Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.11.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1988 CALL TO ORDE A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, November 28, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the November 14, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDOMINIUM MAP, 615/617 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Requests: include guidelines for water conservation in the packet; clarify storage area for each unit; will garage gate be operable manually in case of power failure; include condition requiring final inspection be completed and certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; request developer prepare a maintenance book which would indicate useful life of items such as roof, carpets, etc., can this be required as a condition of approval. Item set for public hearing December 12, 1988. 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING, 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Requests: availability of parking in the neighborhood; is the elevator a UBC requirement; is handicapped parking required; justification for the variances; clarification of stall #6 by City Engineer; permitted uses in this area; reason for the large light well between first and second floors. Item set for public hearing December 12, 1988 if complete information is available. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 28, 1988 3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT OF SIGNS, NUMBER OF SIGNS AND SIGN AREA - 1070 BROADWAY, $ONED M-1 Requests: compare height of signs on building to others in the city, are they needed on all four sides; comparison of this signage to other dealers in the area, what was allowed; orientation of the 20' pole sign; has staff received any response from the auto dealers following discussion a year ago on signage for auto dealerships; clarify CE's comments; applicant's justification for the sign exception; some of the signs are quite long, could these be made shorter; comparison of wall signs in the area, hotel, auto and others, with regard to height, size and illumination; what is the wattage of these signs; why is Sign A designated on the primary frontage. Item set for public hearing December 12, 1988 if complete information is available. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTOMOBILE PAINTING AND BODY REPAIR AT 55 STAR WAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: will all cars be kept inside; where will employees park; uses and number of people employed in the businesses on each side of this operation; number of parking spaces in front of this business; is the business operating now, how long at 55 Star Way; why so few cars being repaired per month. Item set for public hearing December 12, 1988. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE - 50/60/70 STAR WAY ZONED M-1 Requests: uses and number of people employed in the businesses on each side of this operation; number of parking spaces in front of this business; better letter addressing justification for the variance; are cars parked inside, how is parking allocated on site; how long has applicant been operating in 60 Star Way; employees are instructed to park across the railroad tracks, how and where do they cross the tracks, do they park in city lot; how does applicant intend to advertise; difference between the wholesale use and this retail use; auto repair businesses in the M-1 zone in that general area. Item set for public hearing December 12, 1988 pending completion of the requested information. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE TO ALLOW EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 1290 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 11/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 28, 1988 to a Commissioner question, CP explained CBI's and FM's memos were not included in the conditions of approval because their fire wall requirements will have to be met at the building permit stage. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Loretta Armenta, applicant, was present. She noted it is extremely inconvenient to park a car in the garage and that is why they are asking for 3' more in length; applicant asked about the CE's requirement for a property line survey since they are only asking to lengthen the garage at this time, the existing walls will not be widened. In discussion CE stated with extension of the existing wall he would not require a property line survey. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in that the garage is now too small to park a car, the property is not as valuable without usable covered parking and applicant's property rights will be damaged if the variance is not granted since others have adequate parking, the variance will not affect the zoning nor be injurious to the neighbors since there will be no addition to the dwelling units. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that conditions #2 and #3 of the City Engineer's memo of November 14, 1988 shall be met; and (2) that the garage shall be expanded by 3' as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 15, 1988 and that the additional lot coverage shall not exceed 61 SF. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS AT 1249 VANCOUVER AVENUE Reference staff report, 11/28/88, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed details of the request; Engineering, Planning and Fire Department staff review; review and action by the Town of Hillsborough; subdivision code criteria, study meeting questions. Fourteen conditions of approval were recommended. Commission/staff discussed Fire Department requirement for an interior sprinkler system and noncombustible roof; relocated driveway location; a change to Condition #2 to read 1120 m.p.h. advisory speed limit sign to be posted . . . ", this was agreeable to Hillsborough; 8' wall inside property line of adjacent property; Hillsborough will take care of their condition #2 regarding access. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Charles Kavanagh, Civil Engineer, was present and advised he has looked at the conditions and expected no problem in meeting all of them; the driveway will be located well beyond the brick wall along Armsby. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 28, 1988 Ken Musso, 227 La Prenda, Millbrae, was present representing the property owners, John and Theresa Colombo. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: this lot is too small for Hillsborough and quite large for the neighborhood, have no objection to the proposal. Staff advised any new construction on Parcel G would be regulated by the new Declining Height Envelope ordinance automatically. C. Giomi found this proposal is compatible with surrounding Burlingame sites, a lot of effort has been expended by Burlingame and Hillsborough in addressing the requirements and concerns of both cities. C. Giomi moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval with the following conditions: 1. The driveway access to Armsby shall be limited to a 15, maximum width driveway located at least 10' toward Jackling from the center of the proposed lot or for Parcel G. Design to meet both Hillsborough's and Burlingame's City Engineer requirements. 2. 20 m.p.h. advisory speed limit sign to be posted at northbound of Armsby Drive to meet sight distance standard. 3. Driveway exiting to Armsby shall have a grade not steeper than 5% for at least eight feet (8') behind the curb line. Retaining walls and grading need to be designed to keep sight distances for exiting vehicle as large as possible. 4. All trees on Armsby and in Hillsborough property (Lot A) shall be trimmed by owners regularly under Hillsborough guidance to provide clear sight distances from the ground to six feet (61) clear. 5. Two lamps shall be installed at the driveway entrance to provide adequate lighting. 6. Subdivider to install a 5' wide asphalt concrete walk area adjacent to Armsby Drive improvements to the satisfaction of the Town of Hillsborough; 7. All sewer, water, storm drainage and cable T.V. access shall go to or be off Vancouver Avenue. 8. The existing sewer lateral to 1249 Vancouver shall be tested and repaired or replaced in accordance with City Ordinance No. 1329. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 28, 1988 9. All curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting Vancouver Avenue shall be replaced as required by the Public Works Department. 10. All utility services to the two parcels shall be installed underground without any additional pole sets. 11. All improvement plans to be prepared by the applicant's engineer and to the approval of the City Engineer. 12. Any new house on Parcel G to be protected by a sprinkler system that meets NFC 13-D Standard and by noncombustible roofing. 13. All required construction as conditioned above or shown as required drainage or utilities to each parcel shall be completed prior to the filing of the final map or the subdivider shall submit a complete engineer's estimate of the cost and enter into an agreement with the City of Burlingame to install al such improvements within one (1) year of map filing or prior to issuance of a Building Permit on any created parcel. 14. This map to be considered as both the Tentative and Final Parcel Map, and staff will see that the proper Final Map is recorded. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Staff will forward to City Council. 8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO MERGE TWO ADJOINING PARCELS INTO ONE PARCEL AT 12091 1221 HOWARD AVENUE Reference City Engineer's staff report dated November 16, 1988 with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed details of the request, a simple merging of two parcels required by the conditions of Planning Commission and City Council when approving a parking variance in 1987; any development must follow normal zoning requirements and processing procedures. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. D.R. Patel, India Club, Inc., applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Garcia moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting (since she did not vote for the original application). Staff will forward to City Council. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 28, 1988 9. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ORIENTAL RUG AND ANTIQUE SHOP AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, 11/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, findings necessary to grant a special permit, study meeting questions, signage on this building and master signage program granted in June, 1988. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: what can be done to get property owner or his agent to conform to the master signage program, not contact with the property owner but with the sublessee of this building, the alternative is legal action; enforcement problems with this building, all tenants have put up signs without a sign permit or building permit, master signage program has never been implemented, should have been by end of July; existing signage is the responsibility of the business tenant, the master signage program is the responsibility of the property owner and his agents. Applicant is already using Suite 5 on the basis of prior Commission approval, concern about causing applicant major problems in using Suite 5 because of the sign problem for the entire building. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Iraj Shayesteh of Galleria De Farsh (applicant) was present. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Shayesteh stated they have been using Suite 5 since 1987, they got a use permit last year (staff advised the permit for use of Suite 5 required removal of the wall between the two suites which was not done); they do not use large signs permanently, only temporary signs for sales, for the past two months they have had no signs at all. CP discussed code definition and regulation of temporary signs. Applicant and Commission reviewed his use of Suite 5 and number of employees, he uses as many as three temporary employees for a sale or on weekends. A Commissioner noted when she visited the site they were using both suites and had a minimum of five employees. It was determined the original use permit was approved for only two employees including the business owner. Commissioner comment: have a problem with limiting number of employees of a business, many things can happen with inadequate help; regarding advertising signs, have a problem going after one merchant when there are so many other stores in the city in violation of the code. This building was allowed with a parking variance and there has been blatant abuse of the sign code; this was a new building, a special permit was required for each tenant so the city could regulate operations at this key corner, a tenant can always ask for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 November 28, 1988 an amendment to increase number of employees; a master signage program was granted, applicant has blatantly disregarded the conditions and privileges of his permit and the required sign permits, the city has had an immense enforcement problem. CP discussed code regulations for temporary window signs. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: this building has been finaled, but applicant will need a building permit to remove the wall between the two suites; concern about the appearance of signage on the building, the master signage program and the city's requirements have been totally ignored, proposed Condition #1 requiring signage compliance precede issuance of a building permit to remove the wall would help meet the city's requirements; concern about the number of employees, parking on Broadway is worse than on Burlingame Avenue; could not agree to approve this request, if applicant is denied this permit amendment it should force him to contact the sublessee of the building and get him to meet the regulations of the code and conditions of permits granted. Applicant advised the wall was not removed last year because they had hoped to take over the whole building, this did not work out. Following further discussion it was determined the applicant's maximum number of employees would be three full time and three part time, he has too much inventory to move it all into Suite 6, he has no business elsewhere. Singe the wall was not removed for reasons of expansion and not because applicant merely didn't do it, and because of events since, think it would be harmful to go after the property owner or his agent through this applicant. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit Amendment with the five conditions in the staff report and with a change to Condition #3 increasing number of employees to three full time and three part time. He found any business of this floor area at this location would have about the same number of employees and the number was about the same when the two sites were operated as independent businesses. Motion was seconded reluctantly by C. Harrison with the comment this is the only handle Commission has on the overall signage of this building, applicant has heard the comments this evening and knows how Commission feels about signage and use permit in the past being ignored. Further Commission comment: applicant is part of the problem, he was aware he had more than two employees and he was aware of signage problems; applicant may have had carpets hanging next to the windows, as far as signs in his windows are concerned he has had more than allowed but less than other tenants, his windows probably have been the cleanest of the five; don't think Commission is going after the applicant specifically, just trying to get Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 28, 1988 enforcement and compliance, the applicant wishes to have the use of Suite 5 and understands the parameters of the sign code. Staff advised nothing could be done about rugs on the railing if fire access is maintained, that walkway is not part of the public sidewalk. Motion to approve failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Garcia, S.Graham and Jacobs dissenting. C. S.Graham moved to deny the special permit amendment; second C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: there is a severe enforcement problem on signage at this location and enforcement has been on- going with the applicant himself; he can appeal to City Council; have a real problem if the reason for denial is signage on windows, lots of other businesses cover their windows; permits were required because of the variance granted the building, there has been an enforcement problem for a long time. Staff advised the city has not enforced on hanging rugs in the windows because they are considered merchandise display but has enforced on large signs painted on the windows as well as large banners and flags. Further comment: will vote against the motion for denial, would like to get the master signage program in that building, approval would be a step in the right direction, past grievances cannot be undone, motion to approve could be conditioned for review in six months, will not gain anything by denial; will vote for denial because of the expansion, actual number of employees in this building may not be known; denial tends to put Commission in the position of enforcer, that is the responsibility of staff, it is not the job of the Commission to enforce by policy; Suites 5 and 6 when separate undoubtedly had at least five or six employees. Motion to deny passed on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, H.Graham and Harrison dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:25 P.M.; reconvene 9:35 P.M. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CITY PLANNER REPORTS - Discussion of Findings CP and Commission discussed her staff memo "How, When and Why To Make Findings." Special Permit Review, 1633 Bayshore Highway was accepted. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 November 28, 1988 - CP reviewed City Council actions at its November 21, 1988 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary