HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.05.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 11, 1987
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, May 11, 1987 at 7:30 P.M.
R OT.T. r A T.T.
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy
Absent: Commissioner Garcia
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe, City Engineer Frank
Erbacher, Fire Marshal Ken Musso
MINUTES - The minutes of the April 27, 1987 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
C. Jacobs thanked Chm. Giomi for her guidance the past year and
nominated her as Chairman for a second year, seconded by C. H.Graham,
nominations were closed. Nannette Giomi was elected Chairman
unanimously.
C. H.Graham nominated Ruth Jacobs for Vice Chairman, seconded by C.
S.Graham, nominations were closed. Ruth Jacobs was elected Vice
Chairman unanimously. C. Jacobs nominated Harry Graham for secretary,
seconded by C. Leahy, nominations were closed. Harry Graham was
elected secretary unanimously.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE FOR ON-SITE PARKING AND LOT COVERAGE FOR AN ADDITION TO
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1137 HAMILTON LANE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/11/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letter. One condition was suggested for consideration at
the public hearing.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Robert Fiorito, applicant,
discussed his need to expand since he has two children and only a two
bedroom home. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
It was pointed out the plans were misnumbered as to bedrooms, there is
no fourth bedroom, applicant is adding a third bedroom only.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987
C. H.Graham noted maximum lot coverage is exceeded only a minimal
amount; he found there were exceptional circumstances in that it would
be impossible to add a second parking space without reducing the floor
plan which would be a hardship upon the applicant; that the variances
were necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right
of the owner considering the size of his family and the small house;
that it would not be detrimental to the public or injurious to other
property owners in the area, no neighbors have complained; and it would
not affect the zoning plan of the city, the site would remain R-1. C.
H.Graham moved for approval of the two variances with the following
condition: (1) that the project as built should conform to the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 24, 1987.
Second C. S.Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW NUMBER OF SIGNS TO EXCEED THAT PERMITTED BY
CODE AND TO ALLOW A POLE SIGN AT 1100 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1
Reference staff report, 5/11/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. Two
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Picture of the pole with proposed signage was distributed. Responding
to a question, CP advised signs which indicate type of gas, service,
etc. are not counted in signage square footage.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Jeff Adams, Designers Collective
Incorporated, representing the applicant, clarified they were
requesting a 20' pole sign, not 15'-4"; they were agreeable to the
suggested conditions; they would prefer to pursue the alternative in
the CE's memo of May 5, 1987 (install the sign as originally proposed
with removal and relocation at a later date) rather than install the
pole sign at this time to meet all code requirements based on proposed
new property lines at the corner; they felt that once the street is
widened the station may cease operation. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
During Commission discussion it was determined if the conditions of the
CE's May 5, 1987 memo are included in approval any property owner would
be required to meet them.
C. Jacobs found approval would not be a grant of special privilege, the
sign program is within the allowed square footage, it is not
inconsistent with signage of other stations in the area. C. Jacobs
moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions:
(1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's November 24,
1986 memo and the City Engineer's May 5, 1987 memo shall be met; and
(2) that the signs as described in the sign permit application shall be
installed as shown on the site plan dated December 4, 1986 with the
adjustment to the pole sign placement as required by the City
Engineer. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote,
C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987
3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - DRY CLEANING SERVICE - 1883 EL
CAMINO REAL - ZONED C-1
Item continued to the May 26 1987 meeting (reference May 3, 1987
letter, Howard R. Hill, Holiday Cleaners).
4. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A SPECIALTY GROCERY STORE TO ALLOW
TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE AT 346 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA B
Reference staff report, 5/11/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions and applicant's response. CP advised all Fire Department
requirements must be met prior to any cooking on site. Four conditions
were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letters in
opposition were noted from: Oscar Reyn, a tenant in the building
(April 27, 1987) and Don Sabatini, owner of property on both sides of
this building (May 11, 1987).
Determinations: this property is in escrow, it has not closed; when
originally approved in February, 1987 use of the kitchen was allowed;
it was staff's suggestion that take-out be allowed only until 9:00
P.M.; there are several take-out businesses in the area; this site
could not be a restaurant because it cannot meet the parking
requirements.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Parham Noori Esfandiari,
applicant, was present. He stated he has not been preparing food on
site since the Fire Department required him to stop until all
regulations were met; he had met all conditions of the original permit;
he has a long term lease for this space; he would not object to
limitation of take-out hours to 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.; he understood
any change in the operation of his business would require amendment of
the special permit. There were no audience comments in favor.
Speaking in opposition, Oscar Reyn, real estate broker and tenant of
this building: applicant has three year lease and contract does not
call for take-out food; building has no sprinkler system; property
owner will be obligated to take care of garbage, this is not fair to a
new owner; he and others are negotiating with the estate to purchase
the property, escrow should close in about a month. Applicant stated
he thought it would take longer than one month before the property is
sold; regarding walk-in customers, Nate's across the street will
attract people many of whom will walk; his present business is
lunchtime walk-in trade. There were no further audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
Responding to Commission question, Ken Musso, Fire Marshal, stated the
basement of this building is sprinklered, none of the floors above are
sprinklered; cooking is done on the first floor; Fire Department made
site inspection and found serious code violations which must be
rectified before applicant can continue cooking.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987
Commission/staff discussion: at the time of original approval Fire
Department had no comments (a site inspection was made subsequently),
at that time the Building Inspector and County Health Inspector both
listed corrections that were needed; Fire Marshal commented they had no
problem with the use but the Fire Code must be met.
Commission concerns/comments: parking problems in the area; the fact
that applicant failed to meet Fire Code requirements and started
cooking on site, if there was a misunderstanding there was ample
opportunity to ask city personnel to come out and check the site;
applicant is entitled to what he is asking for, the same problems will
continue until the city changes the situation, it is a small operation;
a jump from grocery to take-out is a big jump, it would be a small jump
after that from take-out to restaurant; applicant is asking for a more
intense use without compliance with the initial conditions, reluctant
to grant increased usage under these circumstances.
With the statement the original permit was for a small grocery, this
proposal would be an intensity of use, other restaurants in the area
were there before this use, the area is a major concern, applicant can
still have his grocery business if he complies with code, C. Jacobs
moved for denial of the special permit amendment for expansion. Second
C. S.Graham.
Comment on the motion: doubt if this would be a more intense use than
the bar which was there three years ago, if there is objection think
the city should study the whole area; bar was not open early in the
morning. Motion to deny was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C.
H.Graham dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO BODY AND AUTO REPAIR SERVICE
AT 1305 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 5/11/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing. CE advised the easement at the rear has been
studied and is considered adequate by staff, Building and Fire Code
requirements regarding exiting need to be addressed.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Ray Cook, applicant and Steve
Horn, representing the property owner were present. Mr. Cook stated he
has been in this business for 30 years, many of them in Burlingame; he
is familiar with city requirements and finds nothing he cannot comply
with; he was in favor of upgrading the rear entrance and had no
objections to staff's requirements. Mr. Horn stated the property owner
and the two immediate neighbors were in favor of this request. There
were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commending the applicant on his application and noting he has a good
record in Burlingame, C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987
permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special
Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the
City Engineer's April 13, 1987 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's
April 20, 1987 memo and the Fire Marshal's April 16, 1987 memo shall be
met; (2) that the on-site parking visible from the street shall be used
only from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. daily, no cars to be worked on shall
be stored in this area, and that all employees shall park inside the
building; (3) that all requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and
Uniform Building Code regarding this business shall be met prior to
occupancy; and (4) that this use permit shall be reviewed in one year
(May, 1988) and each two years thereafter. Second C. Leahy. Motion
approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures
were advised.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL OPERATION - 856 MITTEN ROAD
Continued at request of applicant.
7. REVIEW OF LIGHTING PLAN FOR PUTNAM-MAZDA DEALERSHIP,
3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D
Reference staff report, 5/11/87, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed
Commission's previous review of the lighting situation on this site and
its requirements to be included in the final lighting plan as well as
architect's subsequent letter and plans addressing items of concern.
Staff has determined a fence exception is not required for the fence to
be placed on the existing railing of the parking deck. The submitted
plans did not address timing of the lights; subsequently a letter was
received (May 5, 1987 from Marty Putnam) regarding timing. CP
discussed staff review, architect's meeting with neighbors which
resolved the privacy and lighting problems, complaint by another
neighbor concerning light from the service area which has also been
resolved. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Commission noted redwood slat fence had been changed to aluminum slats;
staff believed this material had been discussed with the concerned
apartment dwellers.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Joe Putnam, property owner and
George Avanessian, architect were present. Mr. Putnam requested
illumination on California Drive be allowed until 11:00 P.M. He
commented they had met personally with the neighbors and discussed
their concerns, agreement had been reached to use aluminum slats
rather than redwood slats for the fence, aluminum will provide a
tighter weave and will be an off-white/beige color, nonreflective.
Commission complimented applicants on their cooperation with neighbors
and effort to resolve the concerns.
Mr. Avanessian noted a possible delay in receipt of the fence in view
of having to cancel the order twice due to length of the city review
process, if it is not now in stock it could take longer than 30 days to
install the fence (condition #4); they also requested lights be
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987
allowed on until 10:00 P.M. on the deck and until 11:00 P.M. on
California Drive. He explained the reason lights on California could
not be tilted until the fence is constructed was because of their
desire to use necessary equipment once for both jobs. It was suggested
they be allowed 60 days to install the fence.
Lee Correy, 16 Highland Avenue, commented the conditions generally
agree with neighbors' discussions with the architect. She was assured
the security lights which would be on all night would be no problem,
they are located on the lower decks almost below ground. She felt the
delay in installing the fence was understandable and the neighbors did
not object to aluminum slats. There were no further audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
C. H.Graham moved for approval of the lighting plan as submitted with
the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Inspector's March 16, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that within 30 days
shades shall be installed on the two light fixtures closest to the
apartment building on the parking deck; (3) that within 60 days the
light fixtures on the poles along California Drive shall be tilted so
that the direct light stays on the 3 California Drive site; (4) that
within 60 days a building permit shall be received and a 4' high chain
link fence with aluminum slats shall be placed on top of the 3.5'
existing solid railing along the rear 96' of the parking deck and this
fence shall be maintained by the property owner at 3 California Drive;
(5) that within 10 days the lights shall be placed seven days a week on
the following schedule: all lights on the parking deck shall be turned
off at 10:00 P.M., all lights illuminating the car sales area fronting
on California Drive (pole mounted and wall mounted) shall be turned off
by 11:00 P.M. or earlier if there are no customers on site, the wall
lights on Peninsula Avenue shall be kept on from dusk to dawn and there
shall be no other exterior lights on the site; there shall be four
security lights illuminating the lower parking deck all night; (6) that
any change to any aspect of this lighting plan shall require
application to the Planning Department and amendment to this plan; and
(7) that this plan shall be reviewed for compliance with all of its
conditions in 60 days, in six months and every 18 months thereafter.
Second C. Leahy. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote,
C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. The Chair thanked
all parties concerned for working together to resolve their
differences.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987
ITEMS FOR STUDY
8. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING PRIVATE SCHOOL
AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, 2109 BROADWAY
Requests: has this school reached the limits allowed in the original
permit; number of employees at True Learning Center. Item set for
public hearing on Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT - GARAGE ADDITION - 926 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
Requests: ceiling height in storage area; does applicant meet side and
front setback requirements; why is he asking for this height; clarify
City Engineer's comments; utilities/other uses in the garage. Item set
for public hearing Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
10. PARKING VARIANCE - 723 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
Requests: letter from applicant addressing variance requirements; when
could Commissioners visit the site; is there any parking assigned to
this site; history of previous uses on the site and in the building; is
the landowner trust a recent estate. Item set for public hearing
Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
11. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1440 COLUMBUS AVENUE
Requests: average lot size in that neighborhood; is there a proposal
for improvements accompanying the map. Item set for public hearing
Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 45 EL CAMINO REAL
Request: when was this approved for apartment development. Item set for
public hearing Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
PLANNER REPORTS
C. Mike Ellis reviewed Council actions at its May 4, 1987 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary