HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.11.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 26, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, November 26, 1990 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
Commissioners Deal,
Jacobs, Kelly, Mink
None
Ellis, Galligan, Graham,
Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill
Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the November 13, 1990 meeting were
approved with the following corrections: page 5, item
8, rear setback variance, 2807 Hillside Drive -
eliminate "by resolution" from the motion; page 11,
item 13, parking variance, 1351 Howard Avenue -
condition #1 should read ". plans . . date
stamped October 29, 1990."
AGENDA - The Chair noted study item #4 (sign exception, 100
California Drive) has been continued to December 10,
1990 and action item #8 (tentative map for a parcel
split, 2811 Hillside Drive/2108 Summit Drive) continued
until staff receives further information. Order of the
agenda was approved.
Commission opened its meeting with a moment of silence in memory of
Dave Martin. C. Mink spoke of his service to the city which began on
the Planning Commission, he was a friend of the city, a critic who
wanted the city to be better, he always cared and.was always honest.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMITS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENCE AT 2652 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Requests: diagram indicating top of proposed roof relative to
adjacent properties; does applicant have right of access to the
driveway; why not move the driveway up and not have to enclose the
culvert; CE's comments on the 20, high retaining wall in back and
,depth of the cut, review for stability; comparison with the house
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
November 26, 1990
designed for this site two years ago; does applicant have a model of
the -site, something showing relative location of the house to
adjacent properties, neighbors will want to know what will be in
front of their homes; permission from the applicant for commissioners
to go onto this property and specific directions as to where access
is located. Item set for public hearing December 10, 1990 assuming
all requested information is received.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 BED RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AT 1117-1123 RHINETTE AVENUE, ZONED R-3
Requests: clarify references to nonambulatory residents and
ambulatory with assistance, if there* is a difference what is
applicant actually asking for; with 2 full time employees, 2 part
time, 2 visitors and a van, and 8 parking spaces, where will they all
park; it is all concrete in front, has applicant thought of softening
the front with landscaping for the R-1 residents across the street;
what precautions will be taken to avoid noise transfer from the TV
room into residents' rooms, what are state guidelines for STC and
IPC; information -on how meals will be served; see no area for a
service sink or any type of storage for the facility inside the
building; would like to see room dimensions labeled exactly, not
rounded off, in order to have a clear understanding of size of the
rooms; regarding handicapped parking stall at the front, car overhang
goes over the sidewalk and someone cannot then pass in front of a
car, how will this work; will meals be cooked on the premises, if so
how will delivery of foodstuffs be handled; will there be any medical
treatment on site, if so how will medical wastes be handled; how will
they tell people to park on Rhinette and California since most people
will park the closest they can to the building. Item set for public
hearing December 10, 1990.
3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AN AWNING SIGN AT 308 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2
SUB AREA A
Requests: what is the reason for extending into the public right-of-
way 5' rather than 41; how far does the awning on the Indian
restaurant next door extend over public property; explain CBI's
requirement that the awning must be retractable or collapsible or not
more than 10' long. Item set for public hearing December 10, 1990.
4. SIGN EXCEPTION - 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D
Item continued to the meeting of December 10, 1990.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AMBULANCE SERVICE AT 1616 ROLLINS ROAD,
ZONED M-1
Requests: how many vehicles will use this as home base, how will they
be cycled in and out; how many ambulances will they have - in five
years, how many of these will use this as home base; do the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
November 26, 1990
ambulances leave from this site and go to- other stations; request
applicant give a verbal description of the operation at the public
hearing, would like a table on the traffic activity of this business;
explanation of why they need all the parking they are providing; what
vehicle maintenance will be done on site, define minor maintenance.
Item set for public hearing December 10, 1990.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
6. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A FENCE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
ALLOWED AT 1645 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 11/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
drawing and photographs (date stamped 11/21/90) received after
preparation of the staff report, study meeting questions. Four
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Charles Happ, applicant and
property owner, was present. He stated he was not aware a permit was
needed to replace the old fence, that the new fence was too tall or
that his neighbor would object to the new fence since this neighbor's
bushes are much higher than applicant's fence. He confirmed the
hushes shown in the photographs (bottom section of the last page)
were in his yard. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Galligan commented that the photos show vegetation on the site is
significant, not low lying rose bushes but tall, healthy trees, there
are also significant tree specimens on adjacent properties; looking
at the latticework at the top of the fence, even if applicant reduced
height of the fence the required amount it would provide little
relief to the adjacent property owner; if applicant had known that
the prior fence could not be replaced he would not have replaced it,
and therefore what has been done in essence is an improvement over
repair of the old fence. C. Galligan moved for approval of the fence
exception with the findings in the staff' report and subject to the
four conditions suggested by staff Motion died for lack of a
second.
C. Jacobs commented that a 7' fence is tall enough; if this request
were granted because of the tall foliage many people all over town
would be asking for higher fences; the existing foliage is adequate
for privacy; can find nothing exceptional to support the request,
since the two yards are divided with a fence, is 8' needed. C.
Jacobs moved for denial of the fence exception, seconded by C. Mink.
Comment on the motion: made a site inspection, it's a perfect
*backyard and perfectly good fence but cannot find any exceptional
-Arcumstances; it's a beautiful backyard, applicant is a victim of
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
November 26, 1990
not knowing what the rules are, the height of allowed fences was
recently increased; there is nothing exceptional about this
particular property and the fence could be overbearing for the
neighbor to the rear.
Motion for denial was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Galligan
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK TO BUILD A COVERED PORCH AT 16
ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 11/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Commission/staff discussed determination of front setback
requirement, number of bedrooms prior to the present owner's purchase
of the property, applicant's intention to return it to a single
family home.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Timothy Kim, property owner,
was present. His comments: the house was a "roach motel" when he
purchased it, they are converting it to tl)ree bedrooms/two baths,
have changed all the windows and replaced the front door, the
construction company recommended putting in a porch to protect the
front door, most other houses in the area have some sort of cover for
the front door; garage in the back will not be changed at this time,
they will paint it and leave it as is.
Applicant/Commission discussion: the front steps were there when
applicant purchased the house and extended into the front setback, he
wants a porch to cover the door and protect it from storm damage,
roof goes out to the edge of the existing steps. Regarding the
possibility of setting the door into the structure about 31, this
would require making a hallway and modification to the house,
applicant had considered a metal door but it would not look as good.
A Commissioner advised there are some metal doors which look like
wood from 5' away. Applicant commented everyone on the block has a
porch finished in this way which is inexpensive and practical. He
advised it was his, intention to live in this house.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Mink commented that if this issue had come to the Commission
before it was built he was sure it would have been approved and found
to be a real improvement to the building; for all the reasons stated
in the application and staff notes there is ample evidence the
variance should be granted. C. Mink moved for approval of the front
setback variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
November 26, 1990
Department and date stamped October 23, 1990 (Sheets 1-7); (2) that
the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of October 9, 1990 and the
Chief Building Inspector's memo of October 5, 1990 shall be met; and
(3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame.
C. Mink found there were exceptional circumstances in this
unprotected porch which has been there for many years, a concrete set
of steps and a flat pad, applicant has put a roof over it which
triggers a new set of rules, the house was plain and ugly, applicant
has improved its appearance, he should be commended. Motion was
seconded by C. Jacobs.
In comment on the motion most Commissioners complimented the
applicant for making the best of a bad situation; the existing steps
have been in the front setback for many years so will not change the
neighborhood, with this proposal the front setback will still have a
sense of openness. One Commissioner, speaking in opposition, noted
many of the houses on the block have porches but there is only one
other which encroaches into the front setback, it is an older home,
but cannot use that to justify the applicant's request, this property
needs its own exceptional circumstance; relocating the door inside
the existing structure would be a good solution; if someone had
applied for a building permit he would have found out about the
variance at that time and could have addressed the situation then.
C. Galligan stated he represented the former owner of this property,
CA advised there would be no conflict. C. Galligan thought city
staff comments have been extremely charitable regarding the existing
house's condition, applicant has come up with a solution to an almost
Impossible problem.
Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Deal dissenting.
Appeal procedures were advised.
8. TENTATIVE MAP - LANDS OF. O'CONNOR - 2811 HILLSIDE DRIVE/2108
SUMMIT DRIVE
Continued until staff receives further information.
9. SIGN EXCEPTION TO AMEND THE SIGN PROGRAM AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE,
ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA
Reference staff report, 11/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request (issue is total amount of signage and
number of signs), staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Andrew Roud, applicant
'representing Cortina 'Investments Ltd., property owner, was present.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
November 26, 1990
His comments: the signs are unobtrusive, tastefully done in keeping
with the tone of the city and in the image they want to project for
this building; he had inspected some other buildings in the city,
Crosby Commons had 24 signs on Primrose, 16 for one tenant; he did
not think they would be setting a precedent, there are other
buildings in the city with more signs. Regarding the possibility
that the number of tenants would increase and require more signage,
Mr. Roud stated they have 10-15 year leases, would prefer to have one
tenant take one whole floor which would reduce signage even more;
there will be no logos, the name in lettering only. There were no
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: the most important sign on this building is the
smallest and that is the street address, this is along a well
trafficked street, the other downtown buildings are on pedestrian
malls, think the street address should be enlarged and the rest of
the signage reduced.
With the comment this proposal is tastefully done in a manner which
will attract people, all businesses want their names visible,
identity is important, C. Kelly moved for approval of the master
signage program by resolution with findings and conditions as listed
in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan..
In comment on the motion Commission discussed enlarging the address
sign on the building, its location and lighting. Maker of the motion
and seconder accepted a third condition regarding placing the address
more visibly on the building. Conditions follow: (1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped October 11, 1990; (2) that the
project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the
City of Burlingame; and (3) that the applicant be required to put the
address "1440" below the second floor windows over the door and it
shall be lit as required by the Fire Department with the same
lighting as the other signs on the building.
Motion was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
10. SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL NEW SIGNS AT THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL (OLD
IBIS HOTEL) AT 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 11/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter.
Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. In discussion following the CP's presentation it was
determined Sign C is on the parking lot and Sign D is on Airport
Boulevard, correct date of the plans is October 12, 1990, this
proposal is a 10% increase over the approved sign program for the
Ibis Hotel.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
November 26, 1990
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Wade McClure, representing
the contractor for the sign program, was present. He presented a
rendering showing some of the signs on the building. His comments:
the existing signs are larger than previously approved, they
discovered this when measuring for the replacement signs; Sign A, the
monument sign, replaces a sign of approximately the same area and is
lower in height; Sign B on the south elevation has 60" ( 5' ) letters
replacing existing 72" letters, it has more area because the hotel
name is longer; Sign C on the west elevation has 31 letters replacing
45" existing, 42" letters were approved previously; Sign D on the
north elevation has 3+ letters versus 45" existing. These are
standard letters used in Doubletree signage.
Responding to a Commissioner question, Mr. McClure said they are
requesting 5' letters for the sign facing the freeway since it must
be visible from a longer distance; the Commissioner pointed out the
code prohibition of freeway oriented signage. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs commented on the amount of signage that is on existing
hotels whether facing the freeway or not, sometimes it is on the side
of a building, this is a difficult site because of the hill to the
rear and the corner, Commission has been generous with most hotels
regarding signage. She did not think this signage request was an
exceptional increase and moved for approval of the sign exception by
resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was
seconded by C. Kelly.
In discussion on the motion Commission expressed concern about the 5'
letters in Sign B, this sign is oriented to the freeway, most other
hotels in the city have 31 letters, some larger freeway oriented
signs were approved prior to the current sign code and were reduced
in size when they were replaced, the tallest parapet signs approved
to date are 31-311; if 51 is allowed this applicant, applicants in the
future will be asking for 51, 6' or 7' letters.
C. Jacobs amended her motion to include a condition regarding the
size of letters on Sign B, this was accepted by the seconder.
Conditions follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on
the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
October 12, 1990 Sheets 1-6; (2) that the project shall meet Uniform
Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (3)
that the maximum letter height on Sign B shall be 3' with a
corresponding reduction in sign size. Motion was approved 7-0 on
roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
November 26, 1990
11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSROOM USE, USE DETERMINATION FOR A CLINIC
USE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CENTER FOR FUNCTIONAL OCCLUSION AT
1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. #135, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 11/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
findings required for each of the requests, study meeting questions.
Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Discussion: patients in this context are "exhibits", participants who
attend the clinic would be practicing on one another and would be
rotating through the stations/chairs; the code states specifically
that dental practitioner offices are prohibited in this zone; think
the reference in condition #5 to dental office staff is superfluous,
reference to permanent staff could be useful. CP discussed
definition of clinic, the code section which allows clinics with a
use permit, the outpatient type of clinic which has been approved in
the past in this area. CA determined C. Galligan had no conflict of
interest in participating in discussion or voting on this
application.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Larry Lyons, Burlingame
Office Center, property owner, was present. His statements: they
acquired this building last year, have been working with the city to
upgrade, remodel and retrofit the building; it is difficult to find a
tenant of this size willing to invest in his operation as these
doctors are, they would be an ideal tenant, would not generate any
traffic or need parking spaces; participants will stay at the
Marriott and walk to the site, site is convenient to restaurants in
the area, it will be a professional group of people. Regarding the
51 SF addition to the building, there was an existing cement pad with
an air compressor, they have relocated this and enclosed the
equipment so the building will look better. There are four adjacent
office buildings in the area; it seems the M-1 zone is somewhat
restrictive for office uses. Regarding the CBI's requirements, they
will have three exits from this space; all building and tenant
improvements have been cleared with the Building and Fire
Departments. '
Mr. Lyons continued: this use is not a medical use, patients will not
be treated at the site and will only be there for one-half day during
a session, they would be generating a maximum of eight trips to the
site and only for a one-half day period. Applicants have no problem
with the suggested conditions. Commissioner question: regarding the
list of participants from out of state, what is to prevent a group of
40 from the Bay Area coming to the clinic at one time; applicant
replied probably there are not 40 orthodontists in the Bay Area, only
24 are registered in San Mateo County; people will come to the clinic
from all over the world, these doctors are well known and respected
in their field. At the last session at a hotel there were only six
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
November 26, 1990
from California out of 40 people, only two (from Livermore and
Sunnyvale) might have driven -to the site; participants come back to
the building in the evening to continue work.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal made findings: the zoning code mentions clinics as allowed in
this area, would look at this proposal as a clinic, it is
instructional and will not have patients coming in for orthodontic
work, it would be a permitted use in the M-1 district with a
conditional use permit, the use they are proposing will not be a
drain on the available parking spaces, there will not be a large
number of people coming from San Mateo County, with the documentation
from the Marriott Hotel this is a viable use for this particular area
and for this particular building.
C. Deal moved that Commission approve this use on this site as a
dental instructional clinic, seconded by C. Jacobs and approved
unanimously on voice vote.
C. Deal moved for approval of the special permit and parking variance
by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that 4,213 SF of the
105,400 SF office building shall be used for a dental instructional
center and clinic; (2) that there shall be a maximum of 40 students
on site at one time, with no more than four patients and four
instructors; (3) that use of the facility shall be for five days a
week a maximum of 15 weeks per year and two weekends each year; ( 4 )
that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's October 17,
1990 memo shall be met before the first instructional class meets in
the facility; (5) that any changes to the frequency with which the
facility is used, the number of students, the number of patients, the
number of instructors and/or expansion of the type of use shall
require amendment to this use permit prior to its occurrence and that
no ongoing or permanent dental office or program office staff shall
be located on this premise; and ( 6 ) that this use shall be reviewed
for compliance in one year's time (November, 1991) and each two years
thereafter.
Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs with the statement that this
business can be specific, can be monitored and will not be
detrimental. Motion was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- Use Permit review, 3 California Drive, Putnam -Mazda
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
November 26, 1990
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its November 19, 1990
regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned in memory of Dave Martin at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles W. Mink
Secretary
E