Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.12.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, December 10, 1984 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 26, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA- Item #4 dropped from the agenda, property owner's consent has been withdrawn. Applicant for items #8 and #9 in a phone call to staff this morning indicated he would ask for a continua- tion, no further confirmation of this was received prior to 5:00 P.M. today. Items #10 and #11 have been continued for action on January 28, 1985 due to public notice requirements. Order of the agenda was unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 9'-6" FENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES AT 1005 LARKSPUR DRIVE CP Monroe reviewed this request for an existing 9'-6" fence. Reference staff report 12/10/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/19/84; plans date stamped 10/19/84; map of the immediate area; photograph of the site; 10/19/84 letter from the applicant, William H. McDonald; staff review: Fire Chief (11/3/84), Chief Building Inspector (11/2/84) and City Engineer (11/5/84); aerial photograph and notice of hearing mailed November 30, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, findings necessary for granting a fence exception, staff comment. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff/Commission comment: this fence was reported to Planning staff by another staff member while on a field inspection; at about the same time a complaint was received from a neighbor; applicant has stated his house is 4' higher than those on surrounding properties, from a site inspection it appears this house is typical height in the area. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1984 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. William McDonald, applicant, was present. His comments: he built the fence for privacy of a portable spa in the back yard, he did not know a permit was required for the fence or that there was a 6' limitation, the! storm drain is completely accessible, before building the fence neighbors were advised and no objections were received (applicant presented a petition in support signed by five neighbors); the fence is necessary to prevent trespassing and vandalism in the back yard and for privacy of the spa. Paul Vargas, 1008 Morrell Avenue, spoke in favor: about 90% of the fence faces the back of his yard, have no objection, fence will provide privacy for both sites. Jannet Bottling, property owner, 855 Linden Avenue spoke in opposition: her tenant was not asked about the fence, fence is not built on her side, do object. to a 9'-6" fence, she felt 7' would give enough privacy. There were no further audience comments. Applicant stated he had no intention of building a fence along the side of 855 Linden. The Chair then closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: the portable spa and need for a building permit; there is an opening to the storm drain in the corner of this property; applicant is a plumber by profession; there is no tall fence on the east side of this property, just the south and west; cannot find exceptional circumstances in the topography of this lot to justify granting the exception, many homes in the city are set up even higher than 41; a solution might be to put the tub in the ground or add tall landscaping to solve the visual problems. C. Giomi moved to deny this fence exception; second C. Leahy. Further comment: think a 71/8' fence would be adequate with less visual impact, could meet visual needs with fast growing plantings; this is not a spite fence but petitioner must make sufficient showing of hardship and exceptional circumstances applicable to the property; a precedent could be set if Commission grants this exception. For the record CE put the applicant on notice that if the application is approved he must receive a building permit at which time the city will require through drainage. C. Giomi amended her motion to deny this fence exception without prejudice. C. Leahy declined to second the amended motion. C. Jacobs seconded the amended motion which failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Leahy, Taylor and Graham dissenting. The Chair then called for a roll call vote on the original motion to deny this fence exeption; motion approved on a 5-2 vote, Cers Jacobs and Schwalm dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT IL420 BURLINGAME AVENUE CP reviewed this request for a Master Sign Permit for the signage on three retail spaces on this site. Reference staff report, 12/10/84; Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1984 Sign Permit application filed 10/24/84; Sign Exception application filed 10/24/84; November 8, 1984 letter from George Horvath, Architect; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (11/2/84), City Engineer (11/13/84) and Fire Chief (11/3/84); study meeting minutes, November 26, 1984; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed November 30, 1984; and plans date stamped October 25, 1984. CP discussed details of the proposal, applicant's reasons for the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Paul George, representing the property owner, stated this is an attempt by the owner to provide a signage program which will be an enhancement of the building and Burlingame Avenue, it was designed by an architect. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/determinations: the proposed plan does not contemplate any signage at the rear of the building; there is a single rear entrance at the back which serves all three stores; there are no signs in the parking lot except for a "restricted parking" sign and the number "1420" on the canopy; applicant should be commended for his foresight in signage on this building; the parking area in the rear belongs to the building, people will be using the rear entrance; if in the future the applicant wished to provide signage at the rear on the secondary frontage he would be required to amend his Master Sign Permit. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this Sign Exception and Master Sign Program with the following conditions: (1) that the signs be placed and designed as described on the signs and signs location plans submitted and date stamped October 25, 1984 and in the sign permit dated October 24, 1984; (2) that no A -frame or other movable signs will be placed within four feet of the door on the inside of a store or -outside the store and that in all cases placement of such signs will conform to the requirements of the Fire Department; (3) that there shall'be no signage for businesses on site at the rear of the building; and (4) that no changes will be made to the approved Master Signage Permit without application to and approval of the Planning Commission. Second C. Schwalm. In discussion on the motion staff clarified that the rear parking lot is a part of this parcel and is clearly secondary frontage. Motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. At this point in the meeting the Chair referred to the following items: 8. USE DETERMINATION - 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE 9. VARIANCE - 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE For the benefit of those attending the meeting for this application it was determined neither the applicant, Kenn Weeks :nor his representative were present and these items were continued to the meeting of January 14, 1985. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 10, 1984 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL DRY CLEANING PLANT AND SHIRT LAUNDRY IN SUB -AREA B OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA AT 321 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CP Monroe reviewed this request to locate a shirt laundry and dry cleaning establishment in Sub -Area B where the zoning is C-2— Reference staff report 12/10/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/31/84; applicant's letters: October 31, November 9 and November 20, 1984; site location and adjacent businesses date stamped 10/31/84; photographs of a similar installation; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (11/12/84), City Engineer (11/16/84), and Fire Chief (11/6 and 12/3/84); study meeting minutes (11/26/84); statement from the property owner, Don Sabatini (12/3/84); aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed November 30, 1984; Commission Resolution SP/3-84; and plans date stamped November 21, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, previous use of this building, parking requirements, staff review, applicant's letters, Planning staff comments, wall opening agreement requirement and/or merger of the properties to ensure delivery access across the Lorton property at the rear. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: wall opening agreement will be recorded with the County; applicant's plans for use of this property and leasing of a portion of it; final plans will meet Fire and Building Code requirements for front entrances; required parking; no request has been received for temporary curb parking on California Drive. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Timothy Sullivan, applicant and a representative of American Pacific Equipment Company, Inc. were present. Pat Keyston, Hillsborough, real estate agent who negotiated this space for the applicant, spoke in favor: this would be an ideal site and desirable use for commuter traffic. There were no comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: applicant and property owner are aware of the requirement for a wall opening agreement and/or merger of the lots; use of the vacant lot; have no problem with the use at this location but think Commission is being asked to approve a permit for a use which isn't clearly defined, would be more comfoz-table if the application included both parcels; would prefer requiring a parcel map to merge the lots. Mrs. Sabatini, property owner, discussed these parcels and the parking area; this tenant and any sublessee of the other building would use the parking lot; 50/50 Muffler, adjacent to the lot, does not and will not use it. Ms. Keyston advised applicant is leasing both properties which includes all of the parking. Commissioners again expressed concern about securing the parking for this use. Staff commented that merging the properties would be the cleanest way to accomplish this but the alternative of a wall opening agreement would be sufficient; if, in future, the property owner wished to put a building on the back lot, the dry cleaning establish- ment could not continue without parking. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 10, 1984 C. Giomi moved to approve this special permit and for approval of Resolution No. SP/3-84 with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 12, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of November 16, 1984 and the Fire Chief's memos of November 6 and December 3, 1984 be :met; (2) that applicant merge the California and Lorton properties or receive approval of a wall opening agreement which insures delivery access across the Lorton property as well as setbacks for the existing openings on property line to standards that satisfy the Fire and Building Departments, and assurance that this lot will be retained parking for the dry cleaning use so long as that use continues at 321 California Drive; (3) that the business be operated from 7:00 to 6:30 P.M., six days a week, Monday through Saturday, employ no than seven people on site at one time and use cleaning and laundry systems approved by the Building and Fire Departments for this occupancy; and (4) that the leased area be as shown in the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 21, 1984 and that the use permit be terminated if access to the rear the for A.M. more parking lot is lost. Second C. Jacobs; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL AGENCY - 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Reference December 6, 1984 letter from Ramada Inn (property owner) withdrawing permission for Expo Rent A Car to proceed with this application. Item dropped from the agenda. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CP Monroe reviewed this request for an insurance auto rental use. Reference staff report, 12/10/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/31/84; Negative Declaration ND -371P posted November 20, 1984; site plan, Burlingame Office Center; Burlingame Rent A Car Agencies map, updated 11/29/84; location ,map date stamped October 31, 1984; October 8, 1984 letter from the applicant; Rent-A-Car Questionnaire date stamped October 31, 1984; November 13, 1984 memo from the applicant; staff review: Fire Chief (11/2/84), Chief Building Inspector (11/2/84) and City Engineer (11/16/84); study meeting minutes (11/26/84); Towber memo (11/29/84); aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed November 30, 1984; Commission Resolution No. SP/4-84. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions addressed in the staff report, required parking. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm Graham opened the public hearing. Joe Murry, ap=plicant, stated he had not counted on-site parking spaces himself, the leasing agent had advised there were 370 spaces. Copies of December 5, 1984 letter from the leasing manager were distributed to Commission; this letter stated Affiliated Auto Rental (applicant) had been i=ssued eight on-site parking permits. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1984 Comment: this is a small operation and does not seem to be in conflict with existing uses. C. Jacobs moved to approve this special permit and for approval of Commission Resolution No. SP/4-84 with the following conditions: (1) that the car rental use shall be limited specifically to insurance replacement rentals with on-site rental car storage limited to 2 Monday through Friday and 6 Saturday and Sunday and shall be operated as described in the applicant's letters of October 8 and November 13, 1984 and the Car Rental Questionnaire date stamped October 31, 1984, and at the location shown on the plan submitted and date stamped October 31, 1984; and (2) that this operation shall be reviewed for conformance with the conditions in 9 months time and subsequently on a complaint basis. Second C. Giomi; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A POOL ADDITION TO A RACQUETBALL CLUB FACILITY AT 1718 ROLLINS ROAD 7. THREE VARIANCES FOR THE ABOVE: (A) FOR 17 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, (B) TO ALLOW THE POOL STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE REQUIRED 10' SIDE YARD AREA AND (C) TO ALLOW 8 COMPACT PARKING STALLS CP Monroe reviewed this request to add a lap pool to this club's facilities. Reference staff report, 12/10/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/10/84; October 2, 1984 letter from George R. Corey, attorney representing the applicant; November 1, 1984 letter from Albert R. Seyranian, architect; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (10/19/84), Fire Chief (10/25/84), City Engineer (10/29/ 84); study meeting minutes (11/13/84); November 28, 1984 letter from Attorney Corey; November 26, 1984 letter from Architect Seyranian; letter of action for this racquetball club dated August 9, 1978; Planning Commission Minutes, July 24, 1978; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed November 30, 1984; Planning Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits; and plans date stamped November 27, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, variances required, revised plan submitted this evening, staff review, applicant's and architect's letters, study meeting questions, parking demand study date stamped December 7, 1984, findings necessary for variance ap=proval. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised the revised plan just submitted shows seven compact parking stalls instead of eight which meets the city's requirements, and summarized letters in opposition from the following: Herbert W. Humber, Managing Partner, Rollins Road Commercial Center, 1675 Rollins Road; Dr. M. Wilber and Mrs. B. Wilber, members of one of the health clubs on Rollins Road; J. J. Riggs, property owner, 1701 Rollins Road and Stuart Beattie, Executive Vice President, R&K Distributors, Inc., 1701 Rollins Road. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. George Corey, attorney representing the applicant, addressed Commission: he stated there is a parking problem in the early evening hours with two racquetball clubs Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1984 in the immediate area; the parking problem increased when the club next door could no longer use an adjacent lot for parking; the impact will not get worse by the granting of these variances; cannot believe the present club members would cut a chain to get into another parking lot as -reported in one of the letters opposing this proposal; it is not a dangerous street, with much activity between 5:00-7:30 P.M.; have not observed any problems beyond 9:00 P.M.; there is congestion from 4:00-5:00 P.M. when businesses are closing, especially in the wintertime when the club's facilities are more heavily used. There were no audience comments in favor. Arthur Michael, General Manager, Prime Time Athletic Club, 1730 Rollins Road (adjacent to 1718 Rollins) spoke in opposition: when Prime Time obtained its permit required parking was provided on site, subsequently they leased space in the adjacent lot; parking is a problem in the area and they have tried to control where their members park; recently 'wished to install a ramp which would have removed three parking spaces, after talking to adjacent property owners who voiced opposition to removing any parking the ramp was redesigned to retain the spaces; Prime 'rime is not opposed to the installation of this pool (it could be put inside) but does oppose eliminating any parking stalls. In rebuttal, Attorney Corey stated that installing the pool inside was an impossibility if the racquetball courts were to remain; both clubs strive to cooperate with their neighbors; health clubs are an important part of the community, very actively used in the winter months, swimming has become an essential element of conditioning; this is not a recreational pool and there is no deck for recreational use. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: any club member can use the pool, it is a lap pool with marked lanes which will be regulated, it is not a recreational pool for families; taking away more parking spaces will not alleviate the existing problem, letters in oppos_Ltion seem to indicate there is a real problem; it is a dangerous street, some driveways are blocked; think the proposal would be detrimental to the public and may adversely affect the zoning plan of the city in this M-1 zone; it appears this is a successful business without the pool, how can Commission grant the variances with the problems that already exist; seems the problem is created because the buine�ss is thriving, that's what brings the traffic. C. Jacobs moved to deny the special permit and three variances. Commissioner comment on the motion: do not think this application will make an existing problem any worse, they are not talking about additional members, just the same members having additional facilities; only asking for a variance for side yard encroachment, the compact stall request is not significant; believe that findings could be made, and Attorney Corey could give adequate testimony, to justify the variances; applicant hasn't created the parking problem and isn't adding to the problem with the installation of this pool; this is merely redistribution of uses available to the present members, think the benefits exceed the loss of eight parking spaces; the club's Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 10, 1984 membership can be increased to its saturation point with or without the pool; believe concerns of the neighboring property owners can be controlled. Other Commission members again expressed concerns: removing parking and adding a use would be a double impact; lap pool could become a family recreational pool on weekends; parking study indicated the lot is very often full at present. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and the application denied on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEW, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING - 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE 11. NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEW AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY - 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE Items scheduled for action on January 28, 1985. ITEMS FOR STUDY 12. SPECIAL PERMIT - LANAI ADDITION - 1431 DE SOTO AVENUE Request: definition of lanai. Set for hearing January 14, 1985. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT - GARAGE ADDITION - 155 PEPPER AVENUE Requests: size of the house, clarify retaining wall location, utilities serving the addition. Set for hearing January 14, 1985. 14. MASTER SIGN PERMIT - 1209-1217 DONNELLY AVENUE It was requested that applicant acknowledge he has read the Sign Code. Set for hearing January 14, 1985. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its December 3, 1984 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS - Planning Commissioners Institute, Santa Clara, 2/28 - 3/2/85 - Commissioners Dinner, March 1, 1985 ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 9:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary