Loading...
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