Loading...
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