Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.05.28N CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Tuesday, May 28, 1985 at 7:33 PM. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Garcia Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the May 13, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL A 12' DIAMETER SATELLITE ANTENNA IN THE REAR YARD AT 2960 DOLORES WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this proposal: details of the request, staff review, data submitted by the applicant, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised no complaints had been received by letter from residents in the area. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicant, Ernst Mankin and Kurt Martensen of Coit Communications were present. Photographs of the site were distributed. Comment: possibility of relocating the dish; concern it will be visible to the neighborhood; hills in this area are very visible. Applicant commented new landscaping and the house itself will shield the dish from neighbors. There were no audience comments in favor. Leonard Meshover, 2953 Frontera Way spoke in opposition: his backyard overlooks the area where the dish will be placed, came to Burlingame because of its excellent schools, reputation of its police department and purchased this home in the Mills Estate which does not have exposed telephone/electrical lines; now it appears an exposed satellite dish will be intruding on the neighborhood; cable TV reception is good, difficult to justify this blight on the area; it would set a precedent. There were no further audience comments. During discussion applicant stated a 12' dish is needed to get clear reception from older satellites, cable reception is not good at this location; there is not enough space to install the dish at ground Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 level without taking up too much of the backyard, at the proposed location it will not be seen from the street, it will not be seen by the neighbor above with the swimming pool as his fence will block it; if the dish is installed too low, reception would be obstructed. Commissioner comment: proposed location seems to be one which would impact the property owner the least and his neighbors more. Chm. Giomi closed the public hearing. Further Commission discussion: applicant should look at alternative locations; the city has many hills and approval of this application will set a precedent for other property owners; the house does block the dish.from the street; it has not been demonstrated that the dish will not be seen, it will be a detriment to the neighborhood; approval of this application would be a major step, future applications for installation of satellite dishes might be different but essentially they will all be visible. C. Taylor moved that this special permit application be denied without prejudice; second C. Graham. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SIX UNITS AT 1437 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY MANOU MOVASSATE 3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW BAY WINDOWS AT THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR LEVELS OF THE PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM AT 1437 EL CAMINO REAL TO EXTEND INTO THE REOUIRED SIDE YARD AREA Reference staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed these items: details of the request, staff review, applicant's justi- fication for the variance, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: designation of parking spaces, developer must show this on the condominium map; easement shared by this site and adjacent property, distance of proposed bay windows from adjacent site; a fence would not be allowed on the easement, only on the property line. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicant, Manou Movassate, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: can find nothing exceptional in the position of the easement to justify the variance. C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances in that the easement would act as a buffer and provide adequate side yard and open space, that the bay windows would improve the appearance of the project and preserve the property rights of the owner, that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Schwalm moved to grant the variance request. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Taylor moved to deny the variance. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 C. Graham moved to approve the condominium permit with elimination of the bay windows and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of Aoril 4, 1985, the City Engineer's memo of May 8, 1985 and the Director of Parks' memo of May 21, 1985 shall be met; (2) that the project built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 15, 1985; and (3) that three parking spaces in the garage be designated for guest parking and that no security gate which restricts access to these guest parking spaces shall be installed. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Taylor dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR SIX UNITS AT 1437 EL CAMINO REAL (LOT 11, BLOCK 50. EASTON ADDITION NO. 4) Reference City Engineer's agenda memo, 5/22/85. CE Erbacher advised the map is complete subject to removal of the bay windows and the addition of the following condition: that a 4' access easement for maintenance of city facilities be granted over that subject property, adjacent to city's 4' strip of land. C. Graham moved that this map be forwarded to City Council for approval with the conditions of the City Engineer. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Taylor dissenting, C. Garcia absent. 5. TWO VARIANCES FOR A FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 620 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY MARY DUNLAP FOR ELLIS PIZZI, PROPERTY OWNER Reference staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow chimneys to project 2' into the required setback and to allow one car to back out into the right-of-way. She discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Jim Valenti, representing the applicant, was present. There were no comments in favor. Ioannis Grivakis, 1601 Ralston Avenue, owner of the apartment building next door, spoke in opposition: he expressed concern about a fire hazard with chimneys located too close to existing trees and smoke blowing into adjacent apartment; he would like to have this vacant lot developed but without the chimneys. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: feel the chimneys will add to this project; difficulty in design with this 45' wide corner lot. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this narrow lot located on a corner, that the variance was necessary for the preservation of a property right of the owner, that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance to allow chimneys to project 2' into the required setback with conditions as listed below. Second C. Graham. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 28, 1985 Responding to question from the Chair, the Fire Marshal found no problem with the chimneys and existing trees, fire safety will be reviewed with the final plans. Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Comment on the second variance: would prefer the parking stall in the rear yard not be designated "guest parking" since people unfamiliar with the area might then be backing out rather than a regular tenant. C. Taylor referenced the applicant's letter as evidence that there are exceptional circumstances applicable to this property, it is a corner lot 45' wide which limits the amount of space. Based on the applicant's justification, C. Taylor moved that the variance to allow one car to back out into the right-of-way be approved with the conditions listed below. Second C. Jacobs; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Conditions for the two variances follow: 1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's April 19, 1985, Chief Building Inspector's May 8, 1985 and City Engineer's May 8, 1985 memos be met; 2. that the project be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 9, 1985; and 3. that the final landscape and irrigation plans be submitted and approved by the Parks Department prior to issuing a buildng permit. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PRIVATE POST OFFICE SERVICE AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request for an 1,100 SF private post office with associated services. She discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was suggested this permit also be conditioned for review. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Gerald Colombi, representing United Mail Offices, discussed the proposed use; he stated it has been received enthusiastically by all cities and towns in which they are located. There were no audience comments. Commission discussed the proposal with the applicant: services offered, application has been made for state lottery retail, they will have approximately 360 mail boxes initially (small, medium and large) with facilities to add another 200, experience has shown most customers are on site no more than five minutes. Commission expressed concern about the number of services offered; applicant commented this is a service oriented Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 business, these services are handled in all their establishments; if they cannot provide them in Burlingame they would not want the permit; at other locations all services are performed with two employees; passport service involves only renewals and Polaroid photos. Chm. Giomi closed the public hearing. Further Commission discussion: this operation would use 20% of the building; it would be open 8:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. six days a week and would be accessible 24 hours a day, by key only after 6:00 P.M.; applicant would be responsible for security 24 hours a day. Concerns: so many services with only two employees; retail of lottery tickets could cause excessive traffic and parking demand; this is an extremely intensive use for the amount of square footage and for 'this property. Further comment: would like the permit conditioned for review; the use is consistent with the retail use desired for this area, customers will be short term, with only two employees the business should be self limiting; if conditioned for review in a specific time and then found to be in violation of the terms of the permit, revocation proceedings could be initiated. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that this business be limited to an area of about 1,100 SF, be open to the public with no more than two employees and the business owner on site from 8:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday; that only box holding customers will have access to the locked site 24 hours a day, seven days a week; that between 6:00 P.M. and 8:30 A.M. the site will be well lit and the business owner responsible for on-site security at all times; (2) the support uses permitted on this site will be limited to those listed in Mr. Colombi's letter of May 15, 1985 and any addition of activities or services will require an amendment to this use permit; (3) that any signage to be placed on this site will require a sign permit from the Planning Department of the City of Burlingame; (4) that an application be made for a building permit and all landlord improvements affecting this tenant's area including partition walls and bathroom be completed before issuing a building permit for tenant improvements to this leased area; and (5) that this special permit be reviewed in one year after tenant improvements are completed and finalized by the Building Department. . Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MORE THAN 20% OFFICE SPACE AND AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DHL COURIER SERVICE AT 865 HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments and letter in opposition (May 22, 1985) from Herman Christensen, Jr., owner of adjacent property. CP Monroe reviewed this item: details of the Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 request (office addition and amendment of DHL's special permit), staff review, DHL Courier letter (8/31/84), study meeting questions and letter in reply from the applicant, letter from Herman Christensen (5/22/85), staff's assumptions about sufficient on-site parking and concern about more intensive use of the site in future. Two conditions were suggested for consideration of the office addition, four - conditions for amendment of DHL's use permit. Comment: this application was made by the property owner; amendment of DHL's use permit was required because the character of the operation has changed from the original permit conditions. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. George Avanessian, architect representing the property owner, stated they are in agreement with staff's suggested conditions. His comments: of 48 employees, nine are located next door, only 37 employees park on the 865 Hinckley premises; the addition of office space will enhance the present structure; presently 1500 SF of the warehouse space is used for clean storage and was counted as office space; DHL needs expanded warehouse space and there is a need to add office area so they can take over some of the clean rooms; do not believe the addition of 10 DHL vans will upset traffic circulation in the area; regarding Mr. Christensen's complaint about 865 Hinckley employees parking in his excess parking spaces, the applicant was not aware of this and has received no formal complaint. Discussion/determinations: there is only one tenant (DHL) at 865 Hinckley; DHL is renting office space next door (staff comment: this would not affect the use permit which was for the courier portion of their business); DHL's parcels are stored in the clean rooms of the warehouse; this is not their central office, there are other branches; can find no request by the property owner in his application for an amendment to DHL's special permit; staff advised DHL did receive a copy of the staff report and were aware they were on tonight's agenda; DHL does need more office space since some of their offices are now used for parcel storage; it appears the accessory use is the primary use, would like to have a DHL representative present; concern about office space being used for storage space, if DHL moved out it could be used for office. Applicant advised the DHL lease will terminate in March, 1986. Mr. Avanessian advised if DHL leaves the owner is willing to remove all clean storage and turn it back into warehouse. Staff noted the property owner is obligated to let the city know when DHL leaves. Any new owner would be aware since resolutions approving special permits with conditions are now recorded in the official records of the county. The percentage of office space at present is less than 20%, with the addition it would be 38%. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comment: have no problem allowing amendment of the special permit but increasing office space could create problems, the city is concerned about parking/traffic impacts in this area; this is Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 essentially a zoning change, will increase the traffic impact; if DHL wants a change in their use permit they should be here requesting it; there is no evidence that this is being requested for DHL's benefit. C. Schwalm moved that both items be continued to the meeting of June 10, 1985. Second C. Jacobs; motion failed on a 3-3 roll call_vote, Cers Leahy, Taylor and Giomi dissenting, C. Garcia absent. C. Leahy moved that the application for more than 20% office space be denied. Second C. Taylor. Reasons given for this motion: it would be a change in zoning in the area and would adversely impact traffic patterns. Roll call vote on the motion was 3-2-1, Cers'Graham and Schwalm dissenting, C. Jacobs abstaining, C. Garcia absent. Commission rules require four affirmative votes to pass a motion. This motion therefore was denied. Since no subsequent motion was made the application was denied as a matter of law. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Graham moved to table DHL's special permit amendment. Second C. Schwalm. In comment on the motion CA suggested this item be continued to the June 10 meeting to give DHL an opportunity to present materials to staff and appear before the Commission. C. Graham withdrew his motion; C. Schwalm withdrew his second. C. Graham then moved to continue the amendment of DHL's special use permit to the meeting of June 10, 1985. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. CA advised that the appeal period on the office addition action would not commence until action has been taken on the special permit amendment. 9. VARIANCE FROM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR A SUBDIVISION AT 1480-1510 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY ROLLINS ROAD COMPANY 8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS AT 1480-1510 ROLLINS ROAD (PARCEL C, VOL. 52, PARCEL MAPS) Reference City Planner's staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments; City Engineer's agenda memo, 5/22/85 and 5/24/85 letter from Lage E. Andersen, attorney representing the Rollins Road Company. CP reviewed the variance: details of the present request, previous actions on these properties, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letter, planning staff comment. Four conditions were suggested for consideration of the variance. CE reviewed the resubdivision request: previous actions on these sites, storm flow protection, fire safety, the city's current creek study as it affects the applicant. Four conditions were suggested in the agenda memo and three additional conditions were suggested by the CE during his presentation. Discussion: are city's requirements for storm flow protection essential or merely desirable; CE stated the berm requirement is essential; CA advised these required improvements are legal. Commission questioned why this property owner should be subject to such excessive requirements; the city's creek study and funding of improvements were discussed. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Secy. Leahy acknowledged receipt of May 24, 1985 letter from Lage Andersen, attorney representing the applicant. Mr. Andersen was present and addressed Commission: applicant wishes to subdivide these two parcels in order to sell one of them; the creek improvements required by the city are excessive, would cost over $100,000 and would serve more than just the needs of the property involved. He contended there is no case under the government code relating to dedication, no new public needs are being created as a result of this subdivision; the whole area should be taken into account, not the imposition of excessive requirements on one landowner when there are many others who will benefit from the improvements. These requirements exceed what the city did in its own project on Easton Creek two years ago, city should not require more improvement than it does on its own public works projects; an assessment district should be formed to include all landowners; would object to the add-on conditions of the CE this evening particularly the access easements. Howard Hickey, Civil Engineer, discussed the area which would be affected if the creek flooded, probably 100 property owners, 200-300 acres of property. He commented this drainage facility is serving all those upereek, all the way to I280; it is a major drainage facility. Mr. Andersen stated his client is willing to contribute to an assessment district after the city's creek study has been completed; the subdivision is necessary now. Responding to Commission question, the attorney agreed these improvements would protect the applicant's properties, they would not necessarily increase the value of the property. As to whether these properties would benefit more, it would depend upon the type of flood, flooding will not be confined to the Rollins Road Company property only. Applicant's contribution should be a pro rata share based on those properties similarly affected. CE stated the city is concerned with safety aspects and the general plan addresses this, identifying and reviewing dike levels in the area; city is trying to protect others who might be buying property. Young Chang, Coen Company, presented photograhs of the existing landscaping. His comments: they have always felt landscaping pleases their employees and visitors, existing landscaping may not meet the code requirement of 10% but they are one of few along Rollins who provide this amenity; regarding City Planner's suggestion that the four parking stalls in front of 1480-92 be relocated, from the beginning they had intended to use this front part for driveway/parking (thus the 25' setback), the city has pointed out the importance of parking spaces along Rollins Road. Regarding additional landscaping at the rear, this was created for outdoor storage as well as parking, question who would see landscaping there as the area is surrounded by walls. Concerning 1510 Rollins and putting landscaping.along the David Road frontage, this area is 100 yards away from the office center, access to the office is from Rollins Road, question if this would benefit employees or customers. Mr. Chang did not feel the landscaping suggestions of the City Planner were practical; customers need the parking space in front of 1480-92, otherwise they would have to park in the rear and walk to the offices in front. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 Temple Voorheis, general partner in Rollins Road Company and chairman of the tenant, Coen Company commented on the land shown on the map between the creek and David Road which is under PG&E wires, used for parking; all buildings back up to this area, no one goes out there. Cleaning up the dirt fill is a sensible suggestion; David Road has no traffic, would get no credit for any improvements along David, it is 100 yards from the main building. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: can find no justification for granting the variance from landscape requirements; have a problem with assessing one landowner to upgrade one facility which benefits everyone upstream, all would be affected by flood waters; feel the 1480-92 property should have more landscaping, just because it has always been this way does not make it appropriate; think Commission should take staff's recommendations in this matter; find it unreasonable to ask the applicant to absorb the costs of protecting the surrounding area. C. Jacobs found that allowing a 1.2% variance from the required 10% landscaping would not be detrimental to the area. C. Jacobs moved for approval of a 1.2% variance from landscape requirements (8.8% required) for the property at 1480-92 Rollins Road and to require the full 10% landscaping on the property at 1510 Rollins Road with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of April 26, 1985 be met; (2) that it be noted on the face of the parcel map for 1510 Rollins Road that 14,327 SF of landscaping shall be provided on the site, a minimum of 6,506 SF in the front setback area and the remainder at the rear of the site or along David Road and that the required landscaping be installed within 30 days of the filing of the map and maintained by the property owner; (3) that 4,550 SF of landscaping be provided and maintained on site (including 640 SF in the right-of-way) at 1480-92 Rollins Road, 3,125 SF at the front of the building along Rollins Road and the remainder at the rear within the parking area; and (4) should the property at 1480-92 Rollins Road ever be redeveloped or the structure added onto, the full on-site landscaping requirement of the city must be met. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Jacobs moved that the tentative and final parcel map for resubdivision of 1480-1510 Rollins Road be recommended to City Council for approval with all the City Engineer's suggested conditions. Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: cannot vote for this motion, the conditions are not fair to this applicant until after the city's creek study is completed and a possible assessment district created; will vote for the motion, what the applicant is being asked to do will benefit and protect his property. C. Taylor moved to amend the motion to delete Conditions 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (Conditions 2 and 4 to remain). Second C. Leahy; amendment to the motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Schwalm and Giomi dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 A vote was then taken on the original motion. Following roll call the motion failed on a 3-3 vote, Cers Graham, Leahy and Taylor dissenting, C. Garcia absent. C. Taylor moved to recommend to City Council this tentative and final parcel map for resubdivision subject to the following conditions: (1) a temporary berm, meeting the City Engineer's approval, shall be installed along all portions of the site that is adjacent to the creek bank or which contains the creek. This shall also include the headwalls of the culvert. This shall be established by no later than October 15, 1985; (2) prior to October 15, 1985 the drainage easement, extending from Mills Creek to David Road, shall be cleared of all debris and earthfill that has been placed without permit. This shall be bonded and covered by a separate agreement prior to parcel map recordation; and (3) the recommended fire safety concerns as indicated in the Fire Marshal's memo of April 26, 1985 be met. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Giomi dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Staff will forward this recommendation to City Council. 10. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE MARRIOTT HOTEL, 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments; applicant's letters: May 8 and 21, 1985. CP Monroe reviewed this item: details of the proposal, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letters and justification for the request, Planning staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP commented that staff does not consider a pedestrian pathway nor an airport landing pattern to be a public right-of-way as it has been defined in the past. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. David Ivester, attorney reprsenting the applicant, discussed the issue of frontage; it was his contention that the legally dedicated public right-of-way along the bayside portion of the site constitutes a frontage on that side of the hotel, it extends from the water to the door of the hotel, from one end of the site to the other, it connects at each end to the sidewalk. He further contented that no distinction is made in the code between a pedestrian/bicycle right-of-way and a vehicular right-of-way; he did not believe the ordinance was designed to limit secondary frontage to vehicular rights-of-way; there is public access parking within the 100' shoreline band of BCDC's jurisdiction, this is on the east frontage, probably east and north frontages can be seen from those parking spaces. It becomes a practical question: if there are going to be people on the shoreline right-of-way the type of signage reasonable under the circumstances must be considered. David Babbidge, Marriott's director of marketing, commented that the sign on the bay side would be aesthetically pleasing; identification of the hotel is critical, Marriott is appealing to a different business mix than their competitors; 60-70% of Marriott's business will be Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 directly related to airport traffic, they want to identify themselves to those people, Marriott advertises heavily in airplane magazines. He was concerned about competition in the future and stated Marriott needs identification, particularly to airport travelers, to be successful and a benefit to the city. There were no audience comments. Discussion followed: applicant is proposing signage on the primary frontage (Bayshore Highway), the secondary frontage facing the parking lot to the north and is also requesting Commission establish the south parapet wall as secondary frontage and the east (bay) parapet wall as secondary frontages. Marriott's representative stated he believed a bayside sign would have impact on Marriott's success and again stressed their need to identify to those flying into SFIA. Commission comment: seems signage would get more exposure on the other side of the building than trying to reach people flying in; when directly in front of Sign A (on the bay side) one would have to look far up or stand in the bay to see the sign because of the stepped back architecture of the building; it seems evident the signage proposal is directed to airport traffic. Chm. Giomi closed the public hearing. One Commissioner commented Sign A is a modest and pleasing sign and very important to Marriott; another commented it is an illegal sign by the present sign code. C. Graham moved for approval of Sign B2, parapet sign over 48' above established grade and Sign B1, establishing the south parapet wall as frontage and allowing a sign 48' above established grade; and for deletion of Sign A (on the bay side). He found special circumstances exist to grant the sign exceptions for Signs B1 and B2: the height of the building and the need for identification to establish a viable hotel on this site. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Schwalm dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 11:45 P.M; reconvene 11:50 P.M. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE RETAIL SALE OF REPAIR PARTS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A REPAIR SERVICE AT 1722 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. Reference staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. She noted study meeting questions were addressed in the staff report. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: CP advised limitations of conditions #2 and #3 would be verified on a complaint basis; it was suggested a condition be added for review. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Tom Perez, representing the applicant, was present. He told Commission this proposal was similar to that in Redwood City but much smaller; signage would be the same size and in the same location as Hoover, the previous tenant. Concerning part time employees, Sears would start with 15 taking service calls and others in the evening selling maintenance agreements Page 12 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 by telephone; part time people work 28-30 hours per week; the operation would not be open on Sundays. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: this use is similar to the previous tenant but more intensive; concern about increase in traffic and impact on the intersections; appears Hoover had more walk-in traffic but basically the use is similar. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions in the Fire Marshal's April 18, 1985 and the City Engineer's May 7, 1985 memos be met; (2) that the business to be operated on site be limited to repair/service facility with retail sales of parts and accessories from the site directly to customers visiting the site not to exceed 20% of the gross annual receipts, the number of employees on site be limited to 25 full time and 30 part time between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. and five full time and 35 part time after 5:00 P.M. and before 8:00 A.M., and 10 on-site parking spaces shall be designated for customer parking; (3) that at least 25% of the employees on any shift shall arrive at work and depart from work by carpool or public transit; (4) no more than 25 service vehicles will be operated from and stored on site and parking lot fencing may be allowed as shown on the diagram dated May 17, 1985; and in no case may access to the joint access easement be blocked by fencing or parked cars; and (5) that this permit be reviewed in 12 months time following opening of the business. Second C. Graham. Commissioner comment: will vote no because of the location and traffic impact. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Taylor dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING OFFICE ADDITION TO REMAIN AT 1728 GILBRETH ROAD WHERE TOTAL OFFICE AREA EXCEEDS 20% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA, ZONED M-1, BY ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY 13. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ABOVE Reference staff report, 5/28/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, Planning staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: suggest a condition be added for review of this application; 1,400 SF of partitioned storage area is completely finished and could be easily converted to office use; if the parking variance were denied the applicant would have to remove 280 SF of office and 1,400 SF of enclosed storage area. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Gene Warren, Anning-Johnson Company, was present. His comments: the majority of the office and storage space in question was added at the time of major remodeling Page 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 in early 1979, only three small storage rooms were added in 1980; total building is now sprinklered and an alarm system installed; Anning-Johnson has no intention of further expansion, their lease requires that they leave the site in a condition which meets current code;,there has never been a parking problem, they have parked on both sides and in the rear; they are in the process of moving all heavy materials stored in the rear yard. He further advised they applied for building permits for all work done except for recently added storerooms on the first and second floors about 28 SF each; on-site employees vary from 17 to 19, field men from 150 to 350 who do not come into the office; 3 to 4 foremen a day come to the office before 7:00 A.M. Employees are now parking on both sides of the building and on the street. Staff advised under today's parking standards the spaces on the sides of the building would not be legal. Applicant stated his records show all work was done prior to 1980 with a building permit except for two small rooms; he confirmed when Anning-Johnson vacates the site office space will be reduced to conform with the code. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission concern was expressed about traffic impacts in the area. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit to allow 280 SF of additional office space and 1,400 SF of enclosed storage area and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the four conditions listed in the staff report. Reasons given in support of the motion: majority of improvements were made with a building permit in 1979 which was prior to the code amendment limiting office area in the M-1 district. Second C. Schwalm; motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Jacobs and Taylor dissenting, C. Garcia absent. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit to allow 280 SF of additional office space and 1,400 SF of enclosed storage area with removal of the two small storage areas added subsequent to 1979 without benefit of a building permit (500-600 SF) and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the number of employees working on site shall be limited to 19 (two of which are part time) and no more than two company trucks shall be parked in the on-site parking; (2) that all materials stored in the rear required parking area shall be removed within 30 days and the area cleaned up and pavement striped for 15 parking stalls dimensioned to current city standards and approved by the City Engineer; (3) that a building permit be applied for and received for the 280 SF of office and the 1,400 SF of enclosed storage area; and (4) that the requirements of the Fire Marshal's April 18, 1985 memo shall be met. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Taylor dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in that this building has not changed substantially since 1979 and the storage area added without a building permit will be removed. C. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the four conditions listed above and a fifth condition as follows: (5) that the area in the rear not be Page 14 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1985 used for outdoor storage. Second C. Schwalm; motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Leahy and Taylor dissenting, C. Garcia absent. C. Taylor moved to reconsider the parking variance. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Based on previous findings, C. Taylor moved to approve a parking variance to allow an office addition to remain which does not provide the amount of on-site parking required for all floor areas. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Leahy dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEMS FOR STUDY 14. SPECIAL PERMIT - EXERCISE AND FITNESS CLASSES - 1208 DONNELLY Requests: list of typical day's activities; will classes be scheduled or drop-in; precedent set by other classes in the general area, compare numbers, etc. Set for hearing June 10, 1985. 15. MASTER SIGN PERMIT - 840 MAHLER ROAD Request: clarify number of signs. Set for hearing June 10, 1985. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - FERIAL'S DELI - 840 STANTON ROAD Requests: what tables and chairs will be used, from inside or fixed outside, will this increase number of seats used by the deli; information on existing signage; site plan showing exactly what is being asked for. Set for hearing June 10, 1985. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - DELI OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC - 1730 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: clarification on number of meals per day, how will the operation change as a result of this request; when permit was granted in 1978 was there an assumption of parking requirement for the deli, what was original parking requirement; detailed layout of available parking; number of memberships in the club; details on advertising used for the deli, what signage will be used. Set for hearing June 10, 1985. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed Council actions at its May 20, 1985 regular meeting. - Review of allowed number of maneuvers to access or exit a parking space (CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1985). ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 1:05 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary