Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.08.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, August 12, 1985 at 7:32 P.M. nnT.T. (21T.T. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: Commissioner Taylor Staff Present: Helen Towber, Planner; Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works; Sue Case, Acting Attorney MINUTES - The minutes of the July 22, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #8 postponed at the request of the applicant. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. RECOMMENDATION OF FEIR-63P FOR OFFICE/AUTO RETAIL CONVERSION OF THE WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE AT 1070 BROADWAY Planner Towber introduced Yane Nordhav, principal, Baseline Environmental Consulting, the firm preparing this EIR. Ms. Nordhav discussed responses contained in the Final EIR to comments received at the public hearing and to written comments received during the public review period. Commission asked for clarification on who would pay the cost (in excess of $100,000) if a signal were required at the Broadway/Carolan intersection. Consultant advised CE would expect the applicant to pay, no final decision has been made at this point. Planner Towber confirmed the FEIR has been reviewed by the City Planner and found to be adequate. C. Graham found FEIR-63P to be adequate and moved to recommend the environmental document to City Council for consideration. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Taylor absent. 2. VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT A GARAGE AT 309 CHAPIN LANE Reference staff report, 8/12/85, with attachments. Planner Towber reviewed the item: details of the request, applicants' letter, neighbors' letter in support, Planning staff comment. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1985 Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. The applicants were present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Dennis -Loucks, applicant, commented on their desire to replace their old garage which is in poor condition with a slightly larger structure at the same location, they do not wish to put the new garage at the rear of the lot because the driveway would be unreasonably long and would result in loss of some landscaping, the present location provides a screen for sound and view for the applicants and their neighbors. Responding to Commission question, applicant advised roll -up doors at each end of the garage are proposed to allow movement of gardening vehicles without disturbing existing landscaping. Commission discussion: existing garage foundation will be replaced; possibility of moving the structure farther back and applicants' desire to retain useable open space behind the house; drainage. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in that the garage and house have been in their present location for many years; the applicants are replacing an existing garage with only a minor variation; the variance would not be detrimental to the neighbors, no neighbor complaints have been received; and it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Graham added a finding that this lot is exceptionally deep, if it were a standard sized lot the garage would be in the rear 30% of the lot and could be built to the side property line without a variance. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's July 19, 1985 memo shall be met; and (2) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department as annotated by the Planner and date stamped July 30, 1985. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: this actually violates one of the principles of good zoning, it continues a nonconforming situation, making it permanent; however, mitigating circumstances exist in that it does not detract from the neighborhood and no neighbor objections have been received. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND REQUIRED PARKING SPACE (A CARPORT) ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT 1469 BENITO AVENUE Reference staff report, 8/12/85, with attachments. Planner Towber reviewed this item: details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: extent of additional paving required in the front yard for driveway access (a second required space is proposed in the front of the home in the basement below the first floor); possibility of conditioning approval to require landscape softening in this area; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 12, 1985 concern about meeting UBC and UFC requirements for the front and back stairs; many homes in this area were built with only a 3' side yard, code now requires a 4' side setback. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. The applicants were present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During further discussion Randy Gibbs, applicant, advised he had revised plans with him this evening and discussed them with staff and Commission; he stated that putting the carport in the backyard would eliminate vegetation and that they hoped in the future to add a pool. Commmission comment: this is a typical lot for the city, many residents have long driveways to garages in the rear and still are able to provide open space for their families, difficult to find exceptional circumstances exist in this case; possibility of putting a two car garage under the home. There was Commission consensus that action could not be taken on the revised plans this evening. C. Jacobs moved to continue the item to the meeting of August 26, 1985 if complete plans are received. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. 4. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 4,040 SF TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE ATHLETIC CLUB AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 4,040 SF TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE ATHLETIC CLUB AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD Reference staff report, reviewed this request to Prime Time Athletic Club on a nearby drainage eas rights from the club sit She discussed details of of Public Works' concern questions. Seven condit public hearing. 8/12/85, with attachments. Planner Towber expand the weight room and aerobics room at and to allow 14 of the required parking spaces ement (owned by the applicant) with access e by a Southern Pacific spur right-of-way. the request, parking requirement, Department /policy, applicant's letters, study meeting ions were suggested for consideration at the Commission/staff discussion: the traffic model which regulates impacts of development on the Broadway interchange was based on the assumption that no use would be placed on drainage easements which generated additional peak hour trips; parking of recreational vehicles, tennis court, etc. have been allowed on the easement but any use which would result in intensification of uses on adjacent properties has not been allowed. The Department of Public Works has been concerned this would be precedent setting and double the traffic impact. DPW Kirkup discussed history of the drainage easement. Acting CA Case commented on the legality/practical enforcement of suggested conditions #2 and #3 addressing parking on the drainage easement, access over the S.P. spur and sale by the applicant of his portion of the drainage easement. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1985 Commissioner comment: it would seem that the key to this whole proposal is whether the applicant can acquire the connecting S.P. right of way. Arthur Michael, applicant, was present. His comments: Southern Pacific's attorney has determined offer for the full 700' of the drainage frontage will be made to Prime Time first, they have the funds, it is merely a matter of formalities; they have been leasing the spur right-of-way since 1977. They will not disturb any portion of the drainage ditch, pavement is already in place; presently there are campers and auto rentals parked on this easement; Prime Time is asking for vehicle parking which will move within an hour's time, not overnight parking. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments. Two letters expressing concern about the proposal were noted from: J. J. Riggs, R & K Distributors, 1701 Rollins Road (August 1, 1985) and Stuart Beattie, R & K Distributors (August 1, 1985). The public hearing was declared closed. Applicant commented he is not in favor of adding more vehicles in the street and Prime Time has asked their members not to park on other properties. This proposal provides parking to code. He suggested a condition could be attached that if the S.P. right-of-way were not purchased the permit would be invalid; applicant accepted all seven conditions in the staff report. Commission concerns: impacted parking in the area, applicant has not shown he will alleviate the situation, the problem of enforcement with off-site parking; this application is premature, applicant would be in a better position if he owned the spur before presenting his proposal. Mr. Michael advised of his plan to use half of the easement for parking and lease half to an auto rental agency for storage of vehicles (which would require another application for special permit amendment). Further Commissioner comment: proposal would be precedent setting, concern about traffic impacts on Rollins Road and intersections and safety. Applicant did not believe the addition would intensify the number of people coming to the club; the activities of this type of business change as members' activities change. One Commissioner felt the request was reasonable, applicant will provide more parking, wants to improve service to present club members and does want to purchase the right-of-way rather than lease it. With the finding that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, C. Jacobs moved to deny the variance. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: not opposed to an increase of activity on this site but have concern about parking off site; would not object when the applicant owns the S.P. right-of-way. C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny the variance without prejudice; C. Graham amended his second. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Schwalm and Garcia dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 12, 1985 C. Jacobs moved to deny the special permit amendment without prejudice. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Schwalm and Garcia dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:10 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER SCHOOL AT 1209 DONNELLY AVENUE, SUB -AREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, 8/12/85, with attachments. Planner Towber reviewed this request to operate a polygraph examiner school which does not operate outside of normal retail hours as required: details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting concerns. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission concern: difficulty of enforcing condition #3, that students who drive to class be required to park in the all day parking adjacent to the S.P. right-of-way. Staff advised this was a code enforcement item, business has been operating for some time. The applicant was not present. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commenting that it appears most students would be from out of town and would not have cars to impact parking in the area, C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's June 18, 1985 memo and the Building Inspector's June 20, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that classes offered from this site shall be limited to 10 people and one instructor between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M.; (3) that students who drive to class shall be required to park in the all day parking adjacent to the S.P. right-of-way; (4) that for any changes to the operation the business owner shall be required to obtain an amendment to this use permit; and (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all its conditions in six months (February 1986). Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: since the staff report indicates there has been little cooperation from the applicant previously, how can compliance with the conditions of approval be assured; applicant has not stated he would drive students to and from the site, would anticipate out of town students would use rental cars and impact the downtown area. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A BALLOON/GIFT SHOP AT 1199 BROADWAY Reference staff report, 8/12/85, with attachments. Planner Towber reviewed this request to operate a balloon/gift shop in the new commercial building at the corner of Laguna and Broadway. She Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1985 discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: this structure meets UBC requirements for restrooms; concern about condition #5 which makes issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements contingent upon landscape plans for the building being'submitted, approved and installed, is this fair to an applicant; Commission felt a more equitable approach would be to deal with the property owner rather than the lessee. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Casey Wulfert, applicant, was present. He stated he was hoping to start tenant improvements September 1 and already had a substantial investment in inventory. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commenting that this is a retail use, C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the condition of the Fire Marshal's memo of July 5, 1985 shall be met; (2) that the business selling balloons and gifts shall operate in an 850 SF area from 8:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. seven days a week with two people on site, the owner and one full time employee; (3) that at night the company delivery vehicle shall be parked at the rear of the building; and (4) that any changes to the conditions of this permit shall require application to the Planning Commission. C. Jacobs further requested that a letter be sent to the property owner from the City Attorney advising that no more leasing of space in this building shall be done until landscaping is installed. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: requirements for parking of the company vehicle were clarified. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 10,000 SF BUILDING AT 1722 GILBRETH ROAD FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO OFFICE SPACE This item was postponed indefinitely at the request of the applicant. Reference August 9, 1985 letter from Robert H. Brown. 9. MINOR MODIFICATION FOR A BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION TO A RESIDENCE WITH AN EXISTING SUBSTANDARD GARAGE AT 1905 RAY DRIVE Reference staff report, 8/12/85 with findings by City Planner. Item has been reviewed by City Council and noticed to adjacent property owners; there were no comments. Commission had no comments and this minor modification was approved. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1985 ITEMS FOR STUDY 10. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 137 ANITA ROAD 11. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 137 ANITA ROAD Requests: will the guest parking spaces be marked for guests? will the garage be enclosed? will additional lighting be used for security purposes? Items set for hearing August 26, 1985. 12. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 1444 EL CAMINO REAL 13. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 1444 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: will the two unsecured parking spaces at the front of the building be designated for guests only? clarify the direction of travel for the stairway between the second and third floors. Items set for hearing August 26, 1985. 14. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO OF FIVE PROPOSED LOTS: RESUBDIVISION OF 2720 MARIPOSA DRIVE 15. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - 2720 MARIPOSA DRIVE Requests: can heights be limited to one story? where is front setback measured from? does the Commission have authority to designate setback off a private road? what addresses will be used? isn't a private drive an unusual situation? location of seismic area; are traffic impacts consistent with surrounding area and previous church use? what is buildable area of these lots? why no sidewalks? is lot size comparable to other lots in the area? Items set for hearing August 26, 1985. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT - AFTERSCHOOL CHILDCARE PROGRAM - HOOVER SCHOOL BUILDING - 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE Requests: note this business starts at 11:00 A.M., define "afterschool"; is hallway included in the lease, if it is going to be used for other than a hallway would like comments from the Fire Marshal; review total trip impact of all current tenants; think there was concern previously that site was fully utilized, could this be checked out in some way? Item set for hearing August 26, 1985. 17. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM - 1500-1508 ADELINE DRIVE Requests: details on height and method of support for Sign A-1; applicant's intentions regarding window signs; add condition that all existing signs be removed prior to issuance of permits on the sign program; provide detail of how proposal exceeds code limits; how will applicant assure that tenants comply with the master sign program? Item set for hearing August 26, 1985. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1985 18. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - AMFAC HOTEL - 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Item set for hearing August 26, 1985. 19. SPECIAL PERMIT - INSURANCE REPLACEMENT AUTO RENTAL AGENCY - 851 BURLWAY ROAD Requests: what does applicant propose to do with five rental and two staff cars if there is no designated on-site parking? what are the operating conditions of this company at other locations outside Burlingame? would like to see lease regarding assigned on-site parking, if any. Item set for hearing August 26, 1985. 20. SPECIAL PERMIT - DRY CLEANING SERVICE - 327-329 LORTON AVENUE Requests: does applicant realize there is no immediate parking for drop-off customers, how do they propose to accept cleaning from customers? will they use a van for pickup and delivery? Item set for hearing August 26, 1985. COMMISSIONER REQUEST Two Commissioners suggested a study of parking for athletic clubs since it seems present parking is inadequate. PLANNER REPORT Planner Towber noted recent inquiries about modification of private balcony railings to provide a 6' enclosure. Commission discussed briefly: at one location balconies have been enclosed completely; is latticework as serious as enclosing with glass; condominium requirement is for,private open space, but if it's open it's not private; a 6' railing doesn't give ventilation or light to the room it serves. One Commissioner stated he would prefer to look at each request individually rather than change the ordinance. Consensus was to study the issue, see what other cities do and research why Burlingame's ordinance was written as it is. ACKNOWLEDGMENT August 2, 1985 letter from the Chief Building Inspector to Nick Genner, 1128 Oxford Road - subject: wall construction. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary