Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.01.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, January 14, 1985 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the December 10, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Items #10 and #11 continued to the January 28, 1985 meeting for study. Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A LANAI ADDITION AT 1431 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY ART SCHMITZ FOR CLYDE AND HELEN MOLL CP Monroe reviewed this request to place a 216 SF lanai in the relandscaped rear yard. Reference staff report, 1/14/85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/8/84; applicants' letter, 11/8/84; plans received 11/8/84 (revision distributed this evening); staff review: City Engineer (11/19/84), Chief Building Inspector (12/21/84), Fire Chief (11/19/84); aerial photograph; study meeting minutes (12/10/84); notice of hearing mailed 1/4/85; and Planning Commission Resolution SP/1-85. CP discussed details of the request, noting there is also a 90 SF metal building in the rear yard; staff review; applicants' letter; Planning staff comments. Applicant had stated in a telephone call today that they would like to have electrical service in the lanai and a hose bib on the exterior wall. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission determinations: when the landscaping was redone the water pipe had been extended; applicants wish to retain the 90 SF metal building; there would be three structures in the rear yard area, twc of which would exceed 100 SF; landscape architect must have the required license before building permit will be issued. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 14, 1985 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicants were present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of these special permits and for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution SP/1-85 with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of November 19, 1984, the Chief Building Inspector's memo of December 21, 1984 and the Fire Chief's memo of November 19, 1984 be met; (2) that the lanai as built be limited to a maximum dimension of 12' x 181, be set no closer than 3' to any property line, the top of the windows at the rear of the structure not exceed 6' from grade, maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 14' from grade; and that'one side of the structure remain permanently open; and (3) that the only utility allowed within the lanai building be electricity and plumbing be limited to a hose bib on the outside of the wall. Second C. Garcia. CP advised that lot coverage including the metal building would not exceed the 40% maximum allowed by code. Motion was appproved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. The Chair recognized in the audience Fire Chief Malcolm Towns who introduced Assistant Chief and Fire Marshal, Robert Barry. 2. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A 1,210 SF GARAGE AND RECREATION ROOM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 155 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY JACK KEMP FOR MR. AND MRS. WALTER LEMBI CP Monroe reviewed this request for an 890 SF addition to the existing 320 SF garage at the rear of this home. Reference staff report, 1/14/85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/13/84; letter from the applicant, 11/13/84; staff review: City Engineer (11/26/84), Fire Chief (11/20/84), Chief Building Inspector (11/26/ 84); study meeting minutes, 12/10/84; letter from Jack Kemp, architect, dated 12/3/84; photographs of the site date stamped January 3, 1985; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed January 4, 1985; Planning Commission Resolution SP/2-85; and plans date stamped December 3, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, Commission study meeting questions addressed in the staff report. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Jack Kemp, architect and Walter Lembi, applicant were present. Mr. Kemp spoke briefly: there is inadequate storage space for this large recreation oriented family; existing garage is substandard; design of the large home included very little storage room; site is beautifully developed, would like to retain the existing garage which is partially below grade to protect landscaping, this would be converted for recreation room/storage; the new addition would provide space to park cars under cover; there would be very little impact because of tree growth in the vicinity; only the cupola of the structure would be 15' high; applicant is aware of staff's suggested conditions. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 Commission discussion/comment: concern about use of this accessory structure for residential purposes in the future; staff advised all conditions of approval would be attached to the Planning Commission resolution as Exhibit A and recorded with the county; this is an extremely large lot with mature foliage, accessory structure would be well screened and have no impact on the neighbors; looks like_a good project. Accessory structure code regulations were discussed. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the special permits and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution SP/2-85 with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of November 26, 1984, the Fire Chief's memo of November 20, 1984 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 26, 1984 be met; (2) that the structure built conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 3, 1984 with a height not to exceed 151, and an interior finished dimension of the garage area of 20' x 30' and a total floor area not to exceed 1,210 SF; (3) that the only utility serving this structure be electricity; and (4) that no portion of this accessory structure shall ever be used or leased for residential purposes. Second C. Leahy; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. MASTER SIGN PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR TWO BUILDINGS AT 1209-1217 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BY NANCY WOODS FOR DAVID KIMMEL (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for a master sign permit and sign exception for signage on two buildings accessible from Donnelly Avenue. Reference staff report, 1/14/85; Sign Permit application filed 11/8/84; Sign Exception application filed 11/8/84; study meeting minutes, 12/10/84; "no comment" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (11/19/84), Fire Chief (11/19/84) and City Engineer (11/13/84); 11/8/84 letter from applicant's architect; sign permit detail date stamped 11/8/84; sign drawings and elevations date stamped 11/8/84; letter from applicant's architect, 11/8/84; site drawings date stamped 11/8/84; photographs of the site; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed 1/4/85. CP discussed details of the request, location of the buildings and placement of the signs, code require- ments, staff review, applicant's letter in support, findings necessary for granting a sign exception. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. In discussion CP clarified signs included in the application and staff's determination of secondary frontage; any existing signs not included in this application or signs proposed in the future would be brought to the Planning Commission for an amendment of the master sign permit. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Nancy Woods, 20 Park Road, applicant's representative was present. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. During Commission discussion Nancy Woods advised the applicant did not want too many signs on these buildings, inside tenants' names would Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 be on the directory sign, the two outside entrances will have 2 SF signs; there are no signs proposed on the west side, this application proposes the 'Crest of Nature' sign on the west wall of 1209 Donnelly be removed. One Commissioner felt the two businesses which have access directly outside, and most likely would be retail merchandising operations, would need more identification than 2 SF of signage. Staff again advised if this program is approved existing signs not included in the application would be removed and any additional signage would be brought back to the Commission. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances applicable to this property, that the buildings are unique, particularly 1209 Donnelly which fronts on Burlingame Avenue and has some of its leasable area accessible only at the rear of the structure on Donnelly (secondary frontage) and that approval would not constitute a grant of special privilege. She found this sign program in very good taste. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this Master Sign Program and Sign Exception with the following conditions: (1) that the signs as placed conform in size, location and design to the sign permit for 1209 and 1213-1217 Donnelly date stamped November 8, 1984 and placed as shown on the building elevations submitted and date stamped November 8, 1984 for 1209 and 1213-1217 Donnelly; sign sizing will be based solely on sign permit application form information; (2) existing ground sign not included in this application shall be removed within 30 days; and (3) that this master sign permit shall only be changed by subsequent review and action by the Planning Commission. Second C. Giomi, motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. USE DETERMINATION TO ALLOW A VIDEO PROGRAMMING AND PROJECTION FACILITY IN THE C-2 ZONE AT 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY KENN WEEKS (APPLICANT) WITH CHRISTINE DILLON (PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 10, 1984) 5. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A VIDEO PROGRAMMING AND PRODUCTION FACILITY AT 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHICH PROVIDES ONLY 12 OF THE 110 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, ZONED C-2, BY KENN WEEKS WITH CHRISTINE DILLON (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 10, 1984) CP Monroe reviewed this request for a parking variance and use determination for a video programming and production facility and public entertainment on the site of the old Encore Theater. Reference staff report, 1/14/85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 4/30/84; Mitigated Negative Declaration ND -363P posted September 18, 1984; Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration posted November 8, 1984; Planning Commission minutes, September 24, 1984; parking survey diagram, Maximum Area of Parking Impact on Friday Evenings, R Gardens project; memo from Police Chief (9/28/84); land use map of the impact area, November, 1984; aerial photograph of the site; staff review: Fire Marshal (5/9/84), Chief Building Inspector (5/11/84), City Engineer (5/29/84); memos from the Traffic Engineer (9/17 and 9/12/ 84); Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission minutes (9/13/84); Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 memo from Police Chief (9/13/84); memo from Sergeant Parkin (9/11/84); Planner's memo to file re County Health Department comments (6/7/84); study meeting minutes, September 24, 1984; file data, previous application for this site: Commission minutes (6/11/79), staff report (11/27/78), staff report (6/11/79) and Director of Public Works' memo (11/22/78); comparison of R Gardens (1984) and Encore Productions (1978) proposals dated 6/7/84; Sanborn Map drawing of the site; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed 11/30/84; area map; letters from K. R. Weeks, applicant, December 4, 1984; Commission minutes, 12/10/84; Coleman letter to Weeks, 12/27/84; notice of hearing mailed 1/4/85; Commission Resolution. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letters and description of the project, Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission's review, questions raised at the study meeting, code criteria for making a use determination and findings necessary for approval of the parking variance, Planning staff summary. It was noted an amusement permit from the City Council would be required for public entertainment; affirmative action on the project would preclude food service due to the recent moratorium on eating establishments adopted by Council 1/7/85. Two sets of conditions were suggested for consideration: one, should only the daytime use be approved and the other, if both requests were granted. Discussion: would FCC approval be required; theaters are now a prohibited use in the C-1 and C-2 zones, since this clearly is not a movie theater use Commission is being asked to define the proposed use. Kenn Weeks, applicant and his attorney, Lage Andersen were present. Slides were shown depicting the proposed restoration of this structure. Attorney Andersen's comments: a split project would not be feasible, applicant needs the evening entertainment use also; a similar project in 1979 was determined not to be obnoxious nor to have a significant impact. A sheet comparing the two projects (1979 and 1984) and addressing staff's concerns about the proposed project was distributed. Mr. Andersen contended: the proposed seven day operation would not be a more intense use than "several days" proposed in 1979, the hours of operation are similar; serving of food and alcoholic beverages is a significant difference but this determination should be the concern of City Council when it considers the amusement permit; maximum number of cars expected (179 and 184) are approximately the same; staff concluded that the parking impact would be significant on neighborhoods and on the Broadway commercial area, proposed mitigation in 1978 was to lease spaces across California Drive from the Metropolitan Parking Corporation, present applicant has been assured by Caltrans his patrons could use those lots, he could put money in the box and encourage patrons to use these lots for free; 1984 parking study showed there would be at least 50 spaces available within 1,000 feet of the theater after patrons had entered and parking for other uses had been taken care of; regarding noise impact, a study showed the maximum number of people standing in line would be 25 and Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 residents could mitigate potential noise by closing their windows; can an assumption be made that those people standing in line will be raucous; security guards (four at peak periods) will be used, believe they can handle problems of jaywalking, queuing, raucous patrons entering and leaving; applicant hopes to use off-duty Burlingame police officers to control traffic when available; security personnel and signs/barriers can be used to channel patrons into crosswalks on California Drive. Attorney Andersen concluded his remarks by stating this would not be a viable enterprise with only the daytime use, public entertainment in the evening seems a good use of this particular structure. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Andersen stated applicant's plans to put money in the parking box slots of lots on California Drive would not prevent people with other business in the area from using these spaces. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor. Alan Horn: commend Kenn Weeks on his desire to restore this building; city will benefit; residents in the area could walk to the site. Terry Merritt: received approval for an audio/visual recording studio on this site in 1979; this proposal is essentially what was proposed in 1978-1979; if not used this historic building will eventually be demolished; 179 plan did not include food and alcohol service, nor tables and chairs; this proposal would result in a different lineup outside because seats not reserved, theater use was a more controlled environment; there is adequate parking in the area; it would be financially difficult to keep the theater operating without the nighttime entertainment use; city could control since amusement permits are reviewed regularly. Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road: would be beneficial to renovate this building; entertainment enterprise would add diversity to Broadway commercial zone; project is not on Broadway and would not have a direct impact on Broadway parking; would suggest permit be granted subject to city review in one year, thus giving the applicant a chance and the city an opportunity for recourse should the use prove to be detrimental. Paul Emerson, resident, Drake Avenue: live a few blocks from the site; if someone is willing to renovate and use this building, he should have the city's support; feel this enterprise would draw a good crowd of people, many from the nearby areas, not troublemakers. Those in opposition: John Sabol, 1116 Rhinette Avenue: live two blocks from the theater, think this use would be a public nuisance, people milling about in the residential areas before and after the entertainment; am strongly opposed. Greg Dennis, resident, Rhinette Avenue: city parking lot near my home has no spaces available in the evening; do not see how this enterprise would draw business to the Broadway area since most businesses are closed after 8:00 P.M.; people will park on residential streets, if Caltrans lots are used spaces will not be available for patrons of the nearby restaurants; if granted, it would not be acceptable and responsible unless the city at the same time were to grant some relief to those who live in the area by regulating by residential parking permit and strictly enforcing on -street parking. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 Responding to Commission question, Terry Merritt explained why his 1978/79 project did not go forward. Commission discussion/comment: would like to focus on the present project, not comparisons with the former proposal; this is a different Commission and a different time; possibility of leasing spaces from Caltrans; Commission has frowned on off-site parking in recent years; if alcohol is served people are more likely to make noise when leaving, the mitigation stating residents can close their windows is not an acceptable mitigation, 600 plus people leaving at 2:00 A.M. will produce traffic and noise impacts, seems a serious threat to the neighborhoods and therefore to the entire project. Staff discussed expected realignment of California Drive within the next five years which could eliminate some parking spaces now available in lot along Southern Pacific right-of-way north of Broadway intersection. Further Commission comment: proposal will have a tremendous impact on this area if it is successful, think traffic study was optimistic and based on assumptions, city needs more control and more designated parking, TSP Commission's review found this project would generate an appreciably larger parking demand in the area, the Broadway area itself will change, you cannot tell people where to park, noise cannot be controlled, this is an extremely large project with many negative impacts; not against alcohol in moderation but it does add a dimension not present in the 179 proposal; with all the restaurants, in early evening there will be parking problems; there is also moving traffic through the area to consider; if controlled, parking across the street could keep some of the cars out of the neighborhoods; believe parking impact would be more detrimental than beneficial. C. Jacobs moved to deny the use determination without prejudice. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Schwalm and Taylor dissenting. C. Jacobs then moved to deny the parking variance without prejudice. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Apeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:30 P.M.; reconvene 9:38 P.M. 6. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO THE HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE CP Monroe reviewed this item (reference staff report, 1/14/85 with attachments including November 13, 1984 Planning Commission minutes) She discussed current code criteria, problems with the existing ordinance, comparison with proposed revisions. Commission/staff discussion: how the proposed ordinance might affect Tupperware parties, Christmas boutiques or swimming lessons; ordinance is designed to help regulate businesses in the home that regularly impact the neighborhood; ordinance includes specific maximum or minimum limits, specific prohibitions and an administrative procedure which will aid staff in enforcement. Staff pursues on a complaint Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 basis and has gone to private homes to inspect. One Commissioner commented "find it incredible that city can do this." Another commented the proposed ordinance is "a well put together and well thought out" document. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Gary Strickland discussed the situation on his street: neighbor is a piano teacher with as many as two cars parked on the street and another waiting 5-10 minutes, this same household has a landscape business with three large trucks and three smaller vehicles related to the business, in addition there are three family cars and on occasion employees park on the street. He must park two to three houses away when returning from work and move his car later in the evening; it is irritating but hate to complain. Overnight on -street parking permits were discussed, staff advised Police Department enforces these on a complaint basis. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue commented his wife is a weaver and displays tapestries on the walls of their home; he asked if the restriction of using only 200 SF of the dwelling unit in a home occupation would apply; he felt an ordinance regulating home occupations was a good idea but the city should be careful not to infringe on a person's rights if he is not impacting the neighbor- hood. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Leahy moved that the Ordinance Establishing Standards and Requirements for Home Occupations be recommended to City Council for adoption. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Taylor and Graham dissenting. Dissenting Commissioners were asked why they voted no. Their replies: an employee/friend should be able to come to one's home to work in a small business as long as he is not bothering the neighbors; reluctant to tell people they can't have a business in their home when the real issue is impact on the neighborhood, "keep government off the backs of the people"; like the simplicity of the old ordinance, don't know that the new one will be that much more beneficial. Comment: think city should enforce before, not on a complaint basis afterward; CP pointed out the proposed criteria would be made known to people applying for a permit. Staff will forward Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. 7. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DRY CLEANING PLANTS IN THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT CP Monroe reviewed this item (reference staff report, 1/14/85 with attachments including 11/13/84 Planning Commission minutes): Commission concerns have been addressed in the staff report, Fire Department concerns, space required for a processing plant, existing dry cleaning establishments in Burlingame; currently only dry cleaning agencies are allowed in the C-1 zone. If recommended to Council, staff suggested this be made a conditional use in the C-1 zone. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 14, 1985 Staff/Commission discussion: if this ordinance is not adopted, existing nonconforming uses could remain if the use is continuous; Fire Chief has stated he had few concerns if nonflammable solvent were used; Fire Department makes an inspection each year of all industrial businesses. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. James Jackson, attorney representing Marmora Terrell and Nancy Kurkjian, property owners of the Adeline Market site, spoke in favor: their request for a code amendment had been made to City Council and Council referred it to the Planning Commission; felt a dry cleaning establishment would be a good addition to the Adeline Market area and found that the One Hour Martinizing people do processing on site; understand flammable liquid usage is outlawed in California; would suggest the ordinance be amended to allow dry cleaning plants in C-1 but only with a special use permit, in that manner Commission could review each operation on its own merits and consider individual neighborhood concerns; it appears the city has six plants in the C-1 zone at present; would like the opportunity to come back to Commission for this use in the C-1 zone. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: this is heavier type of use than other uses in C-1, feel it should stay in C-2 unless the city reviews other C-2 uses also, am not aware there is a public demand for this use in C-1. C. Taylor moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council no change in the C-1 district ordinance. Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: have seen no compelling information to suggest the ordinance should be changed; amendment appears to be designed for the benefit of one property owner; such a significant change should be supported by more interest and a public need demonstrated. The difference between C-1 and C-2 was discussed; C-1 is retail/service, the service given directly; C-2 involves making the product and providing the service; major difference between the two seems to be number of employees, a C-2 use in C-1 would have greater parking impact on the retail area. Motion approved 5-2 on roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Leahy dissenting. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to Council. 8. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE JANUARY 23, 1984 SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A SWIMMING POOL ADDITION TO THE BURLINGAME ATHLETIC CLUB AT 888 HINCKLEY ROAD: BY KENN EDWARDS CP Monroe reviewed the item; request for extension has been made because the applicant has not yet received financing for the project. Ref. staff report, 1/14/84; applicant's letter, 12/19/84; Commission minutes, 1/23/84; Monroe letter of action, 2/8/84. C. Jacobs moved to grant the extension. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 ITEMS FOR STUDY 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - ADDITION TO CARPORT - 760 WALNUT AVENUE Requests: how will the slabs be joined; address impact on adjacent property. Set for hearing January 28, 1985. 10. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 141 EL CAMINO REAL 11. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 141 EL CAMINO REAL Items continued to January 28, 1985 for study. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT - BURLINGAME HOME VIDEO - 1462 BURLINGAME AVENUE Requests: copy of ordinance regulating dish antennas; clarification of property line. Set for hearing January 28, 1985. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE - OFFICE EXPANSION - 1660 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: amount of existing landscaped area; double check parking provided. Set for hearing January 28, 1985. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE - CAR RENTAL OPERATION AT RAMADA INN, 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: how many of the 15 car fleet will be on site at one time; parking use count at the Ramada Inn; where will spaces for the car rental operation be located; how does applicant intend to pick up people from the airport, is this vehicle included in the fleet vehicle count and parking spaces requested; statement from the applicant on expected growth and any signage proposed; number of employees. Set for hearing January 28, 1985. PLANNER REPORTS CP reviewed Council actions at its January 7, 1985 regular meeting and January 9, 1985 study meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - December 17, 1984 letter from Irwin and Sonia Marcus, 1712 Quesada Way regarding sign placed at Burlingame Intermediate School. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary