Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.10.27THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 1976 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Mink Asst. C. P. Yost Francard C. A. Coleman Jacobs C. E. Kirkup Kindig Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chm. Taylor at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present; C. Mink absent because of illness. MINUTES C. Jacobs requested a substitution for the word "most" on page 4, last paragraph, third sentence; this sentence to read, "He pointed out there is no record of the zoning for Peninsula Hospital nor for some of the schools." The minutes of October 13, 1976 were then approved as mailed and corrected. 1. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 (APN 028-291-010) AT 1500 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (LOT 3) AND R-3 (LOT 2), BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR SOL AND HOPE GITTELSOHN. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this item. On September 27 this year the Planning Commission approved by a vote of 7-0 a tentative parcel map for the property at 1500 Howard Avenue. The purpose of the map was to eliminate an existing property line between Lots 2 and 3. At that hearing Commission was advised by the Director of Public Works that the map was technically complete and could be approved. The Asst. C. P. advised this final parcel map is consistent with the earlier tentative map. Chm. Taylor determined that no one present in the audience wished to speak for or against this final map. The C. E. confirmed to C. Kindia that the map is technically correct and meets all of the requirements of the Map ActandBurlingame City Code. C. Jacobs moved approval of this Final Parcel Map; second C. Cistulli and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 27, 1976 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT ON UNCLASSIFIED LAND AT 1190 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY ROBERT AND CLAUDETTE MERLET (LESSEES) WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPOR- TATION COMPANY (PROPERTY OWNER). Asst. C. P. Yost told Commission this is an application to use the existing Broadway Depot as a restaurant, with seating for about 50 people. A special permit is required for the use as the property is unclassified. He noted this is the fourth application to the P.C. in the last six years for a restaurant at this location, all of which were issued to the respective applicants and non -transferable. The present applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Merlet have taken over the previous owner's five year lease with Southern Pacific which was signed on February 17, 1976. The proposal is for a French restaurant named after one of the better known railway stations in Paris: "La Gare St. Lazare." The Merlets are experienced restaurant people, propose to remodel the interior (especially the kitchen) and plan to install two new windows on the California Drive elevation. They also propose three new wall signs: one facing California Drive of approximately 50 SF, one facing Broadway of 30 SF and one facing North Carolan of 32 SF. The Asst. C. P. remarked the last two signs were installed the previous weekend and Commission may have already seen them. Negative Declaration, ND -93P, was prepared and posted for this project. . There is no staff object ion to the approval of this application; however, Mr. Yost referred to Burlingame's recent efforts to obtain funding for a grade separation of the Broadway railway crossing and said the Director of Public Works wished to comment on this project and its impact on the present depot. C. E. Kirkup told Commission that the City of Burlingame is high on the priority list for funding for a grade separation at Broadway. If this proceeds in the next couple of years the Broadway Depot would be taken. He wished the applicants to be aware they might have to move within two years. He noted that this would be handled under an agreement with the Southern Pacific Company for the grade separation, and that the Merlets, as tenants, would have certain rights under State law. Chm. Taylor determined that the applicants were in the audience, and Commission/staff discussion of the proposed signs followed. Asst. C. P. Yost advised that two wall signs have already been installed: a 30 SF sign on the Broadway side and a 32 SF sign facing the Southern Pacific right-of-way. The size of the proposed third sign is indeterminate; it could be as large as 50 SF depending upon the available wall space between two windows recently put in on the California Drive side. He added that signs in the C-1 District are entitled to a minimum of 50 SF per frontage. The matter of building permits was discussed and the Asst. C. P. said he had seen a building permit for repairs to the building. C. Jacobs believed it was very optimistic, and perhaps unrealistic, for an individual to obtain a building permit for repairs and remodeling prior to the Planning Commission hearing on a use permit. Chm. Taylor and C_. Cistulli noted that the matter before the Commission was merely for approval or denial of the use; it did not pertain to what the applicants might be doing to the building itself. C. Sine observed that this is a calculated risk on the part of the prospective tenants. He added that there have been innumerable instances where someone in construction has built on the wrong lot, doing so with a building permit. As long as they conform to applicable code they are merely taking a calculated risk. C. A. Coleman pointed out that the Planning Department has no discretion with regard to the issuance of a building permit. Replying to C. Francard's question, the C. A. stated that if the City acquires the Broadway Depot property, it will have certain legal obligations about relocating the present tenant. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 27, 1976 Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor or opposed; there being none, he declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs asked if there were any plans for take-out service, stating she was concerned because of the difficult traffic problems on Broadway. Mrs. Merlet replied they planned restaurant use only. C. Cistulli moved approval of this Special Permit with the condition it be granted to the applicants only. Commission discussion followed the motion with regard to the proposed signs. Asst. C. P. Yost said that the special permit application was for both operation of a restaurant and advertising signs. He noted that at the study meeting the Merlets had assured the Commission that their new signs would be within sign code for the C-1 District, and would not require a sign exception. C. Cistulli withheld his motion until the matter of the signs received further discussion. Chm. Taylor asked for Commission comments. C. Kindig stated he had no objection as long as the signing complied with C-1 regulations. C. Jacobs concurred. C. Cistulli amended his motion to approve this special permit with the condition that it be non- transferable and that all new signs be within the limitations specified for the C-1 District. Second C. Kindig, and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONDUCT REAL ESTATE LICENSE AND SALES TRAINING CLASSES AT 1799 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 024-403-390), ZONED M-1, BY CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE ACADEMY (APPLICANT) WITH DOHEMANN MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PROPERTY OWNER). In reviewing this application, Asst. C. P. Yost noted Commission had received a letter from Richard Loughlin of Century 21 describing the intended nature of this proposed real estate academy. A first floor office with. 1,377 SF of area had been leased from Dohemann Management Company. Two types of use are proposed for this area: (1) an evening real estate license class to train prospective Century 21 staff which will also be open to the general public, classes to be held two evenings per week with an average attendance estimated at 30 persons and a possible peak of 50 people; (2) a daytime training program, perhaps twice a week, limited to licensed salespeople already employed by Century 21, average attendance 15-20 people, again with a possible peak of 50 people involving a possible 20-25 vehicles. The 1,377 SF office qualifies for 5 parking spaces; the other 15-20 peak attendance vehicles would presumably compete with other tenants' cars or try to park on the street. Mr. Yost noted Dohemann Management Company had prepared a survey of the average number of cars in its parking lot, morning and afternoon, for the .last three weeks which could be reviewed by Commission this evening. He advised a negative declaration had been prepared and posted. Concluding his review, the Asst. C. P. told Commission that the Fire Department had requested the applicant be made aware that a 1,377 SF office has a potential "occupant load" of 92 people. The Fire Inspector had advised a second exit from the room and the installation of "panic hardware" may be required. Connie Archer, with Dohemann Management Company and Robert E. McBride of Century 21 were present at the meeting. Ms. Archer distributed the parking survey mentioned by the Asst. C. P. and addressed Commission. She noted the survey had been taken between October 4 and 27, and at no time during the survey did the count exceed the 45 car mark; at present Dohemann has 11 companies with 53 people occupying space in this building; of these, at least 20 are away from the building a good percentage of the time; code requirements for this building are 95 parking spaces and Dohemann has a total of 99 parking spaces at present. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1976 Chm. Taylor determined from Asst. C. P. Yost that parking requirements are based on the square footage of the entire building; this parking survey would suggest that the city standard has reserved more parking on this site than might be required by the present tenants. C. Sine was concerned about the adequacy of parking for a new mix of tenants when the present leases run out. Chm. Taylor requested audience comment in favor or opposed; there being none, he declared -the public hearing closed. C. Sine determined from Mr. McBride that the term of the present lease is 38 months; and Mr. McBride confirmed to C. Jacobs that classes would be held twice a week during the day and twice a week at night. C. Sine reiterated his concern about parking, noting there is no on -street parking available on any of the immediate streets at present; assuming classes are continued, he was concerned about daytime parking three to five years in the future in the event of a change in the mix of tenants. Ms. Archer advised that Dohemann had renegotiated several of the leases for an additional three years and expected several others would do the same. She did not.anticipate any future parking problems. C. Sine was told by the applicant there would be no objection to review of the special permit in two years C. Jacobs moved approval of this Special Permit for a period of two years. Second C. Francard and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSE AT 1241 WHITETHORN WAY (PORTION OF APN 026-131-020 AND -090), ZONED M-1, BY NICHOLAS CRISAFI (BUYER) WITH INDUSTRIAL REALTY COMPANY (SELLER) (AUGUST 23, 1976 HEARING CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1976). At the request of the Chm., Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. Mr. Yost noted the public hearing was opened on August 23 and during review the Commission concluded more detail was required. The hearing was continued to September 27, and again to October 27. The plans submitted by Mr. Crisafi and studied by Commission October 13 show the proposed self storage warehouse at 1241 Whitethorn Way which will include 72 storage units on the ground floor, 112 storage units on the new second floor, for a project total of 184 units. One employee would supervise the facility and Mr. Crisafi has represented it would be unusual for more than one, or perhaps two, tenants to be in the facility at any one time. Mr. Yost noted that Sheet A3 of the plans contains a parking schedule for the project; the applicant has proposed that a parking requirement of 1 space per 3,000 SF of self storage floor area be accepted by Commission. He advised Commission it has Code authority to approve this standard; staff had no objection to its adoption for this specialized facility. This would permit a total of up to 8 parking spaces to be assigned to the self storage use at 1241 Whitethorn Way. A memo dated September 20 from Thomas Moore, Traffic Engineer was reported. This memo indicated that Mr. Moore and the Police Department recommended endorsement of the proposed change to one-way traffic on Whitethorn Way. A negative declaration had been posted for this project with the conclusion that it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 27, 1976 The Asst. C. P. listed three additional points which should be clarified. (1) Commission should inquire of the present ownership of the property and receive a report from Mr. Crisafi on the probate hearing scheduled for October 27, 1976. (2) The Fire Department has asked that a sprinkling requirement be reaffirmed, and that the locks on the individual storage compartments have a master key or a second key to be kept on the premises. (3) A tentative parcel map has been approved for this property, and a final map should be required as soon as practical after Mr..Crisafi assumes ownership. Responding to Chm. Taylor, C. A. Coleman commented on the Fire Department request for a key to each storage unit to be kept on the premises, stating he was more concerned about the liability of the City than.the right of privacy for holders of the cubicles; he noted that any landlord should have a master key to his premises. Chm. Taylor said he was not in favor of giving the Fire Department the right to go into anyone's private storage facilities and felt the landlord relationship was different in that it is not a contractual relationship with the City of Burlingame. Mr. Yost stated that the Fire Department was concerned about the types of materials that would be stored and access in case of fire. C. Jacobs thought it would be to Mr. Crisafi's benefit to have this safety arrangement. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor of this application and received none. He then asked for audience comments opposed. Reuben White who owns property across Whitethorn Way from the proposed project said he had no objection to the project itself; however, he was concerned about future parking for his tenants who have been parking on Whitethorn Way. He indicated he had an ingress/egress easement which would help with deliveries but parking would be a problem. Chm. Taylor pointed out that Whitethorn Way is private property, subject to the laws of the State of California and the City of Burlingame, and the property owner can use his property as he wishes in any lawful manner. He noted that some of the other surrounding property owners may have the same parking problem and suggested that perhaps the solution might be to negotiate with Mr. Crisafi for parking privileges. C. Jacobs referred to Robert Burger's letter which stated there are a total of five abutting businesses on Whitethorn Way with only two having ingress/egress easements. (Mr. Burger later amended this statement, saying there were three property owners with right of ingress/ egress.) Asst. C. P. Yost commented that these easements run with the property. Chm. Taylor asked for any other audience opposition and Robert Burger who owns Typo Press at the entrance to Whitethorn Way addressed Commission. He stated his tenants would also like to continue to use parking spaces on Whitethorn Way outside the building; he had been told by Mr. Crisafi the rights of ingress/egress would be recognized but not the right to park. Chm. Taylor informed Mr. Burger that the City of Burlingame has no way to guarantee Typo Press the right to park in this street; this can only be between Mr. Crisafi and the businesses involved. C. Cistulli questioned, since the present owners have given adjacent property owners the right to park in Whitethorn Way, perhaps the new owner should also. C. A. Coleman advised that the City has nothing to do with parking in this area since it is a private street; there are deeds which grant ingress and egress across the private road, but parking cannot be controlled by the City. C. Cistulli asked if Commission could stipulate that the adjacent property owners be permitted to continue to use Whitethorn Way for parking. The'C. A. was doubtful that kind of condition could be put on this special permit. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 27, 1976 The applicant noted there has been an absentee landlord and people have parked illegally for the last five years; he added that he would still prohibit non -tenant parking on his property even if his mini storage project were not approved. He felt that parking on Whitethorn Way was not pertinent to the subject. C. Jacobs determined Mr. Crisafi is buying a total of five buildings, planned to develop the vacant building.at the present time and hoped to extend the self storage use to the two quonset huts immediately to the south if the business were successful. C. Cistulli felt this temporary type building which is approximately 35 years old was inadequate for the mini storage use. Replying to C. Jacobs, C. A. Coleman advised that the building will meet all City codes. C. Francard asked if there would be adequate parking six months from now should Mr. Crisafi allow adjacent businesses to park in Whitethorn Way. Mr. Crisafi felt he had more parking stalls than the self storage use would require and stated he probably would allow adjacent businesses to park there for a fee. C. Sine was told by Mr. Crisafi that the Arco station has a right of access to Whitethorn Way which he would continue to honor; customers would have access to Rollins Road via Whitethorn Way to North Carolan. C. Sine mentioned the study meeting discussion regarding access to the second floor and said he could not find a fork lift acceptable. He asked the applicant if he would be agreeable to putting in a small freight elevator to the second floor. The applicant said he would prefer to have a dumbwaiter type arrangement; and perhaps a pneumatic type hoist or something along that line could be developed. However, he noted that most mini warehouses use electrical portable fork lifts. C. Jacobs determined there will be three sets of permanent stairs. C. Sine remarked that this quonset but has long been recognized as a temporary structure; the building is old and there will be deterioration of the metal, with leaks and problems for the tenants. It was his feeling that Burlingame was entitled to a better class of storage locker. Mr. Crisafi believed his proposal was much better than the present mini warehouse in Burlingame. C. Cistulli discussed the 184 cubicles proposed and suggested the possibility of 10 to 15 people coming in at the same time; he questioned available parking in this case. Mr. Crisafi advised him there was a total of 37 parking stalls for the four buildings on his property; there is only one other company requiring parking during the day for eight employees which would leave 29 parking stalls to be used for the proposed mini storage, if necessary. Asst. C. P. Yost told Commission that Whitethorn Way is over 54 feet wide and he believed more cars could be parked on the street to code than the parking layout presented by Mr. Crisafi. Since the proposal allocated 8 parking spaces to the self storage service and more are available, staff thought the parking would be sufficient. He noted that the code states, "for uses not listed in the . . schedule of required parking, spaces shall be supplied on the same basis as provided for the most similar use, or as determined by the city planner." The code also states the P.C. may approve, disapprove or modify decisions of the City Planner; and the Asst. C. P. asked if Commission wished to disapprove staff decision by motion. There was no motion to that effect. Chm. Taylor thought the use a good one in this M-1 District and believed it met a need for the City of Burlingame. C. Jacobs moved approval of this Special Permit with two conditions: that a fire sprinkler system be installed in all storage compartments and that a key to each compartment be in the possession of an employee of the property owner at all times. There was Commission discussion after the motion concerning the advisability of including a requirement for some type of hoist or elevator for the second floor, and a landscaping requirement. The C. A. felt that elevator was too Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1976 broad a term and agreed with C. Jacobs' reluctance to tell Mr. Crisafi how to run his business. C. Jacobs then amended her motion to include another condition of approval: that landscaping be per approved plans. Second C. Francard and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK 5. RESOLUTION NO. 5-76 DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING GARAGE AS A RUMPUS ROOM AT 1520 VANCOUVER AVENUE. C. A. Coleman introduced this agenda item. He told Commission that William Kirchen's appeal to the City Council of P.C. denial of a special permit: to use an existing garage as a rumpus room and/or sleeping quarters was dropped by the property owner. The C. A. was concerned Mr. Kirchen might sell the property and a new owner use the garage for other than storage purposes or garage use. He wished the record to be clear so that the next property owner was on notice. There were no Commission comments. C. Kindig moved approval of Resolution No. 5-76; second C. Cistulli and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS Upon the advice of the C. A., C. Jacobs abstained because she had not attended the August 23, 1976 hearing at which time findings of fact were made. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 6-76 RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO MUNICIPAL CODE SEC. 25.12.020: ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. Asst. C. P. Yost told Commission Resolution No. 6-76 is a summary of the concerns expressed by P.C. at its study meetings in September and October, and is an attempt by staff to respond to these concerns within the guidelines suggested by the C. A. Exhibit A is attached to the resolution and may be useful in reviewing the proposed changes. He noted that five paragraphs are suggested: four very close to the language of the present code, one new paragraph is suggested„ and two paragraphs in the present code have been omitted from the new draft. C. A. Coleman commented that a couple of the sections are statements of what State law is as far as property boundaries are concerned; basically the changes eliminated all of the automatic things. The C. A., replying to C. Franc:ard's question, said that this code change would not affect fencing of easements anywhere in town. Asst. C. P. Yost told Commission if the resolution is found acceptable and complete, it could be approved and recommended to Council. C. Jacobs moved approval of Resolution No. 6-76; second C. Kindig and approved by the following roll call vote: Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 27, 1976 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK CITY PLANNER REPORT At the request of Chm. Taylor, the C. A. reported he had enjoyed attending the League of California Cities Conference in San Diego and the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers meeting in Las Vegas recently. Chm. Taylor recognized Mr. Coleman's son, David who was attending this Commission meeting. The meeting regularly adjourned at 9:04 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary