Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.09.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, September 27, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Harvey, Leahy, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher; Fire Marshal Malcolm Townes MINUTES - The minutes of the September 13, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 578 SF TWO BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 607 CONCORD WAY Neither the applicant, Robert Massagli, nor his representative were present. C. Cistulli moved to remove this item from the agenda until the applicant activates it. Second C. Harvey; all aye voice vote. 2. VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK AND MODIFICATION OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 21 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 777 MORRELL AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed this request by the owners of a 21 unit condominium project to enclose decks which extend 4'-0" into the required front setback area and to allow a modification of the condominium permit with respect to private open space requirements for the affected units. Reference staff report for the 9/27/82 meeting; Project Appli- cation & CEQA Assessment received 7/28/82; photograph showing the nine balconies in question; July 23, 1982 letter to the developer from the City Planner; July 27, 1982 letter from the Building Inspector to the developer; letter from the City Planner to the developer following the study meeting, requesting a new set of plans which meet all building code requirements; September 14, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector with Chapter 49 Patio Covers from the Uniform Building Code; August 25, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; "no comments" memo dated 8/24/82 from the City Engineer; August 17, 1982 letter to the developer from the City Attorney; September 21, 1982 memo to the Commission from the City Attorney; August 9, 1982 Planning Commission minutes; September 8, 1982 letter to the City Planner from Safwat Abdel -Malek, architect; September 3, 1982 letter to Mr. Malek from Walter S. Simrock, P.E.; September 8, 1982 letter to the City Planner from the developer with enclosure: August 18, 1982 letter from Charles M. Salter Associates, acoustics consultants; plans date stamped September 8, 1982; and August 3, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector. CP discussed zoning code, condominium permit and building code requirements; the present application, staff review; applicant's comments; Planning staff comments; building code compliance; variance and private open space requirements; and action alternatives. If approved one condition was recommended as listed in the staff report. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1982 Phil German, the developer, was present and discussed his contention that the proposal does meet building code, light and ventilation requirements. He further contended there were circumstances applicable to this property so that denial of the variance would result in undue property loss. In addressing the fact that the required private open space for condominiums would be eliminated, it was his belief the purpose of providing private open space was for the enjoyment of the owners, and such would not be the case if the balconies were not shielded. Mr. German also discussed his first contacts with the city and his desire to improve the neighborhood. For the record, Secy. Graham read letter in support from Mr. and Mrs. Roy Lundin, 828 Maple Avenue. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: staff time spent in discussing this application, with no changes being made in each staff member's original interpretation of the facts; the Fire Marshal confirmed he saw changes and accompanying letters and his statements still apply; question as to why the developer went ahead with this construction without a building permit. It was felt the proposed enclosure of these units could set a precedent with regard to setback requirements. Building Code issues were referred to: one hour wall; open area within exterior walls requirements; enclosures of insect screening or plastics; does Chapter 49 Patio Covers apply in the case of balconies. It was felt the balcony open space as intended by Planning Commission Resolution 7-79 was substantially changed and, as pointed out by staff, the proposal does not meet the existing building codes. C. Harvey moved that the proposal as submitted does not meet the standards of the City of Burlingame's building code based on testimony of the Chief Building Inspector, the Fire Marshal and on the comments in the staff report. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously, and staff's position sustained, on roll call vote. C. Giomi moved to deny the variance for the required front setback. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. C. Harvey moved that the condominium permit not be amended. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. The Chair announced the request for variance and the request for amendment of the condominium permit were appealable to Council, but that there is no available appeal from the Planning Commission with regard to the building code. Mr. German stated his belief the UBC does contain a separate appeal procedure to determine the suitability of alternate materials of construction and for interpretation of the code. The City Attorney stated that for Burlingame this hearing constituted the UBC appeal procedure. The applicant was advised that any further questions should be directed to the City Attorney. 3. HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE 8/2/82 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DAVIS BANQUET AND PARTY CENTER AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD CP Monroe reviewed this special permit for commercial recreation, service business and catering operation approved by the City Council on appeal from the Planning Commission; following observation of a number of violations to conditions of this permit, Council requested the Planning Commission hold a revocation hearing. Reference staff report dated 9/16/82; City Council minutes of 8/2/82 and 9/7/82; City Planner 9/10/82 letter to Gilbert Davis; notice of revocation hearing sent Mr. Davis and the property owners on 9/17/82 via registered mail; Police Department reports dated 9/10/82, 8/29/82 and 8/28/82; 9/8/82 memo from the Fire Marshal; 9/14/82 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; 9/13/82 memorandum to file from Helen Towber, Planner; August 4, 1982 letter of action to Mr. Davis from the City Planner; May 18, 1.982 memo from the Fire Marshal; May 27, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; June 7, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; details of the proposed business received from the applicant Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1982 May 28, 1982; Planning Commission minutes of June 28, 1982; 9/16/82 report of on-site inspection by Calvin Pitt, County Health Department and Helen Towber, Planner; and letters in opposition from Robert L. Hammett, Hammett & Edison, Inc., 1400 Rollins Road and Elaine Morrow, Andrew Morrow Enterprises, 25 Edwards Court. CP discussed history of this application; code provisions and procedures for revocation or suspension of use permits; staff review and site inspection; summary of use permit violations; Commission action and grounds for revocation or suspension as listed in the zoning code. Gilbert Davis, the applicant, distributed a letter explaining the events of the night of August 27 and asked for a two weO-k continuance to comply with all the conditions of the city's approval of his permit. He stated the kitchen is not operable and will not be used for events until approved by the County Health Department. It was pointed out to the applicant that should the continuance be granted and the building be brought up to city specifications, it might not change the position of the Commission and such capital expenditure might be of no benefit to him. There was no motion for a continuance and Commission proceeded with the revocation hearing. Mr. Davis then read his letter of September 27 discussing the function held at 1450 Rollins Road on August 27; he stated it was not an ideal use but he did not think it warranted revocation of his permit. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor of revocation. Those speaking in opposition to revocation: Joe Gomez - handle janitorial work for Davis Banquet and Party Center, to his knowledge no complaint had been received from any of the neighbors about clean-up afterwards, he had been with Davis for about a year, property was cleaned up the night in question. Colleen McGovern and Debbie Puki - Jazzercise instructors in the Burlingame community, rent the premises from Mr. Davis, have eight classes per week, up to 250 men and women. Because of their local involvement they need a facility like this, it's the only one of its type they have been able to find, convenient to the residents and adequate space for classes, well ventilated, large dressing rooms and a stage. Also financially feasible for them. They asked to be told if Jazzercise was violating any of the city's rules? Could the Commission consider not revoking the commercial recreation portion of the use permit? Tony James and Tony Valera - rented the hall on the night of August 27. There were two security guards supplied by the Center and four from another company by those giving the party; over 300 people attended. 200 gathered outside the premises. There was a disturbance outside and police were called about 10 minutes before the function closed. Ronald Gerido - security officer hired by Mr. Davis to secure outside perimeter of the building, parking lot and entrance -way. The August 27 incident occurred on the public street, the fight did not occur on the 1450 Rollins Road parking lot. Bert Horn - property owner, was concerned about the August 27 incident, rented building as a party center, tenant did not plan to run the type of event that would attract teenagers but rather adult functions and children's parties. This was only one incident; request you allow him a six month trial. Tony James advised the people who were in attendance were from a mailing list; however, tickets were sold to the public at the door. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Davis answered Commission questions: he had understood the party would be totally by invitation but it got out of hand; in future he would plan to check ID's if alcoholic beverages were being sold and no one under 21 would be allowed inside. He would not be catering alcohol, food only after the kitchen was brought up 'to code. There is a king sized bed in one of the office areas,because he was spending long hours on the premises and needed a place to rest. Some other furniture was stored there a short while to help out some friends. There is no burglar alarm and they need someone on the premises 24 hours a day. His son is there when his wife is at work. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1982 The applicant was aware of the conditions of approval of his special permit, particularly the requirements of the Fire Marshal. CP advised it is assumed the permit conditions will be met before the activity occurs. It was pointed out the Fire Marshal's memo explicitly required the fire code requirements be met before holding parties on the site. Concerns of the Fire Marshal regarding both conditions of previous approval and current code violations found on the site were discussed by him with the applicant and Commission in detail. Mr. Davis told Commission he had operated a facility of this type before and that he was not living there. Commission expressed concern that the applicant had not taken responsibility for security of adjacent properties. With regard to obtaining additional parking for the Center, he had had no response from his neighbors. He could not deny that minors were being served alcohol the night,of August 27 since he was not checking ID's, but added he observed no intoxicated people inside the hall. In closing, Mr. Davis asked Commission allow him a six month trial period and in two weeks time he would have all code violations corrected. Commission concerns: holding a public function prior to code compliance, particularly fire code; holding parties when there is limited control of the clientele; living in the M-1 zone. There was a suggestion that the permit be amended to allow functions with no bar unless it were a private party and restrict attendance to organizations by invitation only, prepaid tickets. C. Graham moved to revoke this special use permit based on the following grounds of Code Sec. 25.16.140: "that the conditional use permit . . . is being, or has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or other regulations" including in this case violations of the sale of liquor, meeting fire and building code requirements and meeting city imposed conditions; and "that the use for which the approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance" as with non-compliance with fire and building code requirements when using a place for public assembly and holding functions where crowd control could be a real problem. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS, 700 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (INTERTELEPHON N.V.) Reference September 21, 1982 memo from the City Engineer. CE Erbacher advised this map is complete and recommended it be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Harvey moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this tentative and final parcel map. Second C. Graham; all aye voice vote. 5. REVIEW OF 9/21/81 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TROPICAL RENT -A -CAR AT 1328 MARSTEN ROAD CP Monroe reviewed this special permit for a car rental operation. Reference staff report for Item #5; 9/17/82 report of site inspection by Helen Towber, Planner; memo from the City Engineer; 8/19/81 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; 7/29/81 memo from the Deputy Fire Marshal; and August 11, 1981 letter to the City Planner from Tropical Rent-A-Car. CP discussed conditions of approval for this special permit and site inspections indicating all conditions have been met. Planning staff recommended no further review of this permit until September, 1985 unless another car rental operation leases the site. Greg Gaiser, manager, Tropical Rent-A-Car was present. C. Graham moved that no further review of this permit be required until September, 1985 unless another car rental operation leases the site before this review date, in which case the permit be reviewed within six months of another car rental agency's taking over the site. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR STUDY Page 5 September 27, 1982 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 750 SF DETACHED GARAGE -STORAGE STRUCTURE IN THE REAR OF THE LOT AT 1529 BURLINGAME AVENUE Set for hearing October 13, 1982. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION TO EXCEED THE PERMITTED AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS PERMITTED BY CODE, AT 1007 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: comparison of proposal to allowable signage in auto row area and to precedents existing in area. Set for hearing October 13, 1982. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION TO EXCEED THE PERMITTED AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE, NUMBER OF SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT PERMITTED BY CODE, AT 1025 ROLLINS ROAD Set for hearing October 13, 1982. CITY PLANNER REPORT Report of City Council actions at its 9/20/82 meeting: - Approved the mitigated negative declaration for the Secondary Wastewater Treatment Improvements project which clears the environmental criteria for the Federal grant application. -Review of Council action on the Historic Inventory. STAFF POLICY FOR THE M-1 ZONE AND CODE REVISIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT POLICY Reference staff report and attached draft ordinance Limiting Retail, Office and Dwelling Uses in the M-1 Zone. CP Monroe referred to previous Planning Commission discussion of a policy for warehouse/office use in the M-1 zone and code revisions necessary to implement this policy; Planning staff survey of other cities; concern about traffic patterns, parking demand and more visitors with a change in the character of use; percentage of office use to trigger a use permit for office use in the M-1 zone. Commission discussed the point at which an office conversion in a warehouse building should trigger Planning Commission review. C. Harvey moved that any conversion or new building in the M-1 zone where the office space exceeds 20 percent of the gross square footage of a warehouse shall be a conditional use requiring a special permit from the Commission. Second C. Graham; all aye voice vote. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary