HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.06.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 1985
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, June 10, 1985 at
7:34 P.M.
nrNT T I+TT T
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy,
Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: Commissioner Giomi
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Engineer Frank
Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 28, 1985 meeting were unanimously
approved with the following corrections: page 3, Item #4,
second paragraph, add "C. Garcia absent". Item #5, page 4,
paragraph 1, add "C. Garcia absent"; page 4, paragraph 3,
add "C. Garcia absent". Page 7, paragraph 3, change fourth
sentence to read "Roll call vote on the motion was 3-2-1 .
delete City Attorney note in brackets and replace
with"Commission rules require four affirmative votes to
pass a motion. This motion therefore was denied. Since no
subsequent motion was made the application was denied as a
matter of law." Page 12, paragraph 3, line 15, delete
"prepared by the Planning Department and".
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved; item #6 was withdrawn by the
applicant.
CONSENT ITEM
1. MINOR MODIFICATION - 1132 DUFFERIN AVENUE
C. Graham moved for approval of the consent item. Second C. Schwalm;
motion approved unanimously on voice vote.
I'T'EMS FOR ACTION
2. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES AND COURIER VEHICLES FOR DHL COURIER SERVICES AT
865 HINCKLEY ROAD IN THE M-1 DISTRICT
Reference staff report, 6/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
the item; four conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Robert Bauer, station manager
for DHL Airways, was present. He discussed available parking with
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985
Commission and their plans to open up the fenced in area for employee
parking when company vans are not there; DHL is overcrowded at this
site; they have signed a lease to move part of the operation to San
Mateo, effective November 1, 1985; this move will involve over half of
the employees at 865 Hinckley; they have been looking at sites to move
the complete operation. Parking problem has been caused by growth of
the company and the desire, for safety reasons, to keep employee
parking away from the area used by company vans. Applicant stated most
employees are part time with staggered schedules. There were no
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: don't believe there is a problem in view of the
planned move of half the employees in November, the fenced in area will
be opened up to employee parking and amendment can be conditioned for
review; think they should be allowed to continue their operation on
this site
C. Schwalm moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the
four conditions listed in the 6/10/85 staff report. Second C. Graham.
Comment on the motion: staff does not count any parking which might be
available on adjacent property; parking on-site now meets the parking
requirement based on square footage of the building. Applicant
confirmed the move to San Mateo in November is definite, the entire
operation may move next spring. Further comment: possibility of
putting a time limit on the amendment; have heard nothing this evening
to justify the need for an amendment or why it should be granted; a
parking variance is not required, applicant will supply parking to
code, think growth of this company should be supported. Motion failed
on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Taylor and Garcia dissenting, C.
Giomi absent.
Responding to Commission question, applicant stated the amendment was
needed because they had grown considerably since the original permit
was granted, they have leased more space, have opened a new substation
and hope to further expand; they understand the problem and are taking
steps to move.
C. Jacobs moved to reconsider the previous motion. Second C. Graham;
motion passed on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Taylor and Garcia
dissenting, C. Giomi absent.
C. Jacobs then moved to grant the special permit amendment and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the
following conditions: (1) that the number of employees of DHL Courier
Service on this site be a maximum of 78, 45 of whom are part time and
only 15 of whom will come to work and depart work at the A.M. and P.M.
peak hours of 8:00 - 9:00 A.M. and 4:30 - 5:30 P.M.; (2) that employees
who drive company vans shall be allowed to park their personal vehicles
in the fenced in area while the vans are being used; (3) that three
on-site parking spaces shall be designated for customer use; and (4)
that this entire use permit shall be reviewed in 10 months time
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985
(April, 1986) for compliance with conditions, impacts on parking on
adjacent properties and for evaluation of effects on cumulative traffic
impacts. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote,
Cers Taylor and Garcia dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures
were advised.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CLASSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A WOMEN'S
FITNESS CENTER AT 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUB -AREA B
OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA
Reference staff report, 6/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
the item: details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters,
study meeting questions, staff concerns. Seven conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing, six as listed in the
6/10/85 staff report and an additional condition "that the fire wall
protection between the adjacent uses be determined by the uses existing
at the time the building permit for remodeling is issued."
Staff comment: this application is before Commission because classes in
this area require a conditional use permit. Chm. Garcia opened the
public hearing. John Clark, 181 Second Avenue, San Mateo, attorney
representing the applicant addressed Commission: Conditions 3, 4, 5 and
6 present no problem; regarding Condition #2, to limit group
instruction to no more than five between 8:30 A.M. and 5:30 P.M. would
be impractical from a business standpoint; believe this use as proposed
would not generate more traffic than that of a permitted retail use,
heavy use will be in the early morning hours and after 4:00 P.M. which
should not impact other merchants in the area; the requirement for four
hour fire wall protection between this use and the adjacent auto repair
shop would be an expensive installation for the applicant and/or
lessor; understand the auto repair lease expires December, 1986, is
there a possibility of delay in the fire wall condition.
Mithoo Benner, applicant and Melissa Parsons, founder and owner of
REACH Physical Fitness Center in Palo Alto were present. Considerable
discussion followed concerning the proposal: heaviest impact would be
at off peak hours, 6:30-8:30 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to closing; applicant's
projections were 25% less than those of the Palo Alto operation; they
would expect 12 people maximum per class, five classes during the day
generally of one hour duration; would never reach a total of 175 people
per day; at the Palo Alto operation the busiest time is Saturday A.M.
before 9:00 o'clock, the second busiest is Sunday, same hours; 20% or
less of the Palo Alto business is done between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.;
a large number of people using the facility are working people who come
in off hours; 10:00 A.M. class is primarily mothers; Palo Alto REACH
has no classes between 1:00-4:00 P.M.; maximum use of equipment is one
to two people at any one time for 10-20 minutes, never more than two
people; members may take unlimited classes, 25% are not members; with a
good instructor at the 5:00-5:30 P.M. hour a class could draw 30
people.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985
There are two full time employees (front desk and manager), part time
instructors and an additional part time employee for child care; they
do not have a huge volume of people coming through the facility; there
are no sales persons, they do little advertising, people learn of the
club by word of mouth; fitness and nutritional`profiles are done on a
one to one basis at a time when there are no classes going on; there is
a small boutique to sell items such as T-shirts/shoes to members on a
help yourself basis. Applicant stated they would assure that classes
were not bunched together; however, they would not want a limitation on
number of classes or participants per class; this will not be a big
business, believe it would contribute something to the city.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments/concerns: parking impact during normal retail
business hours in downtown Burlingame; with limitations of the staff
suggested conditions (no more than 5 persons for group instruction) the
impact could be mitigated; the proposal would meet a need in Burlingame
and would no doubt be successful, would hope a limit to class size
could be agreed upon; project has its own built-in restriction,
Commission has received no projection whether 12 per class is good or
bad, review in a certain period of time would indicate the impact of
this business; applicant's figures have indicated a large part of the
business would be at a time when parking is not significantly used; do
not believe parking impact would be any greater than the impact of a
retail store. This is a suitable project and Commission can limit with
review in one year; would prefer a limitation on the noontime class
when traffic is most impacted; noontime traffic may be a self-limiting
factor for the applicant.
In view of the applicant's testimony this evening, C. Taylor 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 memo of May 30, 1985 and
the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 3, 1985 shall be met; (2)
that the fire wall protection between the adjacent uses be determined
by the uses existing at the time the building permit for remodeling is
issued; (3) that the types of activities, number of memberships and
number of employees on site will be as described in the Project Appli-
cation and applicant's letter except that no more than two employees
and two professionals will be on site at one time; (4) that the fitness
use on site will be limited to women only as described in the
applicant's letters of April 24, 1985 and June 3, 1985 and that there
will be no male employees without providing an additional restroom for
men; (5) that the mezzanine area shall be used only for office area
related to the on-site use; and (6) that this use permit shall be
reviewed for compliance with its conditions one year from final
inspection on the building permit on this tenant's improvements or
before if complaints are received by the city. Second C. Schwalm.
Comment on the motion: concern about parking impact, particularly the
10:00 A.M. class, mothers and children could have considerable impact;
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985
believe now is the time to ask the applicant to find a better location;
it could set a precedent in an area which does not have parking.
Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Graham, Jacobs and Leahy
dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:00 P.M., reconvene 9:10 P.M.
4. MASTER SIGN PERMIT AND SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGNS AT 840 MAHLER ROAD
Reference staff report, 6/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
the item: details of the application, code requirements, staff review,
applicant's justification for the request, Planning staff comments.
Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Anthony DeMattei, Blunk
Associates, representing 840 Mahler Burlingame Associates, was present.
He noted individual offices were entered from the parking lot, the
secondary frontage. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission commented this is a good signage proposal.
C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances applicable to this
property, a five suite office building with entrances on the side; that
it -would be difficult to sign in the front for identification of these
offices; that approval would not be a grant of special privilege, any
office building of this nature would be granted the same signage; it is
not a large number of signs nor are the signs exceptionally large. C.
Graham moved for approval of the Master Sign Permit. Second C. Taylor;
motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CUSTOMER SEATING IN THE FRONT
SETBACK DURING OPERATING HOURS AT FERIAL'S DELI, 840 STANTON ROAD
Reference staff report, 6/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
the item: details of the request, a similar request made in 1983, staff
review, applicant's letter, staff comment on issues, on-site signage.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. CP advised required landscaping has been replaced.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Ernest Siegel, property owner
and applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/concerns: delis in the M-1 district were
originally allowed to serve the buildings they were located in, with
very little signage, they now serve other buildings in the area, would
not like to see tables outside at every deli in the M-1 zone, this
could set a precedent; seems a minor request for the enjoyment of
people in the area, not a permanent installation, the new property
owner has complied with requirements for landscaping.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985
Based on statements set forth in the staff report showing the intended
use by the applicant, that there would be no change in the capacity of
the restaurant and it is not encroaching on the landscaped setback, C.
Taylor.moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the
following conditions: (1) that two tables and six chairs from -those
allowed by the October 17, 1982 use permit inside the deli be allowed
to be placed on the paved area at the rear of the front setback
adjacent to but not blocking safe egress to and from the deli entrance;
(2) that these two tables and six chairs shall be placed in this area
between 10:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. daily when the weather is suitable;
and (3) that the applicants (tenant and property owner) shall apply for
a sign permit within 30 days of final action on this request. Second
C. Schwalm.
Comment on the motion: would be setting a precedent in the M-1 zone and
could create an impossible situation, difficult to police; plan is
deceiving, appears it could take up part of the entrance into the deli;
there will be no change in size of tables or chairs, those used outside
will be brought out from the inside.
Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Graham, Jacobs and Leahy
dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR ON-SITE DELI TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC,
PRIME TIME ATHLETIC CLUB, 1730 ROLLINS ROAD
Item withdrawn by the applicant (reference Arthur Michael letter,
June 10, 1985).
ITEMS FOR STUDY
7. VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTSIDE STAIR WHICH WILL
EXTEND INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD - 116 CENTRAL AVENUE
Requests: why is bathroom noted on the plans as a public bathroom; can
stairway be at another location; can bathroom be eliminated and turned
into a hallway; letter from applicant addressing the four legal
requirements for variance approval; information on previous variance
request; clarify Fire Department access to the back yard. Item set for
hearing June 24, 1985.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT - DRY CLEANING SERVICE IN THE C-1 DISTRICT -
1199 BROADWAY
Requests: information on businesses approved to date for this
building, number of employees; clarification of CE's statement
regarding deliveries to and from the site. Item set for hearing June
24, 1985.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985
9. SPECIAL PERMIT - MEN'S CLOTHING STORE - 1199 BROADWAY
Request: clarify Building Department statement regarding men's and
women's bathrooms. Item set for hearing June 24, 1985.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT - DRY CLEANING SERVICE IN THE C-1 DISTRICT -
1887 EL CAMINO REAL
Request: clarify CE's comments regarding deliveries. Item set for
hearing June 24, 1985.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT - CLASSIC CAR STORAGE, RESTORATION AND SALES
OPERATION - 1369 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE
12. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CHANGE OF USE OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT
PROVIDING THE ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIRED - 1369 NORTH CAROLAN
Request: is this a metal building? Item set for hearing June 24,
1985.
13. SPECIAL PERMIT - COURIER OPERATION IN THE M-1 DISTRICT -
1881 ROLLINS ROAD
Request: more explicit site plan; is this an expansion of the Brisbane
facility. Item set for hearing June 24, 1985.
14. SPECIAL PERMIT - GYMNASTICS CLASSES FOR CHILDREN IN THE M-1
DISTRICT - 1510 ROLLINS ROAD
Request: where will the children come from? Item set for hearing June
24, 1985.
PLANNER REPORTS
- CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 3, 1985 regular
meeting and June 5, 1985 study meeting.
- REVIEW OF ALLOWED NUMBER OF MANEUVERS TO ACCESS OR EXIT
A PARKING SPACE (CODE SEC. 25.70.020-7)
Reference staff report 5/28/85, continued to 6/10/85: history of the
code section, reason for regulating maneuvers and alternative numbers
of maneuvers which might be appropriate for Commission review. Staff
recommended if the number of maneuvers is to*be changed the number be
no lower than three, fewer than three could penalize development.
Discussion/comment: Council's concern that people won't use spaces that
require five maneuvers; three seems a reasonable number; would prefer
to continue to look at each parking plan on an individual basis; one
Commissioner felt that if more than two maneuvers are necessary the
space won't be used; another commented that three maneuvers would
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985
result in reducing the size of condominium developments excessively,
would prefer four maneuvers. A further comment was made that there
have been projects which required variances or special permits because
of the.parking design, with a three maneuver maximum this wouldn't have
happened.
C. Leahy moved to recommend to City Council a change from five to three
in the maximum number of maneuvers to enter or exit a parking stall.
Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote,
Commissioners Taylor and Garcia dissenting, C. Giomi absent.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy
Secretary