HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.10.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 28, 1985
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, October 28, 1985 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs,
Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 15, 1985 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE AT
1204 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1
2. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE AT 1204 PALM
DRIVE WHICH CAUSES LOT COVERAGE TO EXCEED 40%
Reference staff report, 10/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request to exceed 10' plate line, to allow two structures closer
than 4' and to allow 47.2% lot coverage. She discussed details of the
request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter,
study meeting questions, revised plans submitted by the applicants
following the study meeting, Building Inspector's statement that he
was unable to determine if the garage foundation had been expanded or
when that might have occurred. Letter in opposition from Barbara
Ryall, 814 Acacia Drive (received 10/28/85) was noted; her concerns
were height of the structure and aesthetics. Two conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission/staff discussion: revised plans do not show an eave
overhang; special permit is still required, it was the addition of 3'
to the front of the garage which brought the two structures so close;
staff has been unable to confirm when the garage footprint was
increased to 16' x 191; the house is 1,625 SF on a 4,085 SF lot.
The applicants were present. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing.
John Fick, 800 Acacia Drive spoke in favor. He stated he had the same
problem as the applicants, couldn't add to his garage because of lot
coverage requirements; applicants have had problems, there was
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1985
extensive dry rot which required replacement of all exterior walls of
the house, the garage is in need of repair, according to the contractor
it will be roughly the same size as before; applicants need the storage
space and it will be used strictly for storage; he did not feel it
would be an unattractive addition to the neighborhood. There were no
comments in opposition and the public hearing was declared closed.
Commission/staff/contractor (Ara Papazian, San Mateo) discussion
followed: garage has one door and is intended for only one car;
contractor stated the foundation is the same, he did not know when it
might have been changed from 16' x 16' to 16' x 191, he found a great
deal of dry rot and had no choice but to rebuild, it is the same height
as the former garage, applicant has lived in this house for 5 to 5-1/2
years. Staff advised the height of the garage is the same, the plate
line on the revised plans shows 131. Contractor stated he did increase
the plate line some and did not realize this was a problem.
Commission comment: concern about the request for the storage loft
since this is in essence a one car garage and there is a 7' x 19' area
on the ground floor which can be used for storage. Applicant stated
they have a need for more space, they have not been able to park a car
in the garage since they moved in because they needed all that space
for storage. In response to Commissioner question the applicant
advised they were not running a business from this site. He further
commented that the plate line has always been 13', revised plans are
the correct plans, the garage height is 141.
C. Jacobs stated she was not concerned about the 4' minimum separation
between structures but could not justify the special permit to allow a
13' plate line, the garage will impact the neighborhood and there is
storage space on the ground floor of the garage as well as a 1,625 SF
house. C. Jacobs moved to deny Item 1(a), the 13' plate line and to
grant Item 1(b) approving a 3'-6" separation between the house and the
garage and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special
Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the
Chief Building Inspector's September 19, 1985 memo, the Fire Marshal's
September 18, 1985 memo and the City Engineer's October 3, 1985 memo
shall be met; and (2) that as built the garage shall comply with the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 18,
1985 except that no portion of the structure shall extend over the
property line as determined by a licensed surveyor and the plate line
shall be reduced to a maximum of 10' from grade. Second C. Giomi.
Comment on the motion: do not find this detrimental to the
neighborhood, garage was placed in its present location originally and
no one can confirm when the foundation was enlarged; closet added in
1983 caused lot coverage to be exceeded; there are other ways to handle
storage problems in a house such as adding to an attic; this addition
would greatly impact the neighborhood. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll
call vote.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
October 28, 1985
C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in this smaller
than average lot, that the variance is necessary for the preservation
of a property right of the owner, he needs 19' to accommodate present
day cars, that it would not be detrimental to the neighbors nor would
it affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Graham moved
for approval of the variance with the same conditions attached to the
special permit. Second C. Leahy.
Comment on the motion: to meet the 40% lot coverage requirement would
require a 16' x 16' garage; have not heard findings of fact to support
the variance, applicant will only have a one car garage., there is no
property loss involved, have heard no testimony to support a finding
that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
property right; neighbor's letter stated it may be detrimental to the
neighborhod. CA commented there is enough material in the staff report
and in testimony this evening (small lot, small house, the need for
storage) to defend the variance in court. A concern was expressed that
there would be only one covered parking space on site. Further
comment: causing the applicants to tear up the foundation and narrow
down to a single car garage would be creating a hardship on the
property owners.
The variance was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and
Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. In view of
Commission action this evening the CP suggested the applicants contact
her for an explanation of this action and appeal procedures.
3. AMENDMENT OF MASTER SIGN PERMIT FOR THE GASOLINE STATION AT
1000 BROADWAY, , ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 10/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request to add a 25 SF wall sign to the master sign permit. She
discussed details of the request, staff review, sign exception form
completed by the property owner's representative, Commission study
meeting questions, original master sign permit. Two conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Fred Hamann of Permit Service, Emeryville, representing Arco (property
owner), stated their intent is to provide information to the community
that this is a 24 hour operation. Staff clarified this request would
add one sign to the primary frontage and 25 SF.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: only fixed signs are included in the Master Sign
Permit, signs advertising price of gasoline are not included; there was
concern expressed about portable signs.
C. Giomi moved for approval of this amendment to the Master Sign Permit
with the two conditions listed in the staff report and Condition #3,
that sidewalk or movable signs be removed and not be included in the
master sign program. Second C. Schwalm.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1985
Comment on the motion: have a problem with one more sign for a total of
six signs on the primary frontage; the proposed "24 hours" information
could be added to any one of the existing signs; it is a convenience to
the public to be made aware of 24 hour service; site already has too
many signs, looks like a 'sign factory'. C. Giomi withdrew her motion.
C. Schwalm withdrew his second.
C. Schwalm then moved that this amendment to the Master Sign Permit be
allowed for the convenience of the public with the two conditions in
the staff report. Motion died for lack of a second.
C. Jacobs moved to deny the amendment to the Master Sign Permit.
Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ADD A POLE SIGN AT THE MOBIL GAS STATION,
1200 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 10/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request for an additional double faced pole sign which exceeds
Sign Code limits for number and amount of signs on the primary
frontage. She discussed details of the request, staff review, comments
on the Sign Exception form, study meeting questions. One condition was
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission and staff discussed the number of signs and square footage
of present and proposed signage, it appeared some of these signs were
not shown on the plans submitted. Fred Hamann, Permit Service,
Emeryville representing Mobil Oil (property owner) stated their intent
is to achieve signage along Airport Boulevard since the view of their
existing pole sign is somewhat blocked presently; the existing sign on
the Bayshore Highway side is not totally visible on Airport, they would
like the proposed sign to be considered solely for the Airport
Boulevard secondary frontage side, it would not be visible from the
freeway since a hotel would block it; they would be agreeable to a
location on the corner or farther back along that frontage. During
discussion Mr. Hamann advised a 20' high sign was preferable but a
lower monument sign would be acceptable.
Commission comment: property already has a lot of signage, building
itself identifies it as a gas station; it was determined the station is
company operated with a hired manager. Further comment: it would seem
a ground sign would be more visible to Airport Boulevard than this pole
sign high in the air; possibility of eliminating some existing signage
which could be replaced by the proposed sign.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: don't want to deny this application,
think Commission should give the applicant direction; this is another
corner with too much signage; the only direction in comment this
evening seems to be "stay within the code"; there are alternatives
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1985
to a pole sign, signage on site is not within code presently;
applicant's representative is aware of Sign Code requirements, think
Commission should act on this application tonight; do not object a
great deal to the pole sign, can understand the applicant's problem,
but do'object to the proliferation of small signs.
C. Jacobs moved to continue this item for two weeks to allow the
applicant to resubmit a signage program for the site which would
reflect Commission's direction this evening, including an accurate,
large scale plan of all signs now on the site which are to remain,
reducing the number of signs particularly the smaller ones and
reconsidering the proposed sign for maximum exposure to Airport
Boulevard. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote,
Cers Graham, Taylor and Garcia dissenting. Commission requested a
history of existing signs which have been approved.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD 965 SF OF OFFICE SPACE IN AN OFFICE/
WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT 1510 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request by Gourmet Express to convert 965 SF of warehouse to
office area. She discusssed details of the request, staff review,
Planner's memos, applicant's letter. Additional information received
from the property owner was noted: research had revealed from plans for
the sprinkler system that a substantial portion of this building was
originally intended for office use prior to our code revision requiring
a special permit for more than 20% office. Three conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: this is one building divided into a number of different
uses; applicant will use a portion of the building; CE's research of
Building files showed relocation of the sprinkler system in 1977 and
remodel to offices in 1982, it appeared the office area was created
prior to the present code. CP noted traffic generation of office use
resulted in concern and the code was amended in November, 1982 to
require a special permit for any use which increased office space of a
building to more than 20% of the gross square footage. Staff clarified
the driveway use, a shared easement and access to the parking area in
the rear.
Young Chang, Coen Company, property owner's representative, discussed
his research on the office space in this building; the latest
remodeling work was completed in 1982, an extensive upgrading in terms
of office, these plans were processed through Building Department and
City Engineer; a print dated 1963 indicated their intention to have
7,200 SF of office downstairs, that is what they now have, 46% office
was established in 1971, the upgrading in 1981-82 was basically for the
quality of the office and not an addition. Mr. Chang advised Coen
Company leases this building from the Rollins Road Co., Coen
consolidated three plants in Woodland and started moving in March at
which time they decided to sublease the vacant space. Gourmet Express,
the applicant, has a clean operation, no noise, with only five or six
regular employees. When Coen Company's manufacturing was in Burlingame
they had 20 people working in the same space, the shop area was
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
October 28, 1985
occupied by 65 people, all have been relocated. With this lessee the
traffic problems will be greatly reduced; Coen Company will keep some
space for record storage but needs to rent 14-15,000 SF, Gourmet
Express will lease 6,000 SF of this space.
Commission determined Coen Company produces industrial combustion
equipment, the company may move out of the area but at present there
are some professionals who do not want to relocate. A concern was
expressed that Coen Company may ask for more office space when leasing
the remaining vacant area.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Dave Black, Coldwell Banker,
real estate broker working with Coen Company and Gourmet Express, spoke
in favor: there are not many tenants willing to take this space as is,
there will be sufficient parking behind the building, fences which now
obstruct access from the rear parking lot to the lot on the south side
of the building will be removed, to lease more office would be a
hindrance to this building, the additional vacant space is not being
advertised for office use.
Commission asked what truck traffic would be generated by this
distribution business. Marilyn Gregory of Gourmet Express advised
there would be,three trucks, each making one trip in and one trip out
each day; two office employees would arrive at 8:30 A.M. and depart at
5:00 P.M.; receiving deliveries would be one to two per day initially.
This company stores food on the premises; they need to relocate to
larger quarters for their present office staff; 965 SF of the 6,000 SF
leased will be for office, storage and refrigeration will be in the
warehouse area. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
With the statement that he did not believe 965 SF of office would
greatly impact traffic, C. Graham moved for approval of this special
permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special
Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the
Fire Marshal's September 18, 1985 memo and the Chief Building
Inspector's September 19, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the two
parking spaces provided to meet the requirements of this proposed
additional office expansion shall be accessible to all tenants of the
building by removing fences which now obstruct access from the rear
parking lot to the lot on the south side of the building or be provided
at a location where they will be available to the majority of the
tenants; and (3) that the seven diagonal parking spaces in the western
driveway shall not be counted in the required parking for this
building. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0-1 roll call
vote, C. Giomi abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:27 P.M.; reconvene 9:35 P.M.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1985
ITEMS FOR STUDY
6. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE FROM SHOPPING
AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
7. REZONE OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE FROM
C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO R-4 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
8. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW A 110 UNIT SENIOR RESIDENTIAL
FACILITY AT 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE
Requests: number of parking spaces, number of employees; minutes of
Planning Commission and City Council for the previous project; did an
environmental document address the zoning change; will there be on-site
cooking facilities; address meal service; address number of trucks in
and out, number of service deliveries, number of trip ends for all
vehicles; will there be kitchens on each floor; is project adjacent to
an R-1 use; address fencing, exterior lighting, trash area, storage
area for residents; is there a swimming pool in the rear area; will
medical services be provided on the premises; will the large
administration office be used by others; what exercise facilities will
be available to the residents; review previous application. Items set
for hearing November 12, 1985.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT - 570 SF ADDITION - 1590 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Requests: discuss lighting and handrail on handicapped access ramp;
double check parking count. Item set for hearing November 12, 1985.
10. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE DELI AT 801 MAHLER ROAD TO
TO ALLOW EXPANSION AND ADDITION OF CUSTOMER SEATING
Requests: include map of delis in the M-1 district, business hours,
engineer's study of removal of the wall; does counter #5 block one of
the doorways; include square footage and number of seats of other
delis; clarify parking. Item set for hearing November 12, 1985.
11. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT- ROYAL RACQUET CLUB - 1718 ROLLINS
ROAD - TO ALLOW A LAP POOL ADDITION
12. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GREATER NUMBER OF COMPACT STALLS TO BE ADDED
AT 1718 ROLLINS ROAD THAN IS ALLOWED BY CODE
Requests: history of all permits on this site; depth of the lap pool;
justification for the parking variance; will the plans received this
evening eliminate the gate at the center of the pool; number of parking
spaces required on the original permit; documentation of easement
agreement; hours of operation of the pool and of the entire facility;
number of parking spaces required for the racquetball court which will
be eliminated. Item set for hearing November 12, 1985.
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1985
PLANNER REPORTS
The following past permits were reviewed and staff directed to follow
the recommendations in the various memos:
- 1645 Rollins Road, Star Excavation
- 1095 Carolan AVenue, car wash operation
- 875 Mahler Road, Insurance Systems, Inc.
- 866 Malcolm Road, GTE Sprint
Bed and Breakfast Operations in R Zones
CP and CA advised of numerous inquiries received regarding bed and
breakfast facilities. The present code does not address this use;
staff has some concern about lack of consistency in implementing
existing code and feels there is a need to establish a policy in
ordinance form. Commission comment: a use permit should be required in
any location and a parking requirement addressed. Staff will research
this matter with other cities to determine what regulations they may
have and how effective they have been.
- CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its October 21, 1985 meeting.
Commission requested a copy of the 10/21/85 City Council staff report
on Handicap Parking in Business District.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy
Secretary