HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.10.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 13, 1987
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to
order by Chairman Giomi on Tuesday, October 13, 1987
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: Commissioners Garcia, H. Graham
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the September 28, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Item #5 continued to the meeting of October 26, 1987 at the request
of the applicant. Order of the agenda was then approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN 8' DIAMETER ROOFTOP SATELITE DISH ANTENNA AT 1201
BROADWAY. ZONED C-1
Reference staff report, 10/13/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of
the request, staff review, applicant's letter, planning staff site inspection which
revealed that barrier wall will be visible from across the street on Broadway going
east, and roof diagram submitted by applicant. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Gil Beyrouti, applicant, was present. He
stated there would not be any problem in meeting the suggested conditions. The
location of the dish was chosen because of the depth of the parapet wall at this
location. Towards the rear of the building the roof line rises and there is not
as much parapet wall to shield the dish from view. Some discussion ensued between
commission and staff regarding percent of roof which may be covered by structures
and the possibility of this proposal setting a precedent C.P. Monroe noted that
code allows up to 5 percent of the roof area to be covered by structures and it did
not appear that the barrier wall would be exceeding this limitation. In response
to a commissioner's question, CP. Monroe noted that besides 1440 Chapin other roof-
top dish antennas have been approved in the M-1 zoning district and some in the C-4
district. A commissioner asked if the area of the barrier wall could be made smaller.
Applicant responded he had no problem with making the.wall smaller, its only purpose
is to shield the dish from view. It was noted, however, that the dish will rotate
and reducing the area within the barrier wall would inhibit the dish's ability to
receive signals.
C. Harrison moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission
Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that as
installed, no portion of the"receive only"8' diameter satellite dish antenna shall
rise more than 7' above the surface of the roof at 1201 Broadway; (2) that the
8' wall proposed to enclose the satellite dish antenna shall be a maximum of 16'
square and shall be painted a light gray color;(3) that the satellite dish shall
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
October 13, 1987
be painted with a nonreflective paint and the nonreflective surface shall be main-
tained by the property owner; (4) that the satellite dish and enclosure wall
shall be located on the roof as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped September 2, 1987 and September 30, 1987; and (5) in-
stallation of the dish antenna and wall shall meet all the requirements of the UBC
as amended by the City of Burlingame and a building permit shall be obtained prior
to commencing installation. Second C. S. Graham; motion approved on a 5-0 roll
call vote, Cers. Garcia and H. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES AT 840 HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/13/87, with attachments. C.P Monroe reviewed 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. Christa Wallace, applicant, was present.
She stated she did not have anything to add, but would be willing to answer any
questions the Planning Commission had. Commissioners confirmed that five students
maximum every other week was as large as this business is anticipated to be.
With the statement that he had been at the site several times during the week and
,had observed no parking problem, C. Ellis moved for approval of the Special Permit
with the following conditions: (1) that the classroom use shall be limited to the
354 SF office area within the building, Suite #226, as shown on the plan submitted
to the Planning Department and date stamped September 8, 1987; (2) that the class-
room use shall be limited to a maximum of five students, three days per week, every
other week from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and (3) that this use permit shall be
reviewed for compliance with these conditions in one year (October, 1988) and two
years later (October, 1990). Second C. Harrison; motion approved on a 5-0 roll
call vote, Cers. Garcia and H. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A ONE DAY AUCTION TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT AT
THE U.S. SPRINT WAREHOUSE, 1309 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/13/87, with attachments, C P Monroe reviewed details
of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: In the area of the warehouse 10-15 parking spaces will be available
and a shuttle service will be provided to transport people to and from the S.P.
parking lot on California Drive. C E Erbacher noted that he was not aware of
the proposed 15 -space parking arrangement, and in light of available parking in
the area, he no longer had a problem with the request. In response to concerns
regarding parking, C P. Monroe noted that a condition could be added requiring
employees to park on S.P. property, thus relieving the need for 10 parking spaces
in the area.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Fred Dassler, applicant was present. He
stated that Sprint requested the auction to be held on a weekday because people
don't like to be away from their families on weekends for business activities.
Valuation of goods to be auctioned is $6 million. There will be two days of
previewing, however, very few people show up for the previewing. Pick-up of goods
will take place at the warehouse as scheduled, one at a time, in the days following
the auction; the loading dock cannot serve more than one vehicle at a time. Ware-
house at 1313 N. Carolan is unmanned, plus there is a vacant warehouse next to the
proposed site with available parking.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1987
With the statement that it would be difficult to hold a successful auction on a
weekend and feeling that Sprint had done a good job in arranging this auction,
C. S. Graham moved for approval of Special Permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the 8,000 SF warehouse at 1309 North Carolan be used only once on
Thursday, November 12, 1987 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for a public auction of
surplus telecommunications equipment owned only by U.S. Sprint; (2) that the
auction activity will be contained wholly within the 8,000 SF warehouse and
the 10 employees who staff the auction shall be required to park in the public
parking in the Southern Pacific right-of-way on California Drive for the two pre-
view days and the day of the auction; shuttle access shall be provided for these
employees on these days; and (3) that another auction shall not be held at this
location within the next calendar year. Second C. Harrison; motion approved, 5-0
roll call vote, Cers. Garcia and H. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1295 ROLLINS ROAD
Reference staff report 10/13/87, with attachments, C P Monroe reviewed details of
the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: CP Monroe explained that the warehouse part of this use is a
permitted use, and the Special Permit is required for the retail portion of the
business. CP referred to aerial and noted that all parking on Whitethorne Way is
private and must be leased from the property owner. Even though this business
may be using the parking, it does not belong to them.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. John Horak, applicant, was present. He
stated only signage on site is a small A -frame because people could not find the
business and a small cardboard sign is attached to the wall. Because the building
needs to be painted, they did not want to go to the expense of erecting a permanent
sign. N tew product sign
explained that this busin
in order for Public Works
building. Business vehic
the field during the day.
time employee does not dr
the garages in the immedi
for an unusual part, sinc
site is not designed for
activity at the warehouse
stores don't carry reques
store either because they
conveniently located for
are aispiayea insiae the store Tor aecoration. he
?ss had ceased to use up their roll -up door on Rollins Rd.
to allow a 10 minute parking green zone in front of the
les are driven home at night by employees and are out'in
The only other vehicle is that of the bookkeeper; part-
ive. Retail activity of this business is generated from
ite area. Also, they get an occasional person looking
this business carries many hard -to -find items. This
-etail sales; have retail store in San Bruno. Retail
consists of accommodation type sales, where if other
;ed item, customer may be referred to the Rollins Road
carry the item in question or because they are more
;he customer.
No vehicles are parked on Whitethorn Way. Delivery trucks pull up inside roll -up
doors on Whitethorn Way to load. Have no problem with conditions suggested except
for limitation on number of employees. Would like to be able to add employees for
wholesale part of business. CP noted that Special Permit allows commission to
review entire use, not just retail portion.
Commission Comments: Where will five and one-half people park; do not see how
limitation on retail portion of business can be imposed; am bothered by the
fact that the city would have to check this business' books in order to control
retail activity; am concerned about retail activity in this area and its effects
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
on neighboring uses.
Page 4
October 13, 1987
With the statement that he did not see how the City would be able to limit the
retail aspect of this business, C. Harrison moved to deny this Special Permit;
second C. Jacobs. Motion approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C Giomi dissent-
ing; Cers. Garcia and H. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. AMENDMENT OF PKG VARIANCE INCLUDING CHANGE OF USE AT 860 STANTON ROAD,
ZONED M-1
Continued at request of applicant to meeting of October 26, 1987.
6. AMENDMENT TO A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A RESTAURANT TO ALTER A NONCOMFORMING SIGN
AND TO ADD A SIGN AT 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD. ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 10/13/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details
of the request, staff review, planning staff site inspection which revealed that
there is an additional sign on -the south side of the building at: the top of the
stairwell,not shown on the plans submitted, and study meeting questions. It was
noted that with the additional sign total signage on site increases from the 763 SF
in the staff report to 803 SF. Five conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Discussion: history of this property; signs on north and south walls put up
without permits were probably erected some time after the Planning Commisison
review of this site's signage in 1979. Since 1977, method of measuring signage
has changed. Applicant is not proposing to change the area or wall sign facing the
freeway, as now measured, just to add another row of letters. However, because
signage is measured by its entire area versus individual lines, sign area is
greater than that approved in 1979. Phase II of Owen Bay Plaza has not been built,
so the need to review the signage on this site has not come up. Letter from
applicant dated October 5, 1987 justifying sign exception was noted as having
been received after preparation of the staff report. Signage request was summarized.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Bill Meade, applicant, was present. He
stated he would be happy to answer any questions the commission had. Regarding
the signs installed without permits at the north and south end of the building, he
commented that he did not believe there was a desire or need for these signs. If
the penalty fee required for the building permit was too great, removal of signs
would be considered. Some discussion ensued regarding how long the signs would
stay up with the Kee Joon name. It was concluded that the signs would remain for
as long as three years.
Audience comments: Bill Wong, manager of Kee Joon Jin Jiang stated that he had
worked for Kee Joon's restaurant for about three years and during that time has
received complaints from customers not able to find the restaurant. Didn't know
when signs on north and south side were put up, but feel signs are necessary in
order for restaurant to be seen.
Commission discussion: Feel everyone is familiar with Kee Joon sign, don't think
anyone would object to a change of copy to signage; however, think signs on north
and south walls are superfluous.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1987
With the comment that this is a fair signage program, as originally given to this
business, signs have been there and most people can see them. C. Jacobs moved to
approve change of copy on large wall sign facing freeway and on pole sign with.the
elimination of two wall signs erected without permits on the north and south walls
of the building and the following conditions: (1) that the two signs shall be
installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
September 1, 1987 and as described in the sign permit application dated September 1,
1987; (2) that within 60 days of when the final framing of the first of the two
additional buildings approved for the site at 577 Airport Boulevard is completed the
625 SF wall sign on the rear frontage of 433 Airport Boulevard will be removed at
the sign owner's or property owner's expense; (3) that the two signs shall be main-
tained in good working order and to safe standards by the business that installed
them or by the property owner; and (4) that the property owner is obligated that
if the restaurant use is ever ceased on the fifth floor of this building, two of
these signs, or the remaining restaurant signs on site, shall be removed from the
site within 60 days. Motion died for lack of a second.
C. Harrison moved to approve all four signs, with the conditions referenced in the
staff report amended to reflect four signs instead of three and condition number
two amended to reflect two signs instead of one. C. Ellis suggested addition of
condition that the signage on this site be reviewed in three years time for con-
formance to conditions of approval unless an application has been filed before that
time for a change of name on the signage. Motion failed on a 3-2 roll call vote;
Cers. Giomi and Jacobs dissenting.
Some discussion ensued regarding effects of the commission not taking any action on
this project this evening. C.A. Coleman advised that the project would further be
assumed denied and applicants would be forced to appeal to the City Council.
C. S. Graham moved to eliminate the two signs on the north and south walls of the
building and allow a change of copy on the wall sign facing the freeway and the
pole sign with conditions as previously amended by C. Jacobs to reflect two signs
instead of three, and addition of C. Ellis' condition for review of site in three
years time.
Some discussion ensued regarding the need to review site in three years. Second
C. Jacobs, motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers. Garcia and H. Graham
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO DETAILING TO INCLUDE WHOLESALE
AUTO SALES AND STORAGE OF THREE VEHICLES, 1405A NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1
Requests: Verify that conditions of approval are being met by Mr. Detail operation;
how many employees will there be and where will they park; where will visitors
park? Is area to be used as an existing office or store room; how many vehicles
per month to be detailed.
Item set for public hearing October 26, 1987
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
October 13, 1987
SPECIAL PERMIT - TEMPORARY PERSONNEL PLACEMENT SERVICE - 1633 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY. ZONED M-1
Requests: Verify number of visitors to site; is there testing of applicants on
site; verify number of employees,(letter stated three, application four and one-
half); where do visitors park; how many people are tested per day; what other uses
are there in the building; what is the duration of the temporary assignments.
PLANNER REPORTS
Discussion of Prohibiting Campers in Front Setbacks
Commission directed staff to add campers and boats not on wheels to ordinance.
Requested that C.A. Coleman reference vehicle code section in ordinance for
definitions.
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its October 5, 1987 regular meeting.
Mini [RNMFNT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S. Graham, Secretary