Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.08.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 1992 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City, of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, August 24, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Jacobs, Kelly Absent: Commissioners Galligan, Graham, Mink Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the August 10, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE OUT SERVICES AND PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1408 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 1, ZONED C-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUBAREA B-1 Requests: on Sheet Al of the plans show new striping plan for the parking area; exceptional circumstances applicable to the property to support the variance request. Item set for public hearing September 14, 1992. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE OFFICE AREA AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1313-1321 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Requests: exceptional circumstances relating to the property to support ,the variance request; clarification of the square footage of office in the entire building, why do they need that such square footage of office per person; regarding CE's comment 12 (7-27-92), is he saying he "can" or "cannot' support; existing HVAC equipment upstairs is located in a loft of 990 SF, was that counted in original space being remodeled and therefore not counted in office, or is it new space; lunch room seems large for the number of people, will it also be used for office space; is lunch room counted by city as office space; history of occupancy of the building; what is the machine shop, is it part of the printing business. Item set for public hearing September 14, 1992. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 24, 1992 WON; • • 3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO BUILD A SOLARIUM OVER A PROPOSED FOR A PATIO EXERCISE POOL, LOT COVER AT 3121 RIVERA COVERAGE AND SIDE: DRIVE, ZONED R-1 SETBACK VARIANCES Item continued to the meeting of September 14, 1992. 4. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONS TO THE MAIN FLOOR AND LOWER FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AT 1544 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/24/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at 'the public hearing. A.drawing was submitted by applicant after preparation of the staff report to indicate how the new addition met the declining height envelope requirement. A Commissioner commented that contrary to Commission request at study no markers were put up on the site to indicate the new roof heights of the additions; another Commissioner was concerned that the project did not meet declining height envelope requirements and suggested a condition be added that the plans satisfy declining height before a building permit is issued. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Jack chu, designer representing the applicant, Peter Lip, was present. He advised they did not put up poles to indicate the addition, instead they spray painted the ground at the rear, the roof ridge will be only 2' higher; facing the house there is a door on the right side, it goes to the dining room and will be removed, they are extending out to the front setback. A Commissioner discussed his concern about declining height envelope measurements and requested staff look at them again. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found the roof will be only 2' higher, the house is there on 'a sloping lot, houses across the street are elevated substantially higher than this house, the 2' is not a big problem, neighbors would be in the audience this evening if any views would be blocked, there is no other way to add on to this house, the lot is big but all space is in the sloping rear yard. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this application by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 25, 1992, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5; (2) that the finish material used on both the flat and sloping portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed elevation 19'-3" from average top of curb denoted as elevation 0'-0" on Sheet A-1 of plans and that the framing shall be surveyed to confirm this elevation and E Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 24, 1992 the survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final framing inspection is called for and the roofing material is attached; (4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (5) that staff shall have the applicant field check and confirm existing site elevations and confirm measurements for declining height envelope to determine they are accurate, if the project exceeds declining height requirements it will require a variance or redesign. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 4-0-3 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Graham and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA AND NUMBER OF SIGNS AT 1049 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 8/24/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of signage on this site, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Kevin Johnson,, Monney Car Audio, applicant, was present. He stated he would like to keep the pole sign at the rear of the parking lot to identify his business sometime in the future, presently the sign is gone and he cannot afford to replace it; his present signage used all of the metal sign cabinets of the previous owner; traveling east/west on Broadway there is only one sign which identifies his business. Commission/staff/applicant discussed applicant's desire to keep the pole sign for future use; a Commissioner pointed out the previous tenant's signage program is to be eliminated by this permit, action this evening is creating a new program; staff noted applicant can come back and ask for a pole sign at a later date when he is able to install it; all interior signs will be 4' from the face of the window, exhibits which change periodically; vinyl signs on the windows are manufacturers' logo signs. There: were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Kelly found this company has to have signs to do business, there will be no problem as long as applicant understands he is starting with a new signage program for this site and the pole sign is not included; the business needs to be seen from Broadway traffic; approval will not be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district. C. Kelly moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans• submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 8, 1992 Sheet 1 - Plot Plan, Sheet 2 - Sign Elevations, Sheet 3 - West and East Elevations, Sheets 4 through 6 - Sign Elevations and Sheet 7 -Showroom Sign Elevation; (2) that all banner signs shall be removed and all window signs within 3'-0" of the windows shall be removed; (3) that the existing 8'-2" x 10'-0" double faced pole sign located at the rear of the parking lot is not approved and shall be removed; and (4) that the project shall meet f Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 24, 1992 Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: have reservations about six signs, not the square footage but the number of signs, this is not as desirable as the previous sign program on the site which was less confused, not so many on the Carolan side; this type of business deals with a number of different products, displaying the name of these companies is important to applicant's business; looking across the tracks from California can see the signs easily, it is very difficult to find the name of the business but can see the brand names clearly; there are a couple Stay Tuned signs, don't know what they are; have no problem on Broadway signage but looking across from California Drive the entire front of the building has manufacturers' names, would like to see less signage on the Carolan side, could consider a new pole sign in the future. Further comment: square footage is within reason, automobile dealers have only one product to sell but auto stereo dealers have an array of products, am not concerned about the amount and number of signs, can see the name Monney across California Drive; footage is less but number of signs is more; think the program is necessary for the business. Motion to approve failed on a 2-2-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Jacobs voting no, Cers Galligan, Graham and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FOUR STORY COMMERCIAL RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL. ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 8/24/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Jacobs advised she had not voted for this project but would vote affirmative this evening since the City Council approved this project and it would be their intent to extend the permit. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Merrill Jew, architect representing Mitzi Lee, property owner, advised they have been fairly successful in working with Chevron for cleanup and monitoring of the site, he believed they were 80-85% clean, they are working with Chevron and the county health department. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis moved to grant a one year extension of the special permit and parking variances with the following condition: (1) that the project shall meet all current Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the date of the planning Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 ,August 24, 1992 permit extension. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 4-0-3 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Graham and Mink absent. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its August 17, 1992 regular meeting. _� • The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Vice Chairman