HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.11.09CITY' -OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 1992
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, November 9, 1992 at 7:30
P.M.
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs,
Kelly, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly,
Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 26, 1992 meeting were
unanimously approved.
GA ENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR SIZE AND HEIGHT OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT
1109 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Requests: why is the garage so tall; dimensions from grade to top of
plate and from top of plate to top of ridge; clarify encroachment of
Fire Department garage on this property and 1' setback requested by the
City Engineer; was the encroachment accidental or voluntary; why, is
there an overhang on one side and not on the other; on which side of
the garage is the window located; would applicant need to get a
variance if he were to expand the existing garage. Item set for public
hearing November 23, 1992.
2. LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT
109 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Item set for public hearing November 23, 1992.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
November 9, 1992
3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA AND NUMBER OF SIGNS AT 900 PENINSULA
AVENUE, ZONED C-2
Requests: if this business were on Auto Row what signage would be
allowed; uses of the properties across the street on Anita Road. Item
set for public hearing November 23, 1992.
4. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AT
65 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 SUB AREA D
Requests: how will the pole sign look; are there any other signs this
tall in this block; mark the ground indicating location of the pole
sign. Item set for public hearing November 23, 1992.
5. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT
615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Requests: why can't applicant provide 10% interior landscaping, why
does he want the second, entrance only, gate; will main entrance align
with opening in the median strip; correction on page 2 of the project
assessment, first paragraph, line 3, ". . . landscaped where 80% is
required . . ." Item set for public hearing November 23, 1992.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A PRIMARY UNIT AND A DECLINING HEIGHT
ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON A NONCONFORMING
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AT 850 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 11/9/92, with attachments. CP Monroe
summarized the request and discussed study meeting questions, required
findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing. CP confirmed the deck is not counted in lot coverage.
C. Kelly advised he would abstain from discussion and voting.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Barbara Dungca, applicant, was
present. She said they have lived in this house for 21 years and now
have two full grown children living with them; they would like to
expand the master bedroom to make it more livable, this is the
conclusion of an interior remodel of the house.
Ross Butler, 1519 Forest View Avenue, spoke in opposition: he lives on
the north side of this property and distributed a page of photographs
to illustrate the impact on his property, he spoke of his cordial
relations with the applicants, he disliked opposing this project; the
imposing two story 2,800 SF house was build by the previous owners, Mr.
Butler felt any extension/addition of the second floor will add to his
feeling of being enclosed. Responding to Commission question, he
explained he had signed a petition in support at a time when he did not
fully understand what the applicants were requesting, he now is aware
there will be a 7' extension of the wall with a 2-1/2' roof overhang
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
November 9, 1992
and he is opposed to the project. There were no further audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission/staff discussion/comment: applicant has indicated to staff
that over a period of time they have completed a series of remodels on
the house with building permits, most of the windows have been
replaced; eave would be extended at the rear along the side; there
appears to be four panels of Plexiglas set in the railing of the deck
and the addition would come out to the second panel, site plan shows
area is about 1/4 to 1/3 the depth of the deck, floor plan looks more
like 1/2 the area of the existing deck, staff advised it would be 1/4
to 1/3 of the roof area of the garage.
The existing structure looks overbearing to Mr. Butler, there are other
problems, the addition is small but will create more of a visual burden
at the rear; regarding regulations for declining height envelope, this
proposal encroaches only 17.5 SF ; if it were a dormer window it would
be allowed and the impact would be greater because of the additional
window, this is a good trade-off because there is no window so less
invasion of privacy compared to dormer entitlement; think applicants
should be allowed to make this minor change. Agree, this house has had
the enclosed deck for quite some time; if the deck hadn't been there,
there would be a bigger impact on the neighbor; an extra 8' with no new
windows will not make that much difference, 17.5 SF is a very minor
variance for declining height envelope.
C. Graham found this is an unusual property, it does not exhibit the
same characteristics as many of the neighboring properties, given the
small variance request this addition is appropriate. C. Graham moved
for approval of the special permit and declining height envelope
variance by resolution with the conditions suggested in the staff
report. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis.
Comment on the motion: from a site visit am concerned about the size
of this structure, it is a mass of building with little architectural
distinction, after looking at the rest of the property, the pool and
substantial structure in the rear, this site will reach its maximum
potential, am not convinced of the necessity in this application to go
into the declining height envelope, the structures combined slightly
exceed maximum allowed lot coverage, this is a large lot of over 7,000
SF, 40% lot coverage is still substantial structure, am concerned about
massiveness because of aesthetics, a slight setback might provide a
break to make the wall look better; agree, this is not a small house,
2,800 SF, it may be a small addition but there are two units on this
property, it is not fair to the neighborhood; this is a good example of
Planning Commission and City Council concerns about large buildings in
residential areas of the city, can sympathize with the applicant but
cannot support the request, it is too much.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
November 9, 1992
Motion for approval failed on a 3-3-1 roll call vote, Cers Galligan,
Jacobs and Mink dissenting, C. Kelly abstaining. Appeal procedures
were advised.
7. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR CHANGE OF COPY FOR RESTAURANT SIGN AT
433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 11/9/92, with attachments. CP Monroe
summarized the request and discussed study meeting questions, required
findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing including an addition to Condition 13 added by the City
Planner. CP advised this is basically a replacement of the existing
signage. A Commissioner stated his concern about use of power and
suggested a change to the condition addressing maximum hours of
illumination to state "from one-half hour before sunset" rather than
"from 5:00 P.M."
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Richard Millard, Bell Electrical
Signs, was present. He commented setting a time clock at sunset might
be difficult, checking the hours every day; applicants have proposed
white and blue colors for the signs and possibly red. A Commissioner
noted he was on the Commission when the original signage was approved
in 1973, the wall sign was approved at 380 SF, it grew through the
years as tenants changed and added words to the sign until it reached
the existing 627 SF, he inquired if the sign had to be this large. Mr.
Millard commented the 600 SF they are requesting is smaller than the
existing, they are keeping part of the existing sign, applicant would
like 600 SF. The Commissioner felt 600 SF was too big. Responding to
a question, Mr. Millard did not know size of the letters on the
Doubletree Hotel signage. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
With findings that this is a decrease in square footage from the
existing wall sign, signage this large does seem to be a trend in the
area, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the sign exception with the
conditions in the staff report as amended by the City Planner. Motion
was seconded by C. Galligan.
Commission again discussed hours of illumination. Maker of the motion
wished to retain the hours as stated in Condition 14, seconder agreed.
Conditions follow: (1) that the wall sign and the double faced pole
sign shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped October 8, 1992 and as described in the
sign permit application date stamped October 8, 1992; (2) that the two
signs shall be maintained in working order and to safety standards by
the business that installed them or by the property owner; (3) that the
property owner is obligated, if the restaurant use ever ceases on the
fifth floor of this building, to remove all of these signs, or the
remaining restaurant signs on site, within 60 days; and if an office or
other highrise building is built between this sign and the freeway the
wall sign shall be removed within two months of the completion of the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
November 9, 1992
adjacent project; (4) that the maximum hours of illumination shall be
from 5:00 P.M. until 2:00 A.M.; (5) that the signage on this site shall
be reviewed in three years time for conformance to conditions of
approval unless an application has been filed before that time for a
change.of name on the signage; and (6) that the project shall meet
Uniform Building Codes, Uniform Fire Codes and Uniform Electrical Codes
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Motion was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Mink dissenting. Appeal
procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AIRLINE COACH SERVICE AND PARKING VARIANCE AT
863 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 11/9/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions,
required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at
the public hearing.
Staff responded to Commission questions: intent of Condition 14 is that
this business may be open 24 hours a day, not that they are required to
be open 24 hours a day; a question was raised at study regarding
subleasing, applicant has replied that he has no intention of
subleasing the office portion of the building. Noting the previous
tenant, Pacific Bell, had 78 employees, a Commissioner wondered how
many of these employees were on the site all day; staff confirmed a
variance goes with the land, van storage stalls do not need to meet
legal dimensions.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Mike Coffey, representing the
property owner and applicant, Airline Coach Service, was present. His
comments: all service is off premise; the previous tenant, Pacific
Bell, operated a coin cleaning business primarily which had heavier
traffic and almost double usage of vehicles. This site was chosen by
the applicant because of its location close to SFIA and access to the
freeway as well as for security and available parking; the parking was
originally striped for 35 parking stalls but they only needed 18; the
proposed use requires 36.
Mr. Coffey discussed options for providing one more space and
eliminating the need for a parking variance: a dumpster shown on the
plans could be relocated and another space provided, or they could take
spaces 34 and 35 with the dumpster area to add two compact stalls, a
drive-in door has been closed and replaced with a man door for the
second exit from the second floor, there would be space to put the
dumpster there, in the 10' setback to the east of the building there
would be room for two more parking spaces. He stated adequate parking
can be provided and there is no need for a parking variance.
Mr. Coffey continued: the condition requiring an intercom at the
driveway gate is not a major issue with the applicant but the gate is
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
November 9, 1992
electronically key operated, there is no advantage in an intercom;
regarding subleasing, the premise was chosen for location, security and
parking. Staff suggested a condition be added regarding relocating the
dumpster and providing parking in that space. It was noted there is a
second driveway in front of a gate where visitors can park off street;
the key gate is already there and cannot be relocated to provide two
more spaces outside. CE stated handicap parking will be taken care of
at building permit stage, site is large enough to rearrange spaces and
add required handicap accessible parking.
In view of the previous discussion Commission agreed to change
Condition 11 to state "that the project shall be built in accordance
with plans submitted showing 36 parking spaces as approved by staff."
Since these vehicles are radio dispatched, Mr. Coffey was advised of
the requirement for a permit if they intend to mount an antenna on the
roof . It was also agreed that since there is space for one car to pull
up before the gate and applicant does not want an intercom, that part
of Condition 13 (requiring an intercom at the gate) should be deleted,
very few if any members of the public will want to park here. There
were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Uacobs found this use will have less impact on the area than the
previous use, and it is close to the airport and the freeway which will
facilitate its operation. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special
permit for an airline coach service by resolution with the conditions
in the staff report as amended by staff and Commission. Conditions
follow: (1) that the project shall be built in accordance with plans
submitted showing 36 parking spaces as approved by staff; (2) that the
conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 28, 1992 memo (no auto
repair in the building, service limited to exchange of parts only) and
the Chief Building Inspector's September 30, 1992 memo (vehicles may
not be stored inside the building without a change in occupancy permit)
shall be met; (3) that the on-site storage of 18 vans shall be in
designated and marked stalls; (4) that the airline coach service shall
be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week with a maximum of seven
office employees and 10 drivers at any one time; and (5) that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and
Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
9. TEMPORARY TENT PERMIT AT THE HYATT REGENCY, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY,
ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 11/9/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request and staff comment. Six conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Staff and Commission discussed this application received October 30 for
a temporary tent to be installed November 8 through November 16. The
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
November 9, 1992
tent is already in place since this was the next Commission meeting at
which an application could be heard. CP suggested an alternative for
the future might be a use permit allowing tents at designated
locations, no more than once a month, so long as the off-site parking
continued to be available. Request reviews ---would then be
administrative until the off-site parking was no longer available.
Commission wondered what happens if the request is denied. CA
commented he needs to discuss this type of application with City
Council and receive policy direction. A Commissioner noted there had
been quite a bit of discussion when the previous tent permit was
approved about this not becoming a common occurrence.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement there should be a procedure for this type of action
as long as parking is available, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the
temporary tent permit with the following conditions: (1) that the
project shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped October 31, 1992 Exhibit and Site
Plan (11" x 17"); (2) that the temporary tent shall be removed by
November 16, 1992 and the parking spaces shall be restored to their
original use; (3) that while the tent is in place the parking lot at
1338/1340 Bayshore Highway shall be available for employees,
maintaining a total of 41 spaces for employee use during that time at
that location; (4) that while the tent is in place valet parking shall
occur in the surface parking lot in the northeast corner of the site in
front of the parking garage; (5) that the project shall meet Uniform
Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame;
and (6) that the site shall be inspected for removal of the tent in
November, 1992. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan.
Comment on the motion: is there a building permit fee with penalty;
Planning Department application fee was $335; could a penalty fee be
required. CA noted there is no mechanism set up for penalties in this
kind of case and this has not happened often in the past.
Motion passed on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and Mink
voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
11
Letter (October 7, 1992) regarding health service use at 1299
Bayshore Highway.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its November 2, 1992 regular
meeting.
Burlingame Planning commission Minutes Page 8
November 9, 1992
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael F. Galligan
Secretary
4