Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.03.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, March 10, 1986 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: Planner Helen Williams, City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman, City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the February 24, 1986 meeting were approved unanimously with the following correction: Item #3, page 5, 4th paragraph, insert prior to motion, "Commenting this is a suitable area for this type of business and with the understanding all cars will be stored inside," C. Jacobs moved . . . AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO ADD A 418 SF SECOND FLOOR STORAGE AREA OVER THE EXIS'T'ING GARAGE AT 1238-40 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 3/10/86, with attachments. Planner Williams reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, study meeting concerns. Two conditions as listed in the staff report were suggested for consideration at the public hearing and a possible third condition that the second story area over the garage be used only for storage. Discussion: existing units are approximately 1,166 and 1,631 SF, house size relates to amount of storage needed; concern the only drawings received appear to be free hand drawings by the applicants. Howard and Phyllis Hoops, applicants, were present. Their comments: they will have the final building plans prepared by a professional; the garage roof and structure inside must be repaired, it was their hope to get the most for their money with this proposal; height will remain the same. Letters in support were presented from the following residents: Joanne Bogan, 1250 Oak Grove Avenue; Sau F. Chin, 701 Neuchatel Avenue; Sara and Thomas Armstrong, 711 Neuchatel Avenue. By removing the outside stairs the garage will be 9' from the existing duplex, garage height will be 2-3' lower than the duplex; two washers and dryers Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1986 are located in the structure now; there is no gas and no hot water heater in the garage, only electricity and drainage; drainage will be worked out with the City Engineer. The applicants felt parking in the area would be improved, a previous tenant had used the garage for storage; they would be willing to certify the storage area would never be used for habitable area and file this certification with the assessor's office; each washer and dryer is metered to each unit in the duplex. The applicant's presented a paper model of their proposal. Responding to Commissioner questions, applicants advised the driveway runs the entire length of the property, there is no hot water heater in the garage, many years ago the house was a single family dwelling, the front has since been converted to a unit and the rear unit added. A Commissioner suggested storage units might be built over the roofs of the cars, protruding from the back wall of the garage a few feet, applicants felt more storage space would be needed than this would provide. Further Commission/applicant discussion: applicants confirmed garage will have hot and cold running water, electricity and sewer lines, no gas. Planner stated because the proposal is for a flat roof, plate line and roof height are one and the same; therefore, plate line would change from present height. Storage area ceiling height of 8' was discussed, applicant said 7' or 7-1/2' would be acceptable. Commission noted staff report comment on the possibility of lowering building height; applicants felt a 6' ceiling height would not be acceptable for taller people. Applicants confirmed existing height is 17'-6", plate line will be 17'-6". It was pointed out affirmative action on this application would be taken by resolution which would be recorded with the County. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: concern about the ease with which this structure could be used as an illegal dwelling unit, particularly by subsequent owners; can understand the storage problem, but believe there are other methods of providing storage, it could be done over roofs of the cars or a storage loft with lesser ceiling height; with conversion of a single family dwelling to two units the need for storage is understandable, they are sizable units, think there are other alternatives, better utilization of the loft space once rebuilt might provide adequate storage, feel this proposal will be an eyesore in the area; plans have not been drawn with an understanding of the limitations established by the code, a professional designer might have produced a project meeting Commission's concerns; applicants have made the investment and worked to improve this property but it is the Commission's duty to protect the general interest, think the proposed squared off garage will look like another dwelling unit and feel approval would set a precedent for others, there are other ways to Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1986 meet the storage requirements; this is a lot of bulk for an R-2 lot, would prefer to see a less bulky garage. C. Giomi moved for denial of these special permits. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS (THREE PROPOSED, TWO ALLOWED) AT 1512 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M -1 - Reference staff report, 3/10/86, with attachments. Planner Williams reviewed details of the request, existing signage on the site, staff review, applicant's justification, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Norm Weil, representing Gourmet Express, applicant was present. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found that the two signs already on the property were not excessively large; that there were special circumstances applicable to this property in that the city has for many years asked for landscaping in the M-1 zone, this building has provided landscaping and the existing vegetation limits location of signage; and that this would not be a grant of special privilege since the business needs identification on the site. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the applicant apply for and receive an encroachment permit before installing the sign; and (2) that the 40 SF double faced sign be installed as shown on the plans received by the Planning Department and dated February 5, 1986. Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: this is a food distribution business, wholesale only, food is not prepared or sold on site; if a business is allowed on a certain site it needs a sign, but this sign appears much larger than the others, would like to amend the motion to restrict size of this sign to the larger of the two existing signs; further discussion determined the proposed sign is only a few inches larger than the existing signs and request to amend the motion was withdrawn. Further comment: there are three tenants now and the property owner has stated the building is fully leased; a new tenant would need signage which again would be reviewed by the Commission; one Commissioner felt the building should have a sign program approved by Commission. Motion to approve the sign exception passed on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR HEIGHT, NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE FOR THE IBIS HOTEL, 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 3/10/86, with attachments. Planner Williams reviewed details of the request, difference between this proposal and the previous application which was denied without prejudice, sign Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1986 exceptions required, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff clarified changes from the previous application in this sign program request. Christian Frere, applicant, was present. His comments: This is a European hotel chain with no strong sales offices in this country, expect to draw clients for the This Burlingame from Europe and the Middle East and it will be difficult for these visitors to find a hotel when they do not know the area, This is concerned about visibility of the hotel for these people; Signs A and C have been reduced; since there were no comments against Sign B at the previous meeting it has not been changed; total square footage has been reduced to 477 SF; sign facing the freeway would be blocked by Days Inn unless it is placed at the height requested; sign facing north will not be visible to anyone in the City of Burlingame; neighboring hotels have been allowed 1,100 plus square feet. Commission comment/discussion: an admirable revised sign program; concern about Sign E which has been enlarged and raised, applicant advised this was for visibility and noted the issue of the curve in the street; would sign facing the freeway need to be so tall to be seen above Days Inn?; letters were reduced only on Signs A and C. Applicant felt reducing Sign B to make it consistent with Signs A and C would affect visibility from the freeway; Sign C will be visible from the northbound freeway, Sign A visible from the airport. When the extension to Anza Boulevard is completed Sign F (ground sign) will be relocated west, Signs F and E must meet sight line criteria of the City Engineer. Further discussion: would prefer reduction of monument sign (it would be better looking without the poles) and modification of Sign B to develop a consistent and more aesthetic sign program; applicant stated his program was similar to signage acceptable for Crowne Plaza and in accordance with Commission comments at the previous meeting; when the extension of Anza Boulevard is completed the temporary driveway on Anza will be removed, believe many people will come from Anza when it is in place, applicant will probably need another sign lower down; CE stated there will be a northbound off -ramp and northbound on-ramp. Additional comment: approve of Sign B, there will be a need for it in the future, Sign A with reduction is hardly visible from the airport, was in favor of eliminating Sign A previously since it faces the bay; Sign A does not face a right-of-way, only the control tower at the airport; think Sign A is necessary for motorists on Airport Boulevard, applicant commented at night it is the only identification they will have; objected to Sign A in the first application but with these plans am convinced Sign A is needed. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Paul Salisbury, project manager, United Suites Development Corporation asked for clarification of signage facing the bay; he was told this is Sign A, parapet sign, Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1986 which does give visibility to motorists coming up Airport Boulevard. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi found there were special circumstances in the placement of this property and the fact that the roadway curves, they need visibility, Anza Boulevard will be open and they will need signage for directional purposes; this sign program would not be a grant of special privilege, it is not out of character with other sign exceptions granted in the area. C. Taylor found granting of this application would not be inconsistent with Commission's treatment of other sign applications in the area nor is it inconsistent with any limitations Commission has placed on other applicants in the area; the district where the hotel is located has special needs. C. Giomi moved for approval of the sign exceptions for this sign program with the following conditions: (1) that the placement of Sign E and relocated Sign F shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall address visual obstructions to bicyclists, pedestrians, automobiles and service trucks; (2) that the signs with the proposed sizes in the sign permit application dated February 26, 1986 shall be installed at the locations shown in the plans date stamped January 29, 1986 (as amended by Condition #3) except as revisions are required for ground signs by the City Engineer; and (3) that Sign B shall be modified to be consistent with Signs A and C (19' x 3'-3", 84' high) in view of the need for additional signage following the opening of Anza Boulevard in the future. Second C. Taylor. Comment on the motion: applicant did a fine job responding to Commission concerns at the previous meeting, Sign B is on the primary frontage and don't think it should be reduced, will vote against the motion; agree, and will vote no; in favor of Signs B and C as requested by the applicant, if there is a desire to reduce total square footage would suggest elimination of Sign A. Motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Graham and Schwalm dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:05 P.M.; reconvene 9:15 P.M. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT, NUMBER AND PERMITTED SIZE OF SIGNS AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 3/10/86, with attachments. Planner Williams reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's justification for the exceptions, study meeting requests. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Paul Salisbury, project manager, United Suites Development Corporation (applicant) was present. His comments: feel statement under 'staff review', page 1 of the staff report is misleading, if only hotel signs are compared then Embassy Suites is comparing itself with the Crowne Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1986 Plaza and Days Inn and the difference in size of signs is not that significant. Mr. Salisbury then amended the application to remove Sign B from the request, this would result in a reduction of total square footage from 771 SF to 587 SF, it would also eliminate the largest lettering they were requesting. He contended that 3'-3" letters on the This Hotel site might be readable from the freeway but Embassy Suites is almost twice as far from the freeway and their request for 4' letters is not unreasonable. Sign D'is intended for motorists coming from the airport, exiting at Broadway overpass and coming along Airport Boulevard, otherwise it is difficult to find Anza Boulevard. The proposed size of letters is dictated by the company :logo, sign is not extremely large and is just barely readable from the freeway. Commission/applicant comment: appreciate the drawings to scale and elimination of Sign B; signs will be internally lit; Sign A, the pole sign, is required to direct people to the front of the hotel past the first parking area as they -turn onto Anza Boulevard, 20' height is necessary to see the sign over the parked cars; Sign A can be seen from Airport Boulevard. One Commissioner felt it would be better to reduce the height of Sign A to the lowest possible. Planner clarified primary frontage as determined by staff (revised application, two signs facing Anza Boulevard and Airport Boulevard), the secondary frontage has one sign on the north facing the airport; with the elimination of Sign B a sign exception is not required for number of signs on the primary frontage. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With findings that this request is consistent with signage Commission has approved in the past for hotels in this area, C. Graham moved for approval of the sign exceptions and sign program with the following conditions: (1) that the sign program as installed shall conform to the sign permit application as corrected by staff (date stamped January 30, 1986) and all signs shall be placed on the building or at grade at the locations shown in the plans date stamped February 18, 1986 as amended by the elevations submitted March 4, 1986 (as amended by Commission, March 10, 1986, Condition #2); and (2) that Sign B be deleted from this application, sign exception for number of signs on the primary frontage no longer required. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioner statement: applicant's cooperation in asking for what is reasonable and acceptable is appreciated. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - 660 SF GARAGE/SHOP AREA - 1511 VANCOUVER AVENUE Requests: confirm lot size; clarify meaning of "restoration fund" on plans; will this be all new structure or addition to existing; what type of auto work does applicant do; are grease traps needed. Item set for hearing March 24, 1986. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1986 6. SIGN EXCEPTION - GROUND SIGN - 1609 TROUSDALE DRIVE Request: include sign plans in next packet. Item set for hearing March 24, 1986. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT - SPORTS THERAPY CLINIC - 1545 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: is applicant increasing his volume of business at this new location; how will he handle parking if business increases as estimated in five years time; comparison of this proposal with previous permit; treatment areas seem excessively large, comment on this; can 15 parking spaces be marked for the clinic; other tenants of the building; are therapy workers and assistants licensed. Item set for hearing March 24, 1986. 8. PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD Comment: Commission might want to review data on parking requirements for other athletic clubs; CA stated such review would not apply to this action. Item set for hearing March 24, 1986. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Zoning Aide memo, 1508 Adeline, Adeline Market Permit Review. - Draft EIR, Sequoias of Burlingame. PLANNER REPORT - Planner Williams reported Council action (March 3, 1986) following review of Special Permit for third floor office area, 3 California Drive. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary