Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.01.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, January 13, 1986 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Schwalm Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the December 9, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved with the following addition to Commission comments, Item #3, page #4: "Applicants for satellite dish antenna special permits should be encouraged to provide a more detailed description and drawings of the dish including site plans and elevations so that staff is not required to compile this information." AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. MINOR MODIFICATION 1. MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 1328 BALBOA AVENUE Reference staff report, 1/13/86. Commenting there is room to park a second car in the driveway, C. Jacobs moved for approval of this minor modification. Second C. Graham; motion approved on unanimous voice vote. Chm. Garcia acknowledged Councilman Lembi in the audience this evening. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-65P, FOR AN OFFICE/RETAIL PROJECT AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the processing of this EIR to date and Commission action this evening. There was some discussion of Exhibit A attached to the resolution recommending the EIR to Council for certification and the alternative of redesign as well as location of the loading zone and number of on -street parking spaces which would be removed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 13, 1986 Robert Ironside, consultant preparing the EIR and Richard Hopper, traffic engineer were present. Mr. Hopper confirmed that about five on -street parking spaces would be removed. Staff found the Draft and Final EIR to be adequate and that all traffic impacts had been adequately addressed. C. Giomi moved for approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1-86 recommending the Final EIR to City Council for certification. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION WITHOUT A SECOND ON-SITE PARKING SPACE AT 461 BLOOMFIELD ROAD Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion/determinations: applicant's sketch shows four existing bedrooms, project description indicates only three; stairs to the loft are located in the center of the house. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Ron Shimamoto, architect representing the applicants, advised this is a four bedroom home and adequate for the family's needs; there is no way another garage can be constructed; a building permit was received for the first floor improvements, during construction the applicants decided a second floor loft area for the children would be a good addition, there is no intent Y for this area to be used as a bedroom. Commission discussed square footage and lot coverage of the existing home and after the improvements have been completed; size of the proposed loft area, this area was not included in the original plans for which a building permit was issued, resubmitted plans showed the loft. Since a family room was already included in the addition the potential for this to be a bedroom is great and concern was expressed about enforcement after the loft is completed, a closet could be added; bedrooms are defined as rooms with closets in the building code; one Commissioner felt if Commission finds the loft is not a bedroom no variance would be required. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comment: were two bedrooms added to the original home without a building permit; staff advised there was no indication in the files this might have occurred; any addition since about 1970 which results in three or more bedrooms would require additional parking; difficult to make the required findings for variance approval; this is a big house for the size of the lot, a car could be parked in the front setback but it is a small garage for what could be a five bedroom home; can understand the need for play space for the three children; there is a living room and family room, seems enough space for the children; have heard no testimony to support the necessary findings; with approximately 38% lot coverage and only one covered parking space, believe this request is excessive. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 C. Jacobs stated she did not find the legal requirements for variance approval had been satisfied, this is a very large addition and she could not find the loft necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owners. C. Jacobs moved to deny this variance request. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting with the statement he did not feel a variance was required, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THIRD FLOOR EXIT BALCONY FOR A PROPOSED 6 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM TO EXTEND 2'-6" INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AREA, PROPERTY AT 113 ANITA ROAD 5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 113 ANITA ROAD Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing.. William Nagle, Triangle Enterprises (applicant) was present. He commented that garage doors would be a maintenance problem as well as noisy, he would prefer a security gate. Commission comment: would like some sort of secured parking; possibility of a single guest parking space in the front outside the security gate. Applicant thought this might reduce landscaping; if density of the structure were reduced a variance for the third floor exit would still be required, it is the width of the lot which dictates the side yard requirement; a more narrow building would not be a practical development. Joe Harvey, 2205 Adeline Drive commented on the project: he understood Commission's concern about secured parking and guest parking; number of units is determined by parking provided; a rolling gate for security is a concept that has been used in some developments in the city and could be used here, it would provide a secured parking area; the difficulty is in allowing guests to park in the secured area, generally the property owner can open the gate for a guest; the noise factor of overhead garage doors in multi -family frame structures is a real problem. Responding to Commissioner question, Mr. Harvey advised an intercom system could be installed with push button in each condominium unit; a gate across the front, back from the sidewalk, could give the appearance of an attractive picket fence and would not swing over the sidewalk. Commissioner comment: would want the car to be off the street. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this narrow lot with fire exiting requirements at the third floor level, that the lot is zoned R-3 and the variance is necessary for the property right of the owners to build units appropriate to the zone, that it would be an improvement of the site, that it would not be detrimental to the neighbors and would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance request with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's September 3, 1985 memo and the City Engineer's November 4, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 25, 1985; (3) that the guest parking space designated on the plans shall be permanently set aside for guests and shall be identified as available for guests only; and (4) that a rolling security gate be placed at least 8' behind the property line with intercom system on the outside which connects to each unit to assure guest parking is accessible. Second C. Graham. Staff assured Commission if guest parking occurred in front of the building and landscaping were decreased the property owner would be required to come back to Commission for a variance to landscape requirements. Comment on the motion: few 6 -unit condominium projects have been approved on 50' lots; difficult to find exceptional circumstances exist, concern about allowing six units on this narrow lot; find exceptional circumstances in that the project meets all zoning code requirements and condominium guidelines, the variance is only for safety purposes, if density were reduced there would still be the same request for variance; if property owner is required to reduce the density it would deprive him of the opportunity to enjoy his property to the extent permitted by law. A further comment: think an architect could design a project on this lot without requiring a variance. The variance was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Graham moved for approval of the condominium permit and Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAPS AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 6 UNIT PROJECT AT 113 ANITA ROAD Reference CE's January 7, 1986 memo. CE Erbacher advised these maps are complete and may be recommended to Council. C. Giomi moved that the tentative and final parcel maps and tentative condominium map be recommended to City Council for approval. Second C. Graham; motion approved on unanimous voice vote. 7. AMENDMENT OF 4/23/84 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR 12 UNITS AT 1508 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF A SECURITY GATE WHICH WILL ENCLOSE THE GUEST PARKING SPACE Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 13, 1986 Discussion: is vertical clearance 7' when the gate is up; location of the call box. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this condominium permit amendment and Commission Resolutions Approving Condominium Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the security gate and required pedestrian exit shall be installed to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code and the call button shall be placed at a location approved by the City Engineer; and (2) that the call button system shall be connected to each apartment with a gate release button in each apartment so that guests can be allowed access to the guest parking stall in the security garage. Second C. Graham; motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 194 SF STORAGE LOFT TO REMAIN AT 341 PRIMROSE ROAD FOR WHICH NO ADDITIONAL ON-SITE PARKING IS PROVIDED Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Vivian Irvine, applicant, was present. Her comments: the loft space is useable only for storage and there is a limitation of use because part of it is under the slope of a stair providing access to the apartments above; it would not be useable for retail space; she is paying rent for 100 SF in the basement which is damp and could not be used to store her type of merchandise; the existing loft railing gives light and air and is a security measure for someone alone in the store; she would prefer the permanent stairway to the loft area as opposed to a drop ladder or folding stair; there is a furnace in the basement which is not used and a security system attached to the basement door. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner question: how easy to use is a drop ladder as recommended by staff. C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in that the applicant does need dry storage, the loft area is not useable for retail space, putting in a drop ladder would be a reduction in retail area; the variance is necessary for the preservation of the tenant's need for dry storage, she cannot use the basement for this; it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Graham moved for approval of this variance request with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's November 19, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the loft area remain open, protected only by a railing at each end; and (3) that the storage loft area be used exclusively for storage and never be used for expansion of office or retail sales space uses. Second C. Taylor. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 Comment on the motion: think some of the applicant's problems could be handled with her landlord, using a heater and pumping system to dry out the basement; am in favor of a pull down stair, if not for this applicant, for a future tenant who would then be less likely to expand retail sales; pull down stair would allow more area in the retail space on the ground floor; it is difficult for a boutique type shop to afford improvement of the basement, damp basements are common in the downtown area and landlords reluctant to make improvements, there is too much demand for space in downtown Burlingame; the existing stair is not visible from the retail portion of the shop, it is not part of the readily accessible area; illegal use of the loft would be apparent; object to a pull down ladder in retail sales space. Concern was expressed that if this is approved it will result in a raft of lofts in the downtown area, increasing retail space and adding to the traffic problems. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Leahy and Garcia dissenting, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:10 P.M.; reconvene 9:20 P.M. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO OFFICE USE AT 1722 GILBRETH ROAD Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the history of this request and previous staff report addressing former study meeting concerns. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission comment: possibility of a condition limiting the number of employees in this building, staff thought this would be difficult to enforce; number of parking spaces on this lot (55) and calculation of required parking (34). Robert Brown, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: this building has been vacant for about 17 months, insurance charges have increased considerably, he did not expect immediate rental as the market is poor at present, the lease on the rear parking lot has been terminated and he will hold this as an added incentive to future tenants, in his experience the more typical density of employees is one employee per 350 GSF; the original permit was for an office/warehouse, his intention in designing it was to upgrade the building at some future time to a more intensive use. He had no problem with Condition #1; regarding Condition #2, his intention was to offer space with parking to code or greater if needed by a given tenant; he did not think that Condition #3, traffic systems management techniques, would be a problem but wondered how the landlord could implement this with his tenants; regarding Condition #4, he would not want to spend money on a traffic study, it could be better spent on other things; he thought annual review, Condition #5, might affect his ability to attract tenants and would prefer to operate as others with whom he would be competing. Conceivably the building could become multi -tenant or the entire building might be leased; if the excess parking were not needed he would like to lease that area to someone else. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Staff confirmed this application did not require a traffic allocation. Commission comment: this is not a typical warehouse, am unclear whether the 55 parking spaces should be required, a number of small tenants occupying this building could result, in a large number of employees; am in favor of the proposal but think only the 34 code required spaces, not 55, should be required; there should be some flexibility in use of the parking when the building is unoccupied or only partially occupied, would be willing to limit lease of the rear parking area to a maximum of 30 days, would like to retain control of the rear parking to this building; concern about cumulative traffic impact, but would agree to requiring only 34 parking spaces, think Conditions #3 and #4 would not be enforceable; am protective of the M-1 district but this is a unique situation, not a typical warehouse; possibility of adding more warehouse on this site. C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's June 28, 1985 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's July 15, 1985 memo and the City Engineer's July 15, 1985 memo shall be met; and (2) that 34 parking spaces shall be made available for the office users of this building. Staff commented that a traffic coordinator could reduce peak hour trips by 10-15%, this has been effective in San Mateo at Route 92 and has been included in some project approvals in Burlingame. Comment on the motion: have no objection to including Condition #3 requiring development of a traffic systems management plan; object to including too many regulations and am doubtful that Condition #3 would work. C. Graham amended his motion to include Condition (3) that the property owner shall be responsible for insuring through the use of traffic systems management techniques and provision of an on-site traffic/ transit coordinator that the peak hour trips to and from this site are 10% less than the number of employees on the site. Second.C. Leahy. Further comment: in allowing office use in M-1 do not believe it is asking too much to be exceptionally careful of traffic and implement TSM techniques; reluctant to give up the rear parking area and require only 34 spaces, this is the only chance the city has to make sure the building does not become impacted. C. Taylor proposed an amendment to the motion, reinstating 55 spaces in Condition #2. Amendment died for lack of a second. C. Graham's motion to approve with three conditions passed 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 13, 1986 10. SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR THE IBIS HOTEL, 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Reference staff report, 1/13/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's justification for the sign exceptions, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Comment: additional ground signs such as directional signs will be required but are not covered in this proposal; Commission discussion at its November 25, 1985 meeting on bayfront signage for hotels was noted, this matter is going to Council on January 20, 1986, there has been no ordinance change to date and whatever is approved this evening the hotel will have until the name changes. Jerry Pettibone, Pettibone Signs, represented the This Hotel. He discussed orientation of the signs in this proposal and their visibility and contended anything smaller would not do the job his client is requesting; they are proposing illuminated letters on the parapet with no background. Commission discussed location and visibility of the signs; difficulty in finding exceptional circumstances which apply to this site. Mr. Pettibone commented the applicant made the decisions regarding location, it was felt three identification signs were needed on the building and the proposed size was necessary in order to be seen. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: only one of these signs is reasonable, the others are much too large; Sign A can be seen only by airplanes, it is too high to be seen from Airport Boulevard; coming up Airport Boulevard no identification signs can be seen until one gets to the front of the building, Sign B is the only one which will give any information. Number of signs and square footage of the proposed signage compared to existing signs in the area was discussed. C. Graham moved to deny this sign exception application without prejudice; second C. Taylor. Comment on the motion: it is unusual to have a hotel located next to a dump, think there are grounds for finding special circumstances exist. Commission suggestions for resubmittal: letters half the size of this proposal, elimination of Sign A which faces the dump and is oriented to air traffic, signs are too large, ground signs on Airport should also note the hotel name. Motion to deny was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 ITEMS FOR STUDY 11. SPECIAL PERMIT - GARAGE/CARPORT STRUCTURE - 1320 BENITO AVENUE Requests: lot size of this property and adjacent properties (each side and at the rear); is there plumbing in the new garage; is there sufficient access radius for the carport. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. 12. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1609 TROUSDALE DRIVE Requests: is pedestal part of the sign; drawing indicating the effect of 7-1/2" letters, overlay or second drawing showing 4" letters; why were 4" letters required in the C-3 zone. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. 13. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS - WINDMARK HOTEL - 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: turning radius channel to facilitate turn at the bottom of the ramp; fire access; number of rooms on first floor; are lap pool and exercise room for guests only; what does "DD" indicate on the plans; statement from applicant in justification of exceeding the shoreline view corridor guideline. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. 14. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 880 STANTON ROAD Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT - SALE OF USED CARS - 1304 MARSTEN ROAD Property owner's letter of consent to the application has not yet been received. Commission requests: who parks where on this property; is J&B Auto the only business on the site; how many businesses operate from the site. Item will be set for hearing when application is complete and Commission's questions answered. 16. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS - TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE - 224 CALIFORNIA DR. Requests: clarification of trip volumes and parking; comparison with a similar franchise of this size to obtain actual figures; how do they propose to store vehicles they will use; number of employees; hours of operation. Item will be set for hearing when information is complete. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT - TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE.- 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE Requests: number of employees/customers for the existing restaurant; explain the expected 650-750 customers per day figure, how was this calculated. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 18. TWO VARIANCES - OFFICE ADDITION - CORPORATION YARD 1361 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE Requests: what kind of fencing will be used for the generator; on-site landscaping. Item set for hearing January 27, 1986. PERMIT REVIEWS The following permits were reviewed and approved: - 840 Hinckley Road - Amfac Mainland Federal Credit Union - 1645 Rollins Road - Star Excavation truck parking - 1250 Rollins Road - D&M Towing ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Zoning Aide memo, dish antenna at 2017 Easton Drive - Planner memo, driveway entrance for Lot 5, 5 -lot subdivision, corner Las Piedras and Mariposa Drives PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 6, 1986 meeting. Commission requests: research extending the parking exemption for first floor retail in Sub -Area A to Sub -Area B and Broadway. - investigate abuse of the master sign program for the Adeline Market. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary