Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.10.15CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 15, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Tuesday, October 15, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key (7:37 p.m.), Wellford and Ellis Absent: Commissioner Mink Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the September 23, 1996 meeting, page 5: paragraph 3; line 4 was corrected to read; redail vitamin sales. The minutes were then approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. The applicants were advised that 5 of the 7 Commission members were seated this evening. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes of the whole commission in order to pass a motion on action items. The Chair asked if any of tonight's applicants would like to delay their action until a full commission is seated. Item #4, 1234 Broadway asked to be continued to the October 28, 1996 meeting. Chairman Ellis asked that they hold off on the decision to see if Commissioner Key would arrive by then. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE, AT 1041-1049 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2, (DONALD TATEOSIAN, PROPERTY OWNER AND MIKE HARVEY, APPLICANT). CP Monroe reviewed the project and staff comments. Planning Commissioners noted the need for the Planning Commission minutes from the review for the Monney sign request; parking layout on plans should designate which would be the 16 required parking spaces; there should be a letter from Paul Gumbinger authorizing the use of these plans, without the letter the commission will need to -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1996 decide whether to proceed; the area to be used for display of used cars should be demarcated on the plans; applicant did not submit discussion of findings for the parking variance, since parking is adequate for the building now why won't the additional use be detrimental; difficult to pull out onto Broadway from driveway east of proposed pole sign, should location of driveway be altered to improve safety; how many used cars will be put on lot at one time; does fire department have a maximum number or criteria which should be met for parking used cars; lot is not now striped as shown on plans, where will disabled accessible parking be placed when restripe; clarify that bunting is not a part of application; diagram titled plot plan shows a new sign on Carolan, but application does not reflect, what is sign A; will Monney remove his banners; is Monney a part of this application since he too will need to abide by the master sign program; application should show directional signs so that the visual effect can be determined; Broadway is the entrance to the city, it needs a professional look like across the street at Acura, informally painted window signs do not fit, why are they necessary; how much employee parking is available across the street, number of spaces, number of employees now using them, number of new employees who will park there; there is an A -frame sign on the sidewalk which should be removed; does the pedestrian button on the Carolan/Broadway signal work; would the frequent use of this button affect traffic flow; think there was a pole sign reviewed for this site previously, if so provide history on past action. Because the item is code enforcement, it is set for October 28,1996, with or without all the information requested. 2. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE, AT 860 HINKLEY ROAD, ZONED O-M, (HUGH KLEBAHN TRUST, PROPERTY OWNERS AND SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 104 AND BAY AREA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING FUND, APPLICANTS). CP Monroe presented the staff report and staff comments. Planning Commission noted that the applicant's name needed to be corrected on the application; the plans show 4 classrooms but the applicant indicates that they have two classes, why 4 classrooms if number and size of classes are not to change; World Gym is next door and the Sunday and evening parking in the area is a mess, the applicant should count the available parking in the area and on his site at night when classes would occur; how does the city enforce a limitation on number of students; will all training be inside the building; check with San Carlos and see what the history of this operation has been. The item was set for public hearing on October 28, 1996. ACTION ITEMS 3. APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1319 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (BRAD AND LAURIE GILBERT, PROPERTY OWNERS AND ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10.15.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Brad Gilbert, the applicant, 1319 Benito Avenue and Alan Olin of J. D. and Associates, representing the applicant, were present to answer questions. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1996 The applicant noted the code allows 2 separate garage doors, one forward at 21', one back at 23', however, the applicants felt one door would look less "boxish" and be aesthetically preferable. A letter signed by the neighbors indicating no objection to the project was presented to the commission and entered into the record. Mr. and Ms. Gilbert have lived in the house since 1991 and if there was any remodeling done previously they are not aware of when or by whom. The archway over the garage door at 21 feet was discussed because from the side elevation it increases the mass of the structure, applicant's architect noted that this wall supported the second floor cantilever, to eliminate it would reduce the size of the bedroom over the garage; pillars were not an alternative because of the support needed; cantilever could be retained without archway but would be out of proportion to the front of the structure and would loose the shelter/shadow given the double garage doors by the archway; people will see the arch from the street as a design benefit, will not see the side of the building. The garage is oversized, 27' deep where 20' required, why the additional space; need for storage of tools, play equipment; could reduce depth by 2' and meet code requirement and still have storage area; would affect size of bedroom above from 14' to 12'. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Deal noted a business relationship with the applicant and will abstain from the vote and discussion. Commission discussed the project: hard to find exceptional circumstances when the garage shown on the plans is 27' long where only 20' is required. Moving the bulk back 2' would improve the break line without loosing the architectural integrity. This would make the bedroom above only 12' or the cantilever could be increased to retain the 14' length. Difficult to grant on basis that this is the most convenient place to put the wall. There are other ways to do this project without a wall, could use pillars which would be more open. C. Galligan, based on the comments and noting there are no compelling reasons for the granting of this application without the appearance of granting a special favor, moved for the denial of this front setback variance application. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 4-1-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Deal abstaining and C. Mink absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1234 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, (THEODORE P. KOROS. PROPERTY OWNER AND MICHAEL LAI APPLICANT)_ The applicant was advised that 6 of the 7 Commission members were now seated this evening and 4'votes are needed to approve a motion. Koon Wong, representing the applicant asked to be continued to the October 28, 1996 meeting, as he was not prepared to answer any of the commission questions since he was a friend representing the applicant who could not come to tonight's meeting. C. Galligan noted this is a code enforcement item, he then moved to continue this item to the October 28, 1996 Planning Commission meeting stating that the applicant should be present for that meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) voice vote. 991 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1996 VIMPLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed the City Council regular meeting of October 7, 1996 - Cp reminded the commission of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study meeting scheduled for October 23, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room A. ADJOURNMENT MIN10.15 The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ME Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary