Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.04.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, April 25, 1988 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Harrison Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos, Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Ed Williams, Deputy Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the April 11, 1.988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda was changed to take study items first. Item #6, Special Permit, airport parking facility was continued. ITEMS FOR STUDY 8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT INTO THREE LOTS - 1249 VANCOUVER AVENUE Requests: what is on the other side of the street on Armsby Drive in Hillsborough; mark size and type of significant trees on the map; show proposed grading and contours of finished site, driveway grades, outline of setbacks; comment on Hillsborough review of the proposal; in evaluating effect on neighborhood should Commission consider Hillsborough also; what is Hillsborough setback on Armsby; show setbacks on the map and proposed location of: houses. Item set for public hearing May 9, 1988. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - RETRACTABLE SUPPORT TOWER AND ANTENNA FOR AN AMATEUR RADIO STATION - 1769 ESCALANTE WAY Requests: why does applicant believe trees will not affect reception; will there be emergency power; how is the antenna retracted; will nearby apartment building interfere with reception; status of litigation on a previous ham radio proposal. Item set for public hearing May 9, 1988. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Page 2 10. SPECIAL PERMIT - ROOF MOUNTED SATELLITE; DISH - 150 ANZA BOULEVARD Requests: is this the most inconspicuous place on the roof that the dish could be placed; information from structural engineer regarding ability of the roof to support the dish; why is this needed now after being in business over a year; is this the same size as that approved for Crowne Plaza. Item set for public hearing May 9, 1988. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOUR BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AT 745 PLYMOUTH WAY, ZONED R-1 (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/88) Reference staff report, 4/25/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicants were present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CE advised structural details for the 11 setback at the second floor level will be taken care of at the building permit stage. C. S.Graham moved for approval of this parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving 'Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 23, 1988, and that the garage shall be expanded to 38, x 11, to provide for two tandem parking spaces; and (2) that the garage area shall never be used for living_ area or separate residential purposes. C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in that the existing garage cannot be widened to accommodate two cars, the applicants are making every effort to get two covered parking spaces off the street by providing two covered tandem spaces, the addition will enhance the value of their property and therefore the neighborhood, it will not be detrimental to neighboring properties nor affect the zoning plan of the city. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 25, 1988 2. SIX SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVERSIZED GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP AND OFFICE/STORAGE AREA ABOVE AT 1417 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment on home occupation approved for this site, applicants, letter, study meeting questions. CP noted letter in opposition (April 25, 1988) from Ann Marie Flores and Viktor T. Pochron, 1436 Bernal Avenue. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During discussion CP advised the applicants, proposed family room addition cannot receive a building permit until the issue of the garage is settled; condition #5 refers to the entire garage structure; the 61-8" interior height of a portion of the office shown on the revised plans is allowed under the building code. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Paul Costa, applicant, was present. His comments: all fabrication and craft work will be done in the workshop on the first floor of the garage, no manufacturing of goods would take place on this site; he is an inventor of items for TV productions, these are not items which can be produced in such a small space; it is not a heavy industry use; he will never have employees on site fabricating products for sale; they will not use the second story of the garage for living area, he would like a bar sink so one could get a drink of water but does not need a kitchen sink and does not plan on putting in a toilet. Responding to Commission questions, applicant ;stated he is doing "non -manufacturing" fabrication in the existing garage at the present time, he hopes to establish an office in the new garage separating his business from living area and moving his computer out of the bedroom; the proposed office area is small, a large section of the second story would be used for storage; he did not think it would be offensive to the neighborhood and it would not obstruct anyone's views; the garage will be in the same location as the existing garage. A Commissioner commented the present garage can be seen from the street. Painting would be done in the workshop area; he is working on a patented light source for TV studio generators, this involves developing the electronics (a one pound item) which requires a work bench and some surface area, then needs a fixture to test it in which requires :Light woodworking,, this is all done in the workshop and uses no greater space than that used by someone working on a motorcycle; he would retain the fixture. The storage space requested is for their personal use. Further responses to Commission questions: he does not mass produce items for sale but rather only fabricates and tests. These are low voltage devices, the test bed is isolated, there are thermal Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 25, 1988 conductors, when the items get hot they stop. His wife purchased this property three years ago, they were married a year ago and he has lived and worked at this location since that time. They could use the fourth bedroom for an office but would rather not do so. Speaking in favor of the application, Arline Castleberry, architect for the project: she stated perhaps the storage area was misnamed, it is merely an attic area under the eaves of the garage, it does not need to be sheetrocked but will be protected from the office area and will not be finished area; the garage does not exceed the existing garage height by much, about 1.5' to :21, probably 3' at the center but at that point it could not be seem from the street; neighbor's privacy is not invaded at all by the windows which look toward the house; there would be no access to storage space in the house, just crawl space, it would take a lot of roof raising to make usable storage space. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham stated she was aware 40% lot coverage is allowed under the code but she felt a two story garage was 'too much, with the addition to the house and addition to the garage it would be overpowering; it is a very nice house addition and there will be usable attic space for storage, perhaps not easily accessed but it could be used; she could not support a two story garage. C. S.Graham moved to deny the six special permits without prejudice, with the intention that a new design for the garage be one story. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: will support the motion, cannot see any exceptional circumstances, there will be a large addition to the house, a two car garage should be sufficient for their needs. Staff advised that if, in fact, the applicant is doing fabricating/ craft work on the property, he will be required to amend his home occupation permit. Motion to deny the application without prejudice passed on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO VARIANCES FOR A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AT 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 4/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, previous approval which expired in January, 1988, staff review, Planning staff comment on minor changes to the design, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 25, 1988 Responding to Commission questions, staff advised. the increased lot coverage was probably the result of slightly larger units, plans are still within code for lot coverage; undergrou.nding of utilities will be required; the traffic study in 1985 did not identify any significant negative impacts. A Commissioner commented that at the time of the previous application it was noted the units were quite small, she felt these plans are an improvement; there was a concern expressed about construction trucks and safety of school children in the area. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Bob Gilmartin, applicant, was present and discussed the previous approval of this project, they have spent the better part of 1-1/2 years refining the project, have increased unit size which took a lot of time, submitted plans for plan check which went back and forth between his architect and the city, then they ran out of time and needed to reapply. At present they are close to concluding financing on the project and submitting final plans. He noted George Ivelich, architect, was also present this evening. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition: Jackie Retzen, 110 Park Road and Ed Johnston, 110 Park Road. Their main concern was on -street parking in the area, it is congested now, with a 110 unit group residential facility for the elderly, serving three meals a day, they felt a large number of employees would be required who would impact parking as would visitors to the facility. Staff advised applicant has provided more parking spaces on site than required by code for this type of use, it was also noted employees will be coming to the site in shifts. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this application was previously approved, the additional variances are required because of code revisions since that time, staff worked long and hard to get a project which had enough parking, there are very few changes to the previous proposal and this use is something which is needed in the city, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the two special permits and two variances to allow a group residential facility for the elderly and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits and Variances with the two conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham with the statement this is a big project, applicant has worked hard on it, when a project comes before the Commission it is conceptual, it takes a long time to finalize plans and get financing, the height of the building has been reduced and parking exceeds the code requirement. Comment on the motion: have a concern about construction vehicles so close to a school, would like to add a condition regarding safety. C. Jacobs and C. S.Graham included a third condition in their motion regarding safety. Conditions of approval follow: Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 25, 1988 (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 31, 1988 memo, the City Engineer's April 6, 1988 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's April 11, 1988 and October 8, 1985 memos shall be met; (2) that all the conditions of the December 2, 1985 City Council action on this project shall be met as listed in the action letter dated December 4, 1985; and (3) that the applicant shall prepare a plan showing hours of construction and management of construction vehicles for safety in the area to be approved by the City Engineer, and that no construction shall be allowed on Sundays. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING DRY CLEANING PLANT AT 741 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 4/25/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos discussed details of the request, staff review, letter from American Pacific Equipment Company, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: on -street parking in front of the store is unlimited parking; CE did not think there was a marked loading zone; there are no on-site parking spaces, people must park on San Mateo Avenue or on California Drive; CE advised construction details and requirement for sprinklering, if any, will be checked at building permit stage. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. George and Arpine Kevranian, applicants, were present. George Brewer, attorney and Burlingame resident, addressed Commission as a friend and customer of Mr. Kevranian. He spoke about the survival of small businesses, many businesses have had to close because they could not expand, applicants have an opportunity to expand and coo from a marginal business to a profitable business by relocating to a larger space; it would be a benefit to this business to operate a truck for pickup and delivery to customers, the previous business had four trucks operating. He stated he never had a problem parking in front of this location. If applicant were to operate a truck he would park in the back where others park their vehicles, there is a loading door there off San Mateo Avenue; clients would enter through the front door. Applicant would prefer approval without restriction regarding the use of a van/truck in the future. There was some discussion about the use of a van. by this business; CP stated this application does not address a van, should the applicant wish a van in the future he would have to come back and amend his permit; CA advised if Commission wished to exclude a van this should be included in the conditions. It was determined applicant was aware that the conditions do not allow wholesaling from this site; his use of a van would be pickup and delivery to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 25, 1988 his present customers. It was noted the plans show this business as "Holiday Cleaners of America"; applicant advised he plans to change the name from Klumps Cleaners, he bought the name, his business is not a franchise. "Future N.I.C." on the plans indicates shirt laundry equipment for which applicant may request amendment of his permit at a later date. Arpine Kevranian commented on parking, they have been at their present location for seven years and have never had a parking problem; customers will be the same; they need new equipment to do a better job for the customers. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this business has been in operation seven years, they expect it may increase by only 10 customers, she has never had a problem parking when going to any of the establishments at this location and the uses have not changed, there may be a difference when a new use comes into the present dry cleaning space, C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that this business shall operate from a 2,241 SF area with a maximum of two full time and one part time employees Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. and Saturday from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.; ( 2 ) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 30, 1988 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors April 4, 1988 memo shall be met; (3) that dry cleaning shall not be wholesaled from this site; and (4) that any changes in the operation, hours, numbers of employees or to other conditions of this permit, including the addition of a shirt laundry, shall require amendment to the original permit. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. In comment on the motion Commissioners discussed applicant's desire to have a van in the future but did not add a condition excluding use of a van. Motion was approved on a 6-0 :roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:10 P.M.; reconvene 9:17 P.M. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A 451 HIGH TOWER WITH SUPPORTING ANTENNAS AT 1710 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3 Reference staff report, 4/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: why a 60 day time period for removal of the generator following Red Cross ceasing to use this site, staff thought 60 days was a reasonable time for dealing with a contractor for removal; there was a concern expressed about noise from the generator; testing of the generator and possibility of further muffling were Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 25, 1988 discussed; it was noted the Commission denied an application for a generator by Peninsula Hospital; 42 SF of landscaping will be lost with the proposed installation. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Speaking in favor, James Chamberlin, 1461 E1 Camino Real: he has been involved with this proposal since the initial donation of the generator by PG&E, the antenna is a necessity; it should not be a problem to enclose the generator to meet city noise requirements; testing could be done at a time other than 8:00 A.M. on Saturdays, it should be tested under load condition; the generator is on a trailer, the gas tank is on the trailer, it is a combined unit (gas and propane), they will use a quick disconnect, it is portable. There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement the conditions of approval, specifically condition #4, address concerns about sound levels, applicant will be required to enclose the generator or use :some other type of generator to reduce noise if he wants this permit, have no problem with the application, C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the five conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: will vote for the motion but have a problem tying noise reduction of the generator to the permit for the antennas, would not want to see the antennas jeopardized if applicant cannot reduce the noise from the generator; a sound enclosure can be built, it might be expensive, if they already have a muffler which reduces noise to 35 dBA see no problem attaining further reduction. CA suggested that condition #4 regarding sound level of the generator be eliminated. C. S.Graham and C. H.Graham revised their motion to eliminate staff condition #4. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the tower shall consist of a nonreflective surface and shall be placed at the location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 30, 1988; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's April 5, 1988 memo and the Fire Marshal's April 19, 1988 memo shall be met; ( 3 ) that as built the tower shall not exceed 40' in height above grade and shall have a maximum of four antennas mounted on it as indicated on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date! stamped April 4, 1988; and (4) that within 60 days of the Red Cross ceasing to use this site this 40' tower with its attachments and the emergency generator shall be removed. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 25, 1988 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY - 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Item continued at the request of the applicant. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, AMOUNT AND HEIGHT OF SIGNAGE AT 1100 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 4/25/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's comments, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined Rector's 80' pole sign was installed in 1967. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Michael R. Harvey, applicant, was present. His comments: when he gook over the Acura dealership he eliminated two pole signs, the Acura signage is only 290 SF but he does not need more at that location; in the case of this application, Chrysler/Plymouth is being relocated to a smaller facility, in terms of linear frontage it is almost identical to Rector, he is requesting a large amount of square footage which is necessary because of the location of the site and in order to be competitive; if Rector's pole sign is 80' high, Chrysler Plymouth needs some degree of parity; sufficient signage is necessary to gain the support of the manufacturer for the sale of his cars at this location. Responding toa Commissioner comment that this is a prominent site, Mr. Harvey felt signage should be permitted in terms of what others in the area have, this is the only Chrysler Plymouth dealership between Serramonte and Palo Alto. A Commissioner commented a 20' pole sign at the proposed location would be enough, after driving down the freeway and onto the overpass, he noted a sign at the proposed location could not be seen until the top of the overpass, a 20, sign could be easily seen. Applicant replied he understood signage should not address the freeway but freeway frontage is extremely valuable, it is very expensive to advertise in the newspapers, from the freeway a 501 pole sign would have good visibility to every vehicle passing by, if Commission wants a 20' high pole sign he would have to withdraw, the site would appear to be a very poor facility. He noted Sign D is shown on the application at 121-111 high, it is actually only 3'-1" high, a monument sign to direct traffic into the service area. Sign F on the parking lot frontage is needed to direct customers to the showroom on Cadillac, this is not a prominent location on the site. A Commissioner commented Sign F is not really visible from anywhere, it has a very narrow view corridor. Applicant agreed and stated he would be willing to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 25, 1988 eliminate that sign. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/discussion comment: have a difference of opinion on what signage is needed for this business, think visibility from the freeway is not a good idea, especially this far from the freeway, a person would have to be looking in that direction to see the sign, have a real concern about any large pole sign which is oriented not only for Broadway but also for the freeway, also don't see the need for Sign F; agree, even though Rector has an 80' pole sign it was installed a long time ago, this request is a lot of signage; have been in business and know how important signage is, pole signs may not be the most attractive but think that this location on Broadway is close enough to the freeway to warrant the expense of a pole sign, applicant would not go to this expense unless he thought it would draw business, it could also be an advantage for people on California Drive or Carolan to find the site, one of the selling points for extending auto row to that area was freeway visibility, have no problem with the 50' pole sign, it is 30' less than Rector's sign. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the sign exception for all signs except Sign F. Motion died for lack of a second., Further comment: would be in favor of a 35' high pole sign, 50' is too excessive. Applicant responded he would be willing to eliminate Sign I on the Cadillac frontage and reduce the pole sign to 40' which would be half the height of the Rector sign. C. S.Graham moved to grant a sign exception with. Sign B, pole sign on the Broadway frontage, reduced to 40' in height and with Sign F on the parking lot frontage and Sign I on the Cadillac frontage to be eliminated. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: Sign B will give as much exposure at 20' as it will at 401; appreciate the reduction in number of signs, would be happy to vote for the motion if the pole sign were reduced to 35'. Motion with a 40' high pole sign failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi, Garcia, Jacobs voting no, C. Harrison absent. C. S.Graham then moved for approval of a sign exception with the pole sign, Sign B, reduced to a height of 35' and with elimination of Signs F and I, for a total square footage of approximately 775 SF, with the following conditions:(1) that the signs as installed shall be consistent with the plans date stamped March 21, 1988 and the Sign Permit description (dated March 21, 19813) submitted to the Planning Department with the deletion of Signs F and I and the reduction of the pole sign to a maximum of 35'; (2) that Sign D (the ground sign in the driveway) shall be no taller than 3' above Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 25, 1988 grade and clear of the public right-of-way; and (3) that a change of copy or any addition of signs to this site shall require amendment to this sign exception. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Chm. Giomi congratulated C. Jacobs on her reappointment to the Planning Commission. Election of Commission officers for the next year will be held at the first meeting in May. PLANNER REPORTS - Discussion of modifications of zoning code -to address second story residential additions CP Monroe referenced her staff memo regarding how the zoning code might be revised to better address second story additions in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Staff recommended a "declining height envelope" (DHE) be considered for second story additions, this measure to begin 12' above property line and extend toward the center of the lot at a 45 degree angle. Several illustrations were included with the staff memo as well as suggested draft amendments to the zoning code. Commission discussed the matter briefly: current setback regulations would apply only to the ground floor, DHE would apply to the second floor; staff has suggested eaves and architectural features that do not expand usable floor area be exempted from the DHE and that the plane line apply to side property lines only. The majority of Commissioners thought this was a good suggestion, its success could be evaluated in one or two years. There was some concern it might be too harsh and result in unattractive more expensive additions and that the concept should be studied further as well as other alternatives. C. S.Graham moved that Commission recommend to City Council for approval a draft ordinance incorporating zoning code amendments for the R-1 and R-2 districts as proposed by staff for a "declining height envelope" regulation. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 25, 1988 approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and H.Graham dissenting, C. Harrison absent. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its April 18, 1988 regular meeting. It was decided to change the order of the agenda during the month of May, putting study items first and From the Floor preceding Planner Reports. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary