Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.10.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 1996 - 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 October 25, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink and Ellis Absent: Commissioner Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the October 15, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The agenda was approved as mailed. FROM THE FLOOR CP Monroe introduced Maureen Brooks, the new Planner in the Planning Department ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO DEVELOP MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WHERE THREE LOTS ARE SUBSTANDARD IN DIMENSION AT 2502, 2504 AND 2506 POPPY AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (OTTO J. & VICTORIA H. MILLER AND KURT STEIL, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Requests: need sheet A9 which shows three front elevations; want location of liquid amber and two protected trees at rear on site plan; show existing size of lots on Poppy between Adeline and Columbus, both sides; also house size where available in Planning files; clearer note defining average setback; note protected trees and retaining wall on vicinity map, arborist report showing impact of retaining wall and fence combination on trees and tree maintenance; height fence and wall from lowest as well as highest point; show that the 6" fall, rear to front, is enough for gravity flow of rain water; compatibility with neighborhood, no documentation provide letter; what is neighborhood and why does this project fit; show positive aspects which make it fit; why homes are three identical landscapes, driveways and setbacks, need to address how this fits neighborhood; page 2, first floor layout shows chimney in family room and one in living room, -1- CITY OPBURLINGAMB PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUIBS Oc[ober 28, 1996 no chimney/flew shown on any elevation, if fireplace interior how does it affect second floor and roof; page 1, fireplace intrudes into setback; is the setback less than 4' (does it need a variance); check all three houses; Set for action Tuesday, November 12, 1996, if information is received in time. 2. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (GENSLER FAMILY L.P.I., PROPERTY OWNERS AND NATHAN AND MARILYN L. SCHMIDT, APPLICANTS). Requests: number of seats in patio area; occupational breakdown of number of employees showing how ratio of 7 employees to 90 customers will work. Set for action Tuesday, November 12, 1996, if information received. ACTION ITEMS 3. APPLICATION FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, SIGN EXCEPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE, AT 1041-1049 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2, (DONALD TATEOSIAN. PROPERTY OWNER AND MIKE HARVEY, APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 10.28.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, 1077 Broadway, addressed the Commission. He objects to the staff report stating this is a code enforcement item and he did not request a master sign program, he will not need the benefits of a master sign program, he only applied for a pole sign. He feels the bunting signs should be allowed the same as they are on "auto row" so there is a "level playing field". Without selling used cars the auto sales business would not be viable. His employees now park in the CalTran right-of-way; to provide parking on this site for imaginary personnel would preclude his ability to do business. Commission asked why a letter was not provided by Mr. Gumbinger allowing the use of his plans. Mr. Harvey stated he told CP Monroe to delete Mr. Gumbinger's name from the plan. CP Monroe noted for the record that it is not city policy to delete or add to plans. The issue of use of Mr. Gumbinger's plans is between Mr. Harvey and Mr. Gumbinger. Staff requested a resubmittal from Mr. Harvey, one was not given. The definition of this area as "auto row" for signage is a City Council issue not a Planning Commission consideration. The sign height is needed because the building housing the stereo business Monney, blocks the field of vision and without visibility used car sales are difficult. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted the plans as shown are not representative of the conditions on the site and it makes it difficult to act. He noted that this application was an improvement over the previous application for Monney's because employee parking was designated and it appears employees will park elsewhere anyway; key to the new use is display area along Broadway, it is of little WA CITY OF BUMNOM4E PL9NMNG COMMISSIONMINUMS October 28, 1996 consequence what happens at the rear of the site; not concerned about access since employees know how to get in and off the site; the site is now littered with signs maybe this master sign program will convince them only to use signs approved by the city, sign permits granted for auto dealerships elsewhere in the city exceed this request; signage and access are determined by current "as built" situation; signs are not a grant of special privilege since there is a lack of visibility because of railroad and freeway signs and the placement of the building on the site; the variance is for parking stall and aisle width dimensions and should show the stripping dimensions. He then made a motion to approve this application with the following amended and added conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 17, 1996 Sheet 1, Site Plan/Floor Plan, and August 6, 1996 (Three sheets) Pole Sign Sheet - West Elevation, Pole Sign Sheet -Plan view and Side Elevation and Pole Sign Sheet - Perspective sketch; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspectors' September 30, 1996 memo (if the parking lot is restriped, one accessible van space, 9' wide + 8' unloading shall be required as a part of the 16 required parking stalls); 3) that all the existing banners, and A - frame board signs for both Mike Harvey Honda and Monney Car Audio along Broadway and at the parking lot shall be removed; 4) that all the temporary bunting surrounding the light pole signs (bunting materials but not the signs) along Broadway shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for installing the new signs; and 5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Commission discussed alternatives, could support the signage request but not the parking, not able to tell where used car parking would be, no evidence to support findings; asked to amend conditions adding: a) that the entrance off Broadway and exit onto Carolan be clearly marked; b) that customer parking be signed and not used by employees; c) that employee parking for 1041-1049 used car sales personnel be specifically identified on the JPB right-of-way; and d) if the applicant should loose the lease on the JPB used for parking then the variance for this site becomes void. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the additional conditions. Commission discussed further the possibility of the appearance of a granting of special privilege because of the poor plans and the lack of findings for any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. It would be preferable to look at the parking after it is stripped, at the very least, or on a plan with accurate dimensions. Commission then called for the question by roll call vote. The motion failed on a 3-3-1 voice vote (Cmsrs. Coffey, Deal and Ellis dissenting and C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES October 28, 1996 4. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SCHOOL, AT 860 HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED O-M, (HUGH KLEBAHN TRUST, PROPERTY OWNERS AND SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 104 AND BAY AREA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING FUND APPLICANTS) Reference staff report, 10.28.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. A letter from the business located at 897 Hinckley Road, Coit Cleaners, in opposition to the parking variance, was read into the record. Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. Paul Manion, 703 South B, San Mateo, addressed the Commission. The schooling/training will be at night, 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and will have no impact on daytime parking or traffic. The maximum on site during the day is 5 people; so there will be no impact on dispatch of Coit trucks in daytime. In looking at World Gym parking he noted that there were parking spaces on the gym's site not used because further to walk, thought when his site fully used these would be available, also few World Gym people park in his lot, mostly next door because closer to door of gym; most businesses in the area are daytime except World Gym. Steve Kritchfield, 4085 Campbell, Menlo Park spoke in favor of the application as an employer participant in programs, need more space for school and to provide a better program for apprentices. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted the review of the staff report and the testimony given and finds this is a favorable use in harmony with other uses in the neighborhood, and that there was sufficient parking available in the area at the time the use would occur and the number of students and employees would not exceed the amount of parking provided on site. He then made a motion to approve this special permit and parking variance with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 7, 1996 Sheet 1, Site Plan and October 3, 1996 Sheet 2, Floor Plan; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshals' and Chief Building Inspectors' October 8, 1996 memos shall be met; 3) that the union office shall be open 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and the apprentice school shall be open 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday with a maximum of five (5) employees and 50 students on site at any one time; 4) that all the exits at the rear of the building shall remain and shall not be blocked by parking stalls; 5) that this use permit shall be amended if any aspect of the business changes including but not limited to location and size of classroom facilities; hours of operation for the offices and school; scheduling and size of the classes; number of employees and/or instructors; and number of parking stalls available; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 5-1-1 roll call vote (C. Deal abstaining and C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 10 Cr17 OF BURLINGAME PLANNING October 28, 1996 5. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1234 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, (THEODORE P. KOROS, PROPERTY OWNER AND MICHAEL LAI, APPLICANT). CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 15, 1996 Reference staff report, 10.28.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Mr. Lai, 1171 Richmond Lane, Foster City, the applicant was present. He explained his signs tell what services are available to the customers. He noted he needed signs on windows at eye level on sheet because the existing signage on the site was too high to be seen by pedestrians or driving by in a car; he noted that the "$1. shirt' sign was intended to be included although the dimension for that sign area did not seem to include it. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed: purpose is not to hinder a business but looked at facade and number of signs, too many, want people to know what he does there but there needs to be a limit; the previous business did fine with signs at three places on the frontage; codes change, if you are approved under an older code do not need to change for new requirements. This business benefits from this too since roof sign is non -conforming and his revised program which meets current requirements would not need to be changed if code changes in the future; prefer a sign program which complies with current code; the business would look better with less signage. there are other ways to get the message of what they do across; too much information on facade can't tell what is doing; calculations given are low, actual measurements would be higher, sign B should be calculated as two signs; three signs, what code permits, is all this small property can tolerate, more and you loose the message; applicant should choose which three signs to keep. C. Galligan noted a revised sign plan would be preferable and made a motion to deny this application for a sign exception, without prejudice, asking that he return to staff for a sign permit or, if necessary, to the Commission with a suitable sign plan within 45 days. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS CP reviewed the City Council regular meeting of October 21, 1996 Planning Commission approved the 1997 Calendar/Schedule ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p. in. MIN10.28 Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary -5-