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