HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.08.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Graham on Monday, August 8, 1983 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm,
Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the July 25, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and
adopted.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved with one change: Item #5 to be
heard first.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
5. SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE MARKET IN THE C-1 DISTRICT AT
1199 BROADWAY, BY THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION
CP Monroe reviewed this request which requires three special permits to locate a
convenience market at 1199 Broadway. Reference staff report dated 8/3/83; Project
Application & CEQA Assessment received 7/1/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (7/11/83
memo), Chief Building Inspector (7/26/83 memo), City Engineer (7/18/83 memo) and
Director of Parks (7/5/83 memo); June 24, 1983 letter from Jim Richardson, Zone
Manager, 7 -Eleven Food Stores; July 10, 1983 letter from Joseph Bezdjian, representing
the property owners, giving consent to the application; July 25, 1983 study meeting
minutes; July 26, 1983 letter from Drew Bardet, Michael J. Majors Civil Engineers;
aerial photograph; and plans date stamped July 1 and July 27, 1983. CP discussed
details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's comments on
the proposal, questions raised at the study session, Police call figures for existing
24 hour operations and two restaurant/bar businesses. Four conditions were suggested
for consideration at the public hearing.
It was determined the itemized traffic flow figures received 7/1/83 were submitted
by the applicant. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Joseph Geller, attorney
representing The Southland Corporation, advised the applicant would agree to all
conditions suggested by the CP and the recommendations of the CE with further
discussion regarding ingress/egress; height requirements of the code would be no
problem, Southland would make any change requested; design of the air conditioning
unit on the roof will comply with the city's recommendations; Southland will keep
the site clean; they have a security program and work in conjunction with local
police departments. There were no audience comments in favor of this application.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1983
Matt Friedman, 2100 Ray Drive presented the remainder of a petition in opposition
consisting of approximately 350 signatures. Petition in opposition (signed by those
who run businesses, own property or shop on Broadway) received by the City Clerk's
office on 8/4/83 was claimed to contain 1,724 signatures, making the total number
of opposition signatures 2,000 plus.
The following spoke in opposition: Walter Weaver, 1101 Douglas Avenue; Eileen
Breedlove, in business at 1130 Broadway; Pat Gilbride, 1129 Laguna Avenue; Arthur
Preston, Preston's Candies & Ice Cream, 1170 Broadway; Alex Mortazavi, Le Croissant,
1151 Broadway; Douglas Weaver, 1101 Douglas Avenue; Bob Ellsworth, Broadway
Stationers, 1124 Broadway; Phil Newman, Broadway Pharmacy, 1300 Broadway; Jim
Stanaway, Stanaway Brothers Food Center, 1160 Broadway (speaking for his brother
who runs the Burlingame store); David Hinckle, 1616 Sanchez Avenue. Concerns of
those in opposition were: littering/garbage problems; trucks blocking the sidewalk
and street; traffic congestion on Broadway and in adjacent residential areas;
dangerous traffic conditions in the early morning hours; taking business away from
the existing independent grocery and liquor stores; would prefer to see this vacant
lot become a city parking lot; adverse impact on the positive environmental image
of the city, height limitation should be enforced; one 7-11 store in Burlingame
is enough; could become a late evening hangout for teens and young adults; increased
Potential for crime; purpose of the ordinance is to assure that problems are avoided,
ask that Commission deny the requested permits. There were no further comments in
opposition.
In rebuttal Attorney Geller contended that Southland would have a first class operation;
they have a program for maintenance of the landscaping and keeping the parking area
free of litter, a Southland franchisee is obligated to meet these terms; Southland's
studies indicate the great majority of their customers come from existing traffic.
It was his belief that any development of this vacant lot would generate traffic.
He added that Southland would comply with the height limitation in the code, and
pointed out the request for 24 hour operation and sale of beer and wine is not a
variance request but a requirement of the code so that the city can review a proposal.
Phil Strodder, a Southland employee, spoke of the expansion of 7-11 stores over the
years and Southland's awareness of its responsibility to the neighborhoods, keeping
a clean, well run business.
For the record CP referred to the petition in opposition (2,000 plus signatures) and
a letter, also in opposition, received from Mrs. M. Nedwick, 1136 Laguna Avenue.
Chm. Graham then declared the public hearing closed. CA determined that the
applicant wished to leave the project as submitted, requesting a special permit
to exceed the height limit. Staff advised the applicant could open a store on this
site without going to the Commission if he complied with all conditions of the
ordinance. Pauline Heckler, Southland's security supervisor for this area, said
their stores in the past had been a target for armed robberies; they now have a
security program which has reduced robberies substantially.
Commission discussion: 7-11 stores are run on a franchise basis; -this type of store
on Broadway could adversely impact the established businesses located there;
safety and traffic concerns associated with a 24 hour operation, additional traffic
at midnight and during the early morning hours would not occur with a different
type business; project design not a good use of the lot, aesthetically unattractive,
conducive to accumulation of trash and debris, and because of access will cause
traffic problems in the area; an all night operation will cause litter and may
cause crime problems; this site, on one of the main streets of the city and
adjacent to residential, is not the place for this project.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
August 8, 1983
C. Giomi moved to deny the special permit to allow a 24 hour a day operation.
Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a.7-0 roll call vote.
C. Giomi moved to deny the special permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting.
C. Giomi moved to deny.the special permit to allow a 22' height. Second C. Cistulli;
motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 8:48 P.M.; reconvene 8:56 P.M.
1. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1221 DONNELLY AVENUE BY
LAGE ANDERSEN FOR EARL RAYMOND.
CP Monroe reviewed this request for a two space parking variance to build a 7,305 SF
commercial building. Reference staff report dated 8/1/82; Project Application &
CEQA Assessment received 6/6/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (7/27/83 memo), City
Engineer (6/27/83 memo) and Chief Building Inspector (6/27/83 memo); May 31, 1983
letter from Lage Andersen, attorney for the applicant; aerial photograph; and plans
date stamped June 20, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements,
staff review, applicant's justification for the variance, Planning staff comments.
One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Secy. Giomi read letter dated August 5, 1983 from Lage Andersen, applicant's attorney,
regarding their unsuccessful attempt to obtain access to the property other than by
a driveway onto Donnelly Avenue. Attorney Andersen addressed Commission: the
proposal represents a choice to allow the applicant to develop his property at a
net loss to the city of one parking space; there are factors which will limit a
precedent being set in this case - could be limited to Donnelly, a street where
retail uses need to be encouraged; limited to a minimum number of parking spaces
(1 or 2) from the code requirements; and limited to storage uses. Applicant
purchased the property prior to adoption of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area
(BACA) ordinance, thinking he could develop the lot with a 15,000 SF building and
be exempt from providing off-street parking; believe it is fair to allow him to
develop the property in the proposed manner.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor.
spoke in oppostion: have had conversations with the applicant regarding
easement, but no deal; wonder if putting the top floor of this building
is not an attempt to get around the present parking requirements; there are
serious parking problems in the area, even allowing a one or two space variance
would make the situation worse. Attorney Andersen advised there was a limited
time in which to complete a deal regarding an easement. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
John Kockos-
a possible
in storage
Commission discussion: applicant's decision to discontinue talks regarding a possible
easement exchange; alternative designs if underground parking were provided;
applicant did not wish to build offices above a retail use, without the storage area
the project is not viable for him; if this were in Sub -Area B applicant would be
required to provide parking for all floors, think his request for a two space parking
variance in Sub -Area A is too much; seems it would be a better project with underground
parking. Attorney Andersen stressed the financial hardship upon the applicant in
developing this small parcel. Further discussion: approval would be a precedent
setting action; the applicant's hardship does not pertain to the land, it is a
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1983
financial consideration; there are other small lots in the area, some with underground
parking; approval does not necessarily set a precedent, Commission would look at each
individual project on its merit; find there is a hardship in the smallness of the
lot, applicant bought this property in good faith, would like to see him develop it.
C. Giomi moved to deny this parking variance. Motion died for lack of a second.
C. Taylor stated his belief this application could be treated by itself without
fear of creating a precedent. He found there were exceptional circumstances
applicable to the property in that the lot is smaller than the surrounding lots and
there is no other realistic use for this property in this location; that it would
be better to grant the parking variance than allow cars to back onto Donnelly; that
the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights
of the owner, he cannot do anything more with this property; that to use the property
at all requires the applicant obtain a variance; that granting of the variance would
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, it would improve safety
in the area; and that this use of property in Sub -Area A of the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city,
it is consistent with the objectives of the zoning plan.
C. Taylor moved for approval of the parking variance with the following condition:
(1) that the project as -built be consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped
June 20, 1983. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers
Giomi and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. AMENDMENT OF FEBRUARY 3, 1981 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING AT
345 LORTON AVENUE, BY LEMBI-SCATTINI-BALDWIN (PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed this request for amendment of condominium permit to increase the
number of commercial condominiums from 16 to 19. Reference staff report dated
8/1/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/27/83; staff review: Fire
Marshal (6/29/83 memo), Chief Building Inspector (7/26/83 memo) and City Engineer
(7/11/83 memo); June 23, 1983 letter from Jerry Scattini, the applicant; July 25,
1983 study meeting minutes; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped June 28, 1983.
CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's comments, study
meeting questions. If approved, two conditions were suggested for consideration.
Jerry Scattini, project manager, was present. His comments: the issue is
marketability, structure has a unique design more suitable for smaller offices,
would like to divide three of the larger suites which should improve the success
of the project. CP advised parking provided meets the parking requirement of the
project as approved. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no comments
and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: parking requirements when approved versus the requirement
now under the new BACA ordinance; this change will not impact the parking situation
to any great extent; CE advised this increase in number of office condominiums
would be taken care of on the final map.
C. Schwalm moved to approve this amendment to the 2/3/81 condominium permit with
the following conditions: (1) that the final condominium map be in conformance with
the submitted plans date stamped June 28, 1983; and (2) that the final condominium
map assign (by number, letter or some specific designation) a minimum of one parking
space to each of the 19 individual office ownerships. Second C. Cistulli. Comment
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
August 8, 1983
on the motion: will this division increase the need for more parking; Commission
has no way of knowing what might have gone in or what may go in after the division.
Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures
were advised.
3. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW A 27,600 SF FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT
1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY PAUL GUMBINGER (ARCHITECT) AND GEORGE COREY
(ATTORNEY) FOR CIF CORPORATION (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
4. TWO VARIANCES FOR THE ABOVE
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow an office building in the M-1 District.
Reference staff report dated 8/2/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received
3/9/83; aerial photograph; staff review: City Engineer (6/20/83 memo), Chief Building
Inspector (7/28/83 memo) and Fire Marshal (6/28/83 memo); March 9 and July 21, 1983
letters from Paul Gumbinger, architect; Planning staff review of the project against
the Design Guidelines; July 25, 1983 study meeting minutes; City Council minutes,
March 21, 1983, Review of Warehouse Conversion at 840 Mahler Road; plans date stamped
June 15 and June 28, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements,
environmental review, staff review, applicant's comments, Planning staff comments,
issues raised at the study session. Twenty-one conditions were suggested if the
special permits were approved with Condition #22 added as a part of affirmative
action on the variances.
George Corey, attorney representing CIF Corporation, addressed Commission: the
conditions in the staff report are acceptable to the applicant; CIF is in the air
travel and package air freight business and hopes to occupy the entire new building
in the near future; feel that Council's denial of a warehouse conversion to office
in the M-1 district as well as their actions on traffic allocation for CIF's
proposal were an indication they would favor a good office project at this location.
Ed Kaplan of Paul Gumbinger's office, architects, discussed traffic flow and access
to the site using a model of the project. Tom Clausen, TJKM Transportation
Consultants, summarized TJKM's study of traffic impact from this office project
and with warehouse use on the site. Attorney Corey commented further: presently
in the M-1 area attractive office buildings occupy the Bayshore Highway frontage
with warehouse buildings located behind them; the proposed height does not appear
to block or shade anything; applicant feels he can provide a more attractive project
with the parking variance, allowing more landscaping around the structure; in support
of the 23' backup aisle for a portion of the required parking stalls, if not allowed
the applicant would be required to go underground, this could create a hazard for
neighboring properties.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: spaces will be marked for compact cars; easements each side of
the building were there from time of original subdivision; City Council uses a set
of five criteria when granting traffic allocations; there are no regulations in the
code covering backup aisles for compact cars, in the opinion of the CE 23' would be
sufficient with modern cars; adjacent parcel was purchased to provide parking;
would like clarification of Council's policy in this area; difficult to vote for an
office building which generates no sales tax income when much of the city's income
comes from warehouse operations in M-1 at present; Attorney Corey pointed out there
appears to be an obvious pattern on Bayshore Highway with office buildings along the
street and warehouses behind in the M-1 zone; further, CIF's business is airport
oriented. There was concern expressed about traffic impact and change of use in
the M-1 zone.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
August 8, 1983
C. Schwalm moved for approval of a special permit to allow an office building in
the M-1 District subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of June 20, 1983, the Chief
Building Inspector's memo of July 28, 1983 and the Fire Marshal's memo of
June 20, 1983 be met;
(2) that the final plans be consistent with the plans date stamped June 15, 1983
and June 28, 1983;
(3) that the Park Department review final landscape plans for plan consistency,
species and adequate protection from glare on Bayshore Highway;
(4) that the final building plans be submitted four months from the date of city
approval, the building permit will be issued five months from the date of
city approval, the foundation inspection six months from date of city approval,
framing inspection eight months from date of city approval and occupancy
13 months from date of city approval;
(5) that the project shall pay all required city fees including the Bayfront
Development Fee and Sewer Improvement Fee;
(6) that the applicant pay to the city the amount of dollars required to install
medians on Bayshore Highway to prevent left hand turns into the project site
from Bayshore Highway, adjust the length of northbound left turn stacking lane
at Hinckley to accommodate increase in left hand turns generated by the project
as a result of installing the median; no notice of completion be filed until
the City Engineer has approved construction of the medians;
(7) institute an aggressive ride sharing or car pooling incentive program among
persons employed in the building, encourage staggered work hours for employees
on site, encourage use of public transportation by employees and visitors to
the site; compliance with this condition to be reviewed by Commission six
months after occupancy;
(8) place window glass in low air infiltration rate frames, install sound rated
glass windows on the Bayshore Highway side of the building, and conduct a
more detailed acoustical study if noise sensitive users are to occupy the
building;
(9) tenants in adjacent buildings shall be notified in writing at least two weeks
in advance of scheduled times and dates for pile driving, holes for.pile
driving shall be predrilled, pile driving shall be scheduled on weekends and
during the weekdays when it will have the least effect on adjacent businesses,
pile driving and construction shall be confined to the hours permitted by the
city code;
(10) the building shall be supported entirely by structural slab founded on a graded
beam and appropriately based pile foundation system as approved by the City
Engineer;
(11) the project shall develop special design details responsive to differential
settlements which will occur at the site because of placement of new fill,
these details shall address underground utility lines, structural elements
adjacent to the pile supported structure, including entrances, walkways and
pavements, inclusion of all geotechnical constultant's conclusions and
recommendations shall be made into the design and construction of the proposed
project to avoid possible soil and foundation problems;
(12) structural and other on-site facilities including utilities and utility
connections shall be designed for seismic risk, the building shall conform to
all applicable building, fire, plumbing and electrical codes;
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
August 8, 1983
(13) on-site drainage facilities shall collect all drainage and retain it on site
prior to discharge into city collection facilities, facilities should be
properly sized to achieve this and located so that they connect properly
with city collection and discharge systems;
(14) all storm drain connections shall have standard sand and oil separators (grease
traps) as required by the city, number and location should be specified in
the final plans, a maintenance plan for grease traps shall be included for
approval with the final plans;
(15) a landscape maintenance plan shall be prepared, approved and filed with the
city when final plans are filed, this plan shall include types of chemicals
to be used, methods of application and frequency of use;
(16) low flow sink and toilet facilities shall be installed;
(17) glass with only slight reflectivity and dark tint shall be used to absorb
light and reduce glare on Bayshore Highway, some form of overhang at the
windows shall be used to decrease the amount of sky reflected and reduce
light and glare, metal sidings shall be painted with a dark, matte finish
and color;
(18) tall evergreen plants along the northeast face of the building shall be
planted to reduce morning glare in the summer, similar trees on the south-
eastern and eastern corner will protect northwest bound traffic on Bayshore
Highway, low evergreen shrubs in planters on the northwestern side and west
corner shall reduce evening reflection on Bayshore Highway;
(19) landscaping within the parking lot shall be designed and selected to reduce
headlight glare on public streets and onto adjacent property;
(20) participate with other property owners and developers east of 101 in paying
a prorated share of cost for "contracted services" to provide east -west
transit connection particularly during commute hours;
(21) a solid wooden fence six to eight feet in height shall be built around the
perimeter of the project site prior to demolition of existing buildings
and commencement of construction, this temporary construction noise barrier
shall remain until the "skin" of the building is complete; and
(22) all lot lines shall be eliminated and an appropriate parcel map merging
the lots be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
Second C. Taylor; motion to approve this use in the M-1 district passed on a 5-2
roll call vote; Cers Giomi and Leahy dissenting.
C. Schwalm moved for approval of the special permit to allow a 70'-6" height with
the above conditions. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote,
Cers Giomi and Leahy dissenting.
C. Taylor found adequate testimony had been presented to establish there are
exceptional circumstances relating to this property; that the number of parking
spaces devoted to small car parking do not exceed the normal number of small car
parking spaces the city generally permits; that evidence has been submitted to
indicate a 23' backup aisle is adequate in the scheme of modern automobiles, and
this has been confirmed by the City Engineer; that the variance is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, the parking
spaces are necessary for the use of this property as intended by the applicant
and additional landscaping can be adapted to more parking if necessary; that the
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1983
variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare;
and the design presented and testimony given shows the variance would not in any way
affect the property rights of other property owners; and it would not affect the
comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
C. Taylor moved for approval of a variance to allow a 23' backup aisle for a portion
of the required parking stalls with the foregoing 22 conditions and Condition (23):
that if on-site parking ever becomes a problem, at the request of the
city, the applicant will remove at his own expense the landscaping as shown
in the plans date stamped June 15, 1983 and replace it with the four parking
spaces making the parking variance for 89 parking spaces null and void.
Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting.
C. Taylor moved for approval of a variance to allow 89 on-site parking spaces,
incorporating the findings stated in the prior motion for variance and with the
same conditions. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote,
Cers Giomi and Leahy dissenting.
Appeal procedures were advised.
6. REVIEW OF 11/27/78 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PENINSULA SPORTS CENTER, 1239 ROLLINS
ROAD. BY ANN MORI
Reference Ann Mori's letter of August 8, 1983 received in the Planning Department late
this afternoon. The applicant was not present. Item #6 was continued to the meeting
of August 22, 1983 with a request that another staff site inspection be made prior
to that meeting.
7. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNING SIGN AT 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Continued to the meeting of August 22, 1983 at the request of the applicant.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
8. FIVE PERMITS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1114 PALOMA AVENUE
9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Items set for hearing August 22, 1983.
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
- CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its August 1, 1983 meeting.
- Review of Sign Code/Signage on Awnings and Canopies --continued to meeting of 8/22/83.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- August 1, 1983 letter to Helen Towber, Planner from L. Rutter, partner
in The Keeping Room Catering, 1320 Broadway, regarding signage. Staff
was requested to respond in writing.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:52 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary