Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.06.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, June 22, 1987 at 7:31 P.M. i_7•TAAWS&'sad Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, H. Graham (arrived 7:50 P.M.), S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Giomi Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Ed Williams, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the June 8, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEM FOR ACTION 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES AT 1044-1060 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1 With the following statement C. S.Graham abstained from discussion and action: "The law firm I work for represents the City of Burlingame in litigation brought by Mr. Harvey against the city. To avoid any hint of impropriety or conflict of interest, I will abstain from discussion and action on this item." Reference staff report, 6/22/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed previous action by Commission and Council on this special permit; there were no staff comments on the requested extension. C. Jacobs moved for a one year extension of this special permit to July 7, 1988 with all previous conditions. Second C. Ellis. In comment on the motion access to Whitethorn Way was discussed. Motion approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, C. S.Graham abstaining, C. H.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING GARAGE CAUSING TOTAL AREA TO EXCEED 500 SF AT 1525 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/22/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, letter in opposition from Florence Cole, 1524 Vancouver Avenue (June 17, 1987), Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 22, 1987 study meeting questions and applicant's subsequent letter. On-site parking provided would meet the standards for a larger house. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The Chair determined from the Fire Marshal that one hour fire wall construction is required just for the new portion of the structure. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Sandra Aguirre, applicant, was present. Responding to Commission questions, she advised the brickwork facade is only an inch or so larger than the garage, she wished to extend back 27'-6" instead of 26' because she would like to have as much space as possible and cannot use the remaining rear yard, she has stayed 1'-3" from property line to make it more acceptable to neighbors, one car can be parked in the garage now, there are no plans to add cabinets to the rear portion of the garage, she could possibly get two cars in the garage if present storage were removed. In noting letter in opposition from Florence Cole, staff commented this letter addressed other additions and abuses of garages in the neighborhood. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement the addition will make the garage more usable for number of cars for some future family, it does give the applicant storage, there is an easement and therefore the structure is separated from adjacent property, it will not be detrimental, applicant has shown concern in keeping with the architecture of her property, 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 of the Chief Building Inspector's May 13, 1987 memo and City Engineer's June 1, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that the garage extension shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 11, 1987; and (3) that the resulting 522.5 SF oversized garage shall not have any utilities extended to it except electricity and shall never be used for residential purposes. Second C. S.Graham. In comment on the motion it was noted the width of the garage still would not meet code requirements but would be much closer than it is now. Motion was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. C. H. Graham arrived at 7:50 P.M. 3. PARKING VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING ONE CAR GARAGE FOR A NEW FOUR BEDROOM HOUSE AT 736 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/22/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, code requirements for variance approval. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Steve Warden, applicant, presented a letter in support signed by 20 neighbors on Acacia Drive. His comments: two years ago he replaced the old garage on this site, Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1987 if he had known of the problem he would have asked for the variance at that time, his wife operates a state licensed day care facility out of the house, the present arrangement gives more space for these children and their bikes, present garage will accommodate two cars, it is now used to store his boat. Responding to Commission questions, he stated he bought the property approximately two months ago from his mother, he has lived there for eight years, the original garage was replaced because it was in poor repair, there is lawn between the deck and the house, deck has been there for approximately four to five years. Commissioner comment: it would improve the value of this property if garage were to code standards. Applicant felt the present arrangement has made the backyard more useful to them. A Commissioner commented on the difficulty of finding hardship to grant the variance. Applicant stated the right side of the garage is on property line, if he were required to extend the garage the roof line of the garage would not be symmetrical, from an aesthetic standpoint it would not be pleasing; the garage is now visible from the street and would be with the new house; if required to remove 2' from the deck the stairs of the deck would no longer be centered; the present arrangement provides the day care children a place to ride their bikes, continuing in a circle; when he built the garage he had expected to remodel the existing house but recently after getting estimates he found it would be possible to rebuild completely. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: do not feel a finding of hardship has been supported, there will be a completely new house and garage on the site, this site would allow extension of the garage, it could be built to be symmetrical, deck could be relocated to retain area for the children; a house of this size will not be as valuable ultimately with only a one car garage, it will be a detriment to the property itself. For the reasons stated in the previous comments, C. Jacobs moved for denial of this parking variance; second C. H.Graham. Chm. Giomi allowed further comment from the applicant. In support of his request Mr. Warden noted none of the neighbors on the block have objected, he is trying to improve his quality of life and the quality of life in the city, down the street from him someone has been allowed to substantially increase the size of his house without adding parking, he is only asking for fair treatment or treatment equal to what a neighbor is receiving. Commission commented: what is going on down the street is irrelevant, the common good is the city's policy, approval could have a ripple effect with more applications received for a new house with parking variance, in this case the garage can be enlarged and built to conform to code, whenever possible this has been Commission's policy rather than granting a variance. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1987 4. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A RACQUETBALL CLUB TO INCREASE THE EXPANSION OF FLOOR AREA BY 300 SF, BY PRIME TIME ATHLETIC CLUB, 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/22/87, with attachments. The Chair determined applicant was not present at this time and the item would be heard following discussion of automobile dealership signage under Planner Reports. At 9:45 P.M. applicant was not present, public hearing was held. CP referred to her staff report, noted plans received from the applicant on June 10, 1987 (as required at the June 8 study meeting) and review of these plans by city staff with Arthur Michael, applicant, on June 16, 1987. This review resulted in two lists of requirements which have been incorporated in the suggested conditions of approval for this special permit amendment. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Jacobs stated she would vote no as she had in November, 1986 because this is an intensification of use. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment for expansion of floor area by 300 SF and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit Amendment with the following conditions: 1. that no further construction on the new addition ( 3,800 SF) shall occur until the following items have been completed and final inspection completed by the Burlingame Building and Fire Departments: a. the extension of the fire rated corridor from the entrance of the building to the deli as shown on Sheet 4-3 (city dated plans March 20, 1987) shall be completed; b. the door from the deli kitchen into the rated corridor needs to be replaced with a one hour fire rated door, a fuseable link door is acceptable; C. because the original building with the addition is larger than 7,500 SF and would require fire sprinkling throughout, the new addition is being added as a separate structure. To achieve this structural separation a two hour area separation wall and one and one-half hour rated door assembly needs to be built in the existing corridor at the base of the stairs to the deli and existing lobby as shown in detail 2A3 on Sheet A-3 of the plans city dated March 20, 1987; d. the two first floor bathrooms need to be redesigned to be handicapped accessible; e. signs need to be posted every 50' on the property line fence adjacent to the fire lane and patrons actively discouraged Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 22, 1987 by management from using this area for parking. Within 10 days of resurfacing the parking lot, the asphalt shall be marked for fire lane as required by the Public Works Department. No occupancy permit shall be given to the addition building until the fire lanes are properly signed and posted; 2. that no construction on the new addition shall commence until the revisions to the plans for the addition listed below have been made, approved by the Building Department, and an amendment with appropriate fees paid made: a. stairs from second to first floor on rear wall of new addition shall be retained and designed to code; b. the windows in the block wall between the exterior wall and existing weight room shall be removed creating a one hour separation; C. the windows in the second floor office in the existing portion of the building which open into the existing second floor corridor used as the required exit from the weight room shall be removed creating the required one hour separation; d. the wall between the existing and new weight rooms shall be opened 50% (151) to establish a continuous opening as measured from one side of the inside of the opening to the other; e. exit signs to code standards shall be placed on the entrance to the existing weight room, at the end of the hallway to the new weight room and on each side of the opening in the wall between the existing and new weight rooms; f. the new corridor or hallway adjacent to the existing weight room and cantilevered over the parking at grade shall be left open at both ends; g. detail shall be shown on the plans of the second floor corridor to demonstrate how the cantilevered area is to be tied into the block wall and main structure and floor of the building without interfering with the size or use of the parking stalls below; h. the exit from the rear stairs at the first floor shall have a landing and walkway to the parking lot area. The minimum drop to the landing/walkway from the door sill shall be 1/2 inch. Lights shall be placed over the exit door and on the walkway to the parking lot as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and the Fire Department; and 3. that all construction completing the first floor improvements, new addition, repaving of the parking lot and signing on the asphalt of the fire lane shall be completed, finally inspected the Building and Engineering Departments and occupancy permit granted in one year's time (June, 1988) or the use permit for new addition shall become void. the by the Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1987 Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved on a 5-1-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. S.Graham absent (excused at 9:15 P.M.). Appeal procedures were advised. 5. THREE VARIANCES - 1225 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-3 CP Monroe requested an indefinite continuance of this item; when it comes back Planning staff will renotice. C. Jacobs moved, C. S.Graham seconded a motion to table this item. Motion was approved unanimously on voice vote. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD A 480 SF GARAGE TO AN EXISTING 169 SF WORKSHOP - 309 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: would it be possible to join the two structures; percent lot coverage; question CE's memo regarding sewer and water, it appears there is a washer and dryer in the workshop; will use of the workshop be an incidental use; plans indicate water but not sewer, ensure there is a sewer connection; is elevation of floor of the proposed garage the same as elevation of the existing workshop; where is door into the workshop now; during what hours does applicant use the workshop. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1987. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION - 60 VICTORIA STATION PLACE, ZONED C-4 Requests: why is parapet being added besides providing location for the sign; what is located behind the parapet; if mechanical enclosure is located behind parapet where was mechanical equipment relocated from. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1987. PLANNER REPORTS Revocation of Use Permits and Variances Reference CA's staff report, 6/22/87, and Draft Ordinance Revising Procedures for Revocation, Suspension or Modification of Use Permits or Variances. CP Monroe reviewed this report proposing new procedures for dealing with revocation of use permits and variances. There was a concern expressed that the appropriate parties be notified. CA advised written notice by certified mail would go to the current permittee and property owner as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, return receipt would be requested. C. S.Graham moved that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council adoption of this proposed ordinance. Seconded by C. H.Graham, approved unanimously on voice vote. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1987 Automobile Dealership Signage (During this discussion C. S.Graham was excused and left the meeting at 9:15 P.M.) CP Monroe discussed previous Commission discussion, issues involved, alternatives proposed. In addition to a clear definition of auto row and allowable signage staff requested direction on several other items: signs painted on windows, pennants, banners, balloons in the auto row area; roof signs and sky signs; freeway oriented signage. Commission discussion followed: freeway oriented signage, total allowable signage, additional square footage for franchises; the fact the city has been very generous with signage in the past, seems applicants still come back for more sign exceptions; perhaps the only way to regulate would be to not grant sign exceptions; just because many sign exception requests have been received doesn't mean the code is wrong; it would seem if almost 100% of auto row signage is over the sign code limits now something must be wrong; intention should be to satisfy any auto dealer no matter how many franchises he has, five years ago there were not that many with more than one franchise; Commission could have a new outlook on auto row signage by attempting to help auto dealers with a revision to the code; the city has been too permissive, think we should stay with the present sign code. Should there be a difference between the auto row areas, this should be looked into; franchises are a real issue now; have been surprised at the number of sign exceptions granted for auto row, would like regulation Commission could be comfortable with, perhaps just a small change is necessary; suggestions of H.Graham in the table are close to today's reality of signage in the auto row areas; would like to keep the present ordinance but do agree there is a difference between California Drive and Rollins Road as far as pole sign height is concerned, don't agree an additional franchise should be allowed 500 SF; 1,500 SF for three franchises seems a lot of signage. Staff noted one of the flaws in the existing ordinance is that when the second auto row was created the sign code was not adjusted correspondingly, there have been requests for massive exceptions because a site was in the M-1 zone. Further Commission comment: could live with the suggestion of 50% of 500 SF for a second franchise and 50% of that figure for a third franchise, etc. an arithmetic regression; it's reasonable to have signs from a businessman's point of view but most people know where the cars are when they go out to buy one, if 500 SF is allowed people will be asking for 650 SF; many of the dealers have too much signage, permanent signs can be well done, painted signs on windows gives a tacky look; a carnival atmosphere seems to sell cars; suggest being restrictive in square footage and number of signs per site and per dealership and keep the window signs, pennants and banners down. Recess 9:05 P.M., reconvene 9:15 P.M. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1987 Following the recess Commission formulated the following recommendation to be included in a revision of the sign code for their review: allow 500 SF total signage per site for the first franchise, 100 SF additional per additional franchise to be divided as the dealer sees fit. Further recommendations: allow one pole sign per site, 20' maximum height for the Broadway/Carolan/California area and 30' maximum height for the Rollins Road area; use existing code for wall signs; maximum number of signs for entire site - five; lighting - allow all forms. C. H. Graham reviewed the June 10, 1987 City Council study meeting. CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 15, 1987 regular meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENT June 15, 1987 letter from Mr. and Mrs. James Hubbard, 1560 Westmoor Road (with additional signatures: Mr. and Mrs. Roger Allison, 1556 Eastmoor Road; Marjorie N. Cavanaugh, 1560 Eastmoor Road; Eleanore and Jim Rosenbledt, 1108 Rosedale Avenue; Edith Petrini, 1141 Rosedale Avenue). ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham, Secretary