HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.05.12MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMh5SION
May 12, 1997, 7:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman
Ellis on May 12, 1997 at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, and Ellis
Absent: Commissioners Mink and Wellford
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer,
Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall
MINUTES - The minutes of the April 28 minutes were corrected to show the date April 28,
1997 on each page, they were then approved.
AGENDA - Staff noted that three of tonight's applicants have requested to have their items
continued from tonight's meeting: item 10, 800 Maple Avenue; item 11, 2012
Davis Drive; and item 13, 1327 Broadway. Commission continued these items
and set them for public hearing at the meeting of Tuesday, May 27, 1997. Staff
noted that they would renotice the three items for public hearing on that date.
The Commissioners agreed that with the addition of these three action items the
May 27, 1997, meeting would be a long one and it should begin at 7:00 p.m. C.
Key made a motion to start the May 27, 1997 meeting at 7:00 p.m., and C.
Galligan seconded. The Commission voted by voice 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and
Wellford absent) to approve the motion. Staff will notice the changed meeting
time as required. The revised order of the agenda was then approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairman Ellis noted that there are five commissioners seated this evening and that this is the meeting
each year when new officers for the Planning Commission are elected. C. Deal nominated C. Key
for Chairman. C. Galligan moved to close nominations. His motion was seconded by C. Coffey.
C. Key was elected chairman on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). C. Galligan
then moved to nominate C. Mink as Vice -Chair. A motion to close nominations was made by C.
Ellis; and his motion was seconded by C. Coffey. C. Mink was elected Vice -Chairman by a voice
vote of 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). C. Coffey then nominated C. Deal as Secretary of
the Commission. C. Galligan moved to close nominations. His motion was seconded by C. Ellis.
C. Deal was elected Secretary by a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent).
-1-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
May 12, 1997
APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 4 KAREN COURT,
ZONED R-1, (TAK ENOMOTO, APPLICANT AND MYLA PUYAT &. DAVID GUO, PROPERTY
OWNERS).
Requests: could commission have a legible copy of the letter from 3 Castro Court; what would the
maximum FAR be on this site if it were "new construction", what FAR is proposed. Item was set
for action at the Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.
APPLICATION FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND A MINOR
MODIFICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 33 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1, (JAMES CHU,
APPLICANT AND PATRICK DOHERTY. PROPERTY OWNER).
Requests: asking for a minor modification for lot coverage but includes no findings, please ask
applicant to provide; when they are adding so much square footage why can't they conform to lot
coverage. Item was set for action at the Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, at 7:00
p.m.
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL,
ZONED C-1, (JOE CODINA, AIRPORT COMMISSION BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND
MANAGEMENT, APPLICANT AND CERTOSA. INC.. PROPERTY OWNER).
There were no requests for additional information. The item was set for action at the Commission
meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE AT 1860 EL CAMINO REAL,
ZONED C-1„ (DARYL W. ROVAI, APPLICANT AND MARCO CHAVEZ, PROPERTY OWNER).
Requests: is there any parking problem in the area experienced by other buildings; could the
commission have a description of the type of real estate business. Item was set for action at the
Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.
-2-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1997
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1791 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED
UNCLASSIFIED, (PENINSULA BLOOD BANK AND WINGES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING,
APPLICANTS AND MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL, PROPERTY OWNERS).
Requests: what parts of the sign will be illuminated when they turn the light on; why do they need
the different letter sizes in the copy; is the name of the facility illuminated independently of the "Blood
Alert" message; what types of messages will be placed on the moveable letter portion of the sign, for
example, do not need to say "donate today" when "Blood Alert" sign is on; how big are the existing
letters, they are visible, if smaller might be a problem; proposed ground sign is 123 SF, we would
allow 126 SF, just a few feet smaller, why is the additional square footage needed; will the changeable
copy portion of the sign be limited to what blood is needed or will it also include community
messages; why is the name changing, if new management who are they. Item was set for action at
the Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1,
SUBAREA A, (NYSF PARTNERS, BEN & JERRY'S, APPLICANT AND KARIM SALMA,
PROPERTY OWNER).
There were no requests for additional information. The item was set for action at the Commission
meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1997.
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICES AT 340 LORTON
AVENUE, SUITE 212, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B, (KATHY CLARK AND GLORIA
CONTREARAS, APPLICANTS AND DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER).
Requests: what business was in this suite before; will any other offices on the second floor be open
at 10:00 p.m.; how will security be provided for employee and patients on this site until 10:00 p.m.;
what are the hours of the physical therapist who is already located in the: building. Item was set for
action at the Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1997.
APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES
FOR A 101-ROOM ADDITION TO THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL AT 835 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (PAUL ZEN, TODAY'S III INC., APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS).
Requests: recreation area is for citizens, where will the parking be placed, how will its addition affect
the previous park development plan, what is the current development plan; what is the current size of
meeting and banquet rooms; how many people or cars are generated by use of the current
meeting/banquet facilities; if reconfigured parking on -site to unistall dimension, how many would you
get on -site; what are the city's needs for parking for recreation use on the sanitary landfill; why is the
landscape exception required within the parking on the hotel site; would an exception for compact be
required if looked at all spaces being provided for the hotel, on and off -site; do they need a variance
-3-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1997
for not providing the appropriate number of parking spaces on -site, or do they need a variance for
providing required parking off -site; clarify city's policy on providing required parking off -site; what
history is there of providing required parking off site; no valet parking is shown on plan, will valet
parking be provided, what control does the city have; will guests leave their cars at the hotel when
they leave the area on a trip; will there be a charge to guests or visitors for using hotel parking. Item
was set for action at the Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1997.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR NON -AUTO RELATED USES (FURNITURE
STORE) AT 218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D, (HOLLY TUONG,
APPLICANT AND ISAAC AND EVELYN BAUMELGRUEN, PROPERTY OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 5.12.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested
for consideration. The Commissioners had no comments of staff.
Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Alvin Tuong, representing his sister, 173 Ankony Street,
San Francisco, stated that they felt that the proposed futon shop would bring more foot traffic to the
area, more jobs and more tax dollars to the city. They would like approval since they have been
waiting a month and a half, his future employees are anxious to go to work. Also speaking for the
project was David Marino, 330 Primrose, he is the building owner's realtor. He wished to point out
that the parking on the rail road right-of-way at the rear is stripped for 21 cars. There were no other
comments from the floor and the hearing was closed.
C. Galligan noted that the commission had reviewed this request for a determination at the last meeting
and he felt that based on the past use of the site and the testimony tonight, and that there was not a
demand at this time for an auto related use at this location, he would move to approve the special
permit for a non -auto related use by resolution with the conditions in the staff report amending the
wording in condition 2 to state; "that the business shall not be open for business except during the
hours of 8:00 am to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday.
The motion was seconded by C. Ellis.
On the motion Commissioners noted: use is all right, not detrimental; every time seem to change the
idea behind the limitation on hours, the use of "may" asks for what it says; stating the hours within
which a business can operate is a more reasonable approach since "may" is not mandatory and they
could be open then or any other time, the term "except during" locks them into those hours, not
saying they have to be open those hours; the proposal extends the hours beyond those suggested by
the applicant, but not into times when there would be conflict with other businesses in the area.
Chairman Key called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the special use permit for non -auto
related sales; the motion passed, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the tenant space
shall be improved as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April
-4-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1997
16, 1997, Sheet Al, and access to the shared bathroom facilities shall be maintained; 2) that the
business shall not be open for business except during the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m, Monday
through Saturday and from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday; 3) that if property owner loses the lease
to the supplemental parking provided on the Caltrain right-of-way, he shall inform the City of the
change and the use permit for the non -auto related use shall be subject to review; 4) that the area
leased for parking from Caltrain shall be posted for the use of employees and customers of tenants of
this site and parking usage shall be enforced by the property owner; and 5) that any improvements for
the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame, on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) vote. Appeal
procedures until May 19,1997, were advised.
APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 800 MAPLE AVENUE, ZONED R-1,
(DOUG MAGHELL, APPLICANT AND SHEDAN & RUHIYYIH R. MAGHZI, PROPERTY
OWNERS).
The applicant requested a continuance. The commission voted unanimously to continue this item to
Tuesday, May 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
APPLICATION FOR MINOR MODIFICATION AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A
FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2012 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (ROB & DIAN DELANTONI,
PROPERTY OWNERS AND SCOTT SULLIVAN, AIA, APPLICANT).
The applicant requested a continuance. The commission voted unanimously to continue this item to
Tuesday, May 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 235 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (W.
GREGORY MENDELL, APPLICANT AND HARMONIOUS HOLDINGS, PROPERTY OWNER).
Reference staff report, 5.12.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were
suggested for consideration. C. Key asked about how the signage on the awning apron at Greenfields
had been counted for their sign permit. Staff noted it was counted as one sign.
Chairman Key then opened the public hearing. Greg Mendell, 235 Park Road, represented the project.
He said that their only intention was to enhance the appearance of the city. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Galligan noted that he had looked at the site, he agreed that the proposed program was tasteful, he
felt that calculating the awning apron signage as single signs gave a better representation of the sign
impact, that by this measure the program was one sign over on the primary frontage and 1.75 SF less
than the maximum signage allowed for the frontage, this seemed an insignificant amount of additional
signage since the program proposed fits the motif of the building which has a substantial street frontage
and he moved approve of the sign exception by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the
-5-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1997
signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
March 26, 1997; 2) that the 5'-0" easement adjacent to the building at 235 Park Road shall remain
accessible to the public for access across the premises to the public parking lot behind, and any
alteration of this condition will require a revision to the sign permit; and 3) that the project shall meet
all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Ellis.
Discussion on the motion: it was noted that this sign program appeared to be consistent with others
in the area; it was noted looking at these widely spaced logos on the apron as individual signs is a
better approach since it discourages the applicant from putting lots of words on the apron which would
not look as good.
Chairman Key called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the sign exception. The commission
voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) to approve the motion. Appeal procedures to May 19.
1997, were advised.
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIAN(E FOR THE EXPANSION
OF A RESTAURANT AT 1327 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, (GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT
AND BILL NERLI, PROPERTY OWNER).
The applicant requested a continuance. The commission voted unanimously to continue this item to
Tuesday, May 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION AT 211 CLARENDON
AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LEWIS A AND K. A. SALZMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 5.12.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested
for consideration.
Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. The applicant was not available. There were no comments
and the public hearing was closed.
Commission noted for the record that this application is request for an one year extension, as such it
must now comply with any applicable changes made to the California Building and Fire codes since
the original date of approval.
C. Ellis moved to grant this one year extension of a side setback and parking variance noting the
conditions of the May 20, 1996 approval, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall meet all the conditions of approval from the May 20, 1996 approval as stated in the May
Eel
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1997
21, 1996 letter to Lewis A. and K. A. Salzman from M. Monroe (Conditions #1 through #3); and 2)
that the project shall receive a building permit before May 20, 1998, and the project as built shall
conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of
Burlingame, 1995 edition.
The motion was seconded by C. Coffey, and passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent)
voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
PLANNER'S REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed the May 5 1997, City Council meeting.
Planning Commission Procedures.
The Commissioners discussed the need to revise the Commission's Rules of Procedure. They endorsed
their direction earlier in the meeting to bring a resolution to the next meeting amending the present
resolution to have regular meetings start at 7:00 p.m.
The Commissioners discussed the idea of stating a time in their rules after which a new item would
not be introduced. The CA noted that Burlingame was unusual in getting all their business done in
the given time; other cities have provisions that give the Commission the right to decide if they want
to begin another topic after a stated hour, if they decide not to go on that evening they must continue
the remainder of the agenda to a stated date and time. Commissioners expressed concern that such
a practice could substantially extend the review time for a project, causing a timing and financial
hardship on the applicant and property owner; thought that this provision was not needed now, could
wait until the Commission had a problem. If Commission did have a time limit for beginning new
agenda items it could be stated some place clearly on the agenda so everyone would know.
Commission has had very few very long agendas, could agree now to continue if it was getting too
late. Mixed feelings about length of meetings, some issues so contentious need to give public time
to vent, can't just push on; could formally limit the number of items on the agenda for a single
meeting also the Commission could consider at the time, what they want to do after 11:30 p.m.; limit
at end of meeting all right if the Commission has the discretion to decide if they want to do it or not;
could amend rules so not limit a meeting unless it is 11:30 p.m. or midnight and only by affirmative
vote of 4 commissioners. Applicants do not want items continued because it is 14 or 15 weeks of
processing before they get building permits and it just pushes that time out. The CA noted that often
neighbors who have to work do not want to stay past midnight.
The Commission discussed what the policy should be for staff when the number of commissioners at
a meeting is down to 5 or 4. It is clear when there are five members seated and it takes 4 votes to
action a motion the fact needs to repeated often. It was noted that the "rule of 4" used in Burlingame
is unusual but is established in the Municipal Code. It would take a action by the council to change
the rule to "the majority of the members seated". Staff's discretion in accepting continuances was also
-7-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 1997
discussed. It was noted that staff could accept the first request for a continuance on a project if it were
based on a good reason. The city might consider charging the applicant for the cost of renoticing if
they request a continuance.
Staff was directed to look over Resolution 3-78 and to suggest changers that would make the Rules
consistent with both current practice and State mandates. It was noted that sections III B and VII A
need to be looked at carefully.
Up date on development of Neighborhood Consistency Regulation.
Staff suggested that the Commission might want to consider whether they would like to
act now on the issue of holding demolition permits in the R-1 zone until building permits
have been approved. This was a provision previously discussed by the Council and
Commission in implementing neighborhood consistency. It was noted that we are moving
into a very busy construction season and this might become an issue again. The
discussion included an observation that there may be liability reasons for demolishing a
structure. Staff noted that the proposal provided the Chief Building Official with some
discretion allowing some demolition to occur if it is minor or a public safety issue and
that his determination could also be appealed to the Planning Commission. Staff was
directed to prepare a draft of ordinance language to implement the holding of demolition
permits until building permits have been issued in R-1 zones.
Follow up from Joint Session on Regulations of Food Establishments in areas of Burlingame
where they are limited.
Discussion was referred to a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
MINUTES5.12
ME
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry L. Deal, Secretary