Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.08.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, August 13, 1984 at 7:32 P.M. ROT.T. rhT.T. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, 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 23, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2-84 RECOMMENDING EIR-61P FOR A PROPOSED HYATT REGENCY HOTEL AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY; ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC., CONSULTANT FOR HYATT CORP., PROPERTY OWNER Reference staff report, 8/13/84, with attachments: Resolution 2-84; Exhibit A, Significant Effects, Mitigations and Findings; August 6, 1984 letter from John C. Nicolls, Hyatt Hotels Corporation. CP stated the consultant has responded to all public testimony, letters and Commission comments in the Final EIR document; Planning staff's findings are attached to the resolution in Exhibit A. Michael Rice, consultant and Mark Hornberger, architect were present. Commission/staff comment: mitigations regarding traffic will be included as conditions when the project is reviewed; funding of roadway improvements not discussed in EIR document, only how the improvements might affect the project. C. Taylor noted CP found the FEIR adequate from a Planning standpoint and received confirmation from the CA that the document is legally adequate. C. Taylor then moved for adoption of Resolution 2-84 recommending FEIR-61P to the City Council. Second C. Leahy; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AT 2339 ADELINE DRIVE WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BY TERENCE AND LINDA FIBICH (APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report, 8/13/84; Chapter 25.54 Variances; Project Application & CEQA Assessment Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes .August 13, 1984 received 7/11/84; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (7/31/84), City Engineer (7/25/84), Fire Marshal (7/23/84); applicants' letter, July 11, 1984; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed 8/3/84; and plans date stamped July 11, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicants' reason for the request and justification for variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicants were present and clarified the location of the public utilities easement. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: from site inspection it appears many of the homes on this street have insufficient space between properties; porch extending over the shop would be used strictly for pleasure, it is located off what would become a family room; feel the porch might encroach on the privacy of the neighbors; neighbors have been notified and staff has received no objections; interior remodeling of the attic would not affect the footprint of the building; parking requirement is met on the site; feel it would be possible to do the desired remodeling within code; architect appears to have designed the project with variances in mind rather than meeting code requirements. C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances in the placement of the house on the lot; that the requested encroachments into the side yard were minor; that the existing easement provides open space; that other homes in the neighborhood do not meet side yard setback requirements; and that the addition is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owners. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this variance request with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of July 31, 1984 be met; and (2) that the project as built conform to the plans submitted and date stamped July 11, 1984. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF A MONTESSORI SCHOOL ON THE PREMISES OF FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT 2303 `.PROUSDALE DRIVE, BY LYNETTE MUHIC AND LESLIE KAPPELER (APPLICANTS) WITH THE BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report, 8/13/84; study meeting minutes, July 23, 1984; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/27/84; letter from the applicants, June 26, 1984; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (7/13/84), City Engineer (7/13/84), Fire Marshal (July 2, 1984); letter from the Burlingame School District, July 2, 1984, with attached Franklin School site plan and guidelines for leasing school facilities; aerial photograph; and notice of hearing mailed August 3, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, School District's letter in support, Planning staff comment. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1984 It was determined all property owners within 300 feet of the site received a notice of hearing; Fire Marshal advised all schools in leased school premises participate in fire drills. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicants were present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: provisions for safety and emergency medical care for the children. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit; with the -following conditions: (1) that the Montessori School shall be operated as described in Lynette Muhic and Leslie Kappeler's letter of June 26, 1984; (2) that the special use permit shall be reviewed in June of 1985; and (3) that the Montessori School participate in all fire drills at this facility. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on unanimous roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF EXISTING MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, BY CNR ASSOCIATES, INC. WITH NORTHPARK PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for a six space parking variance in order to relocate an enclosed maintenance/storage area into an underground parking area at the Northpark Apartments. Reference staff report, 8/13/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/15/84; staff review: Fire Marshal.(6/24/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/25/84), City Engineer (7/2/84); R. W. Coxall, CNR Associates letter, June 13, 1984; study meeting minutes, July 23, 1984; Planner memos, 8/1/84 and 7/27/84; R. W. Coxall letter, August 1, 1984, with attachments; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed August 3, 1984; and plans date stamped June 15, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter and justification for variance, study meeting questions as addressed in the staff report, Planning staff comment. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: number of leased parking spaces on the Northpark site; Velvet Turtle parking garage is on property owned by Velvet Turtle, Northpark has exclusive right to the tennis courts on top of that building; parking spaces at the present maintenance facility are considered to be off-site and not counted in meeting the parking requirement for Northpark; impacted on -street parking situation, complaints received about impacted on-site parking in the evening; parking requirements at the time Northpark was constructed and present parking requirements. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Richard Coxall, applicant, advised Northpark would be willing to terminate the agreement with Mike Harvey for leased parking spaces if desired. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: 10 space sublease to Chandler will continue, daytime use only up until 5:00 P.M., after which it becomes guest parking; were the six spaces on the north side of the Chandler building included in the original count; condominium application was never completed, hearing notices are sent only to property owners, tenants of Northpark were not noticed; spaces in the complex are Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 13, 1984 assigned as conveniently as possible and are of standard size; possibility of restriping for compacts, applicant could then meet code at the time of construction but would not meet current code requirements; there is large landscaped area, adding a maintenance facility would not greatly affect aesthetics of the! complex; city should have required the maintenance building originally owned by Northpark to be permanently tied to Northpark; difficult to make findings in support of this variance; alternatives have not been explored, do not feel this is the only solution for the applicant; city has a problem with impacted parking in apartment zones, how can Commission allow this variance when it has denied many others; would like the six spaces which would be lost to be replaced; why not put the maintenance building somewhere else rather than underground. C. Giomi moved to deny this parking variance without prejudice. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. RENEWAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCK STORAGE AT 1645 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY STAR EXCAVATION WITH HIRAM WALKER & SONS, INC. CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report, 8/13/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/27/84; Diana Miley, Star Excavation letter, June 27, 1984; J. Roberts, Hiram Walker & Sons letter, June 20, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (7/2/84), City Engineer (7/2/84), Chief Building Inspector (7/13/84); study meeting minutes, July 23, 1984; Planner memos, 7/26/84 and 8/1/84; staff report, 7/11/83; City Planner letter of action, July 20, 1983; Planning Commission minutes, July 11, 1983; site plan; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed August 3, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, the original use permit, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions addressed in staff report. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicant was present. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion/concerns: site inspection revealed a few apparently unused vehicles and a demolished truck on the site; concern was expressed about this yard becoming a junk yard; applicant advised trucks on the lot are those used every day; Commission questioned who would monitor compliance with the conditions of the application. Further comment: am not concerned as long as there are no more than 10 trucks on the site, construction trucks generally look in worse operating condition than they are; would ask that Commission consider this is a substantially different request, applicant would like a long term lease, this business would become another use on this property, should consider long term implications; strongly urge a condition be placed on the application that the yard be paved. C. Taylor moved for approval of this special permit renewal with the following conditions: (1) that the storage area be enclosed by a well maintained chain link fence with redwood slats inserted and a rolling Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1984 gate to fully enclose the storage area, and redwood slatting to be put on a portion of the chain link fence along the Rollins Road and southern property lines to screen the storage area from the view of passing vehicles; (2) that only ten construction trucks and no tanker trucks or maintenance vehicles carrying flammable materials be stored on the site and no construction materials of any type be stored on the site; (3) that this use be reviewed by the Fire Department at regular intervals; (4) that the applicant comply with the conditions of the use permit in 30 days and that this permit be reconsidered in 12 months (1985); and (5) that if the permit is extended in 1985, the storage yard be paved to a standard established by the Commission at the time of renewal. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: think problem of dirt should be addressed and paving required now. C. Garcia moved to amend the motion and require removal of the demolished truck now on the site within 30 days. Second C. Giomi; amendment approved on unanimous voice vote and added to the motion as item (6). Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCUPRESSURE MASSAGE SERVICE IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1290 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY NATASHA SHIH (APPLICANT) WITH 1290 OLD BAYSHORE CORP. (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate an extension of an existing accupressure/massage service. Reference staff report, 8/13/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/21/84; floor plan, second floor, 1290 Bayshore Highway; applicant's project description received 6/21/84; June 18, 1984 letter, James Koo, :property owner; staff review: City Engineer (7/9/84), Fire Marshal (7/10/84), Chief Building Inspector (7/13/84); July 9, 1984 letter, Sgt. Haseleu, Police Department; study meeting minutes, July 23, 1984; Planner memo, July 26, 1984; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed August 3, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, Police Department comments and suggested conditions, study meeting requests. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicant was present and discussed the growth of her business; some customers cannot use the hot tub or sauna, she would like a location for just accupressure customers. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: applicant advised the part time employee would be trained in accupressure; the Frog Pond (applicant's present location) will not allow her to charge a lesser fee if customers do not use the sauna; Police Department's restriction that the applicant not be allowed a part time employee; applicant advised she could work at both locations, the service is offered on an appointment only basis; the city has means for regulating this type of business other than limiting employees. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1984 C. Garcia moved to grant this special permit with the condition that if the applicant intends to hire an employee she must come before the Commission to amend the special permit. Motion died for lack of a second. Comment: is this a proper use in an office! building in the C-4 area. C. Taylor moved for approval of the special permit with the following conditions: (1) that if the business or any part of it is sold the new owner shall be approved by the Burlingame Police Department prior to the sale; and (2) that the area leased be limited to the location and size (180 SF) shown in the floor plans submitted and date stamped June 21, 1984. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Jacobs and Leahy dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:35 P.M.; reconvene 9:42 P.M. STUDY ITEMS 7. SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW A GROCERY STORE AT 1508 ADELINE DRIVE Request: review Council stipulations and zoning regulations for this site. Item set for hearing August 27, 1984. 8. USE DETERMINATION - AUDIO VISUAL RENTAL SERVICE - 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: statement from the applicant regarding his advertising program; type of equipment rented and to whom. Item set for hearing August 27, 1984. PLANNER REPORTS - MINOR MODIFICATIONS CP discussed proposed code amendment to provide minor modification authority to the City Planner. Commission requested clarification of lot coverage limited to a variation of 1% and clarification that no variation to the number of parking spaces be allowed. Commission also wanted the opportunity to review before minor modifications became final. Staff will prepare a code amendment for Commission consideration at a Planning Commission meeting in September. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its August 6, 1984 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary