83) with attached City Attorney memorandum
(May 24, 1983); City Council study meeting minutes, May 11, 1983 and City Attorney
staff reports: 5/11/83 Council study, 5/2/83 Council regular meeting, 4/13/83 Council
study meeting with attachment. CP advised Council has directed staff to work with
Commission in developing an appropriate ordinance. She discussed recent State
legislation regarding second units, present city code regulations, Council's
discussions and determination, possible findings. CP requested Commission discuss
these findings and give staff direction. The need for supporting evidence of an
ordinance precluding second units was stressed.
Discussion: time line for the State requirements; staff's suggested findings are good
but need some evidence to support these findings; Burlingame is built out residentially
with more than 50% in rental and multiple units. Staff will draft an ordinance for
Commission review.
- Study Session, Ramada - This study session was set for July 11, 1983 as a part
of the regular meeting.
- CP Monroe reviewed Council action/discussion at its June 6, 1983 regular meeting
and June 8, 1983 study meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
- Copies of letters, current Sign Code violation enforcement by Planning staff.
- May 25, 1983 letter from Alexander Ilyin, 9 Bayswater Avenue to the Planning
Commission.
- Beautification Commission May 5, 1983 minutes.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary