Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.07.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, July 14, 1986 at 7:31 P.M. The Chair announced that after many years of service to the City of Burlingame, Commissioner Tom Taylor died last week while on vacation. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Schwalm Absent: Commissioner Leahy Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; Director of Public Works Ralph Kirkup MINUTES - The minutes of the June 23, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Study Item #9 dropped from the agenda; application is not complete and cannot be reviewed this evening. ITEMS FOR ACTION CP advised applicants of Commission rules of procedure which require four affirmative votes of the seated members to pass any action. All applicants on the action agenda chose to proceed this evening. 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE USE AT HOOVER SCHOOL, 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission and staff discussed use permit procedures for surplus school property. Marlene Douglas (applicant), publisher of Peninsula Parent, a monthly newspaper, distributed several copies of this paper to Commission. Her comments: most copy is mailed to them; might have one visitor on weekdays but generally none; there are two full time employees and they hope to add one part time; the paper takes paid advertising; applicant and her partner are not on salary at present; sales staff is on commission basis; the two employees are paid; this office would handle typing, composing, mock layouts; all typesetting, printing and actual layout is done in Redwood City and San Jose; the two partners work a broken eight hours a day. They mail about 200 copies of the paper a month, the majority of approximately 27,000 are bulk delivered to centers, schools, recreation centers, libraries, doctor's offices, etc. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 C. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: no complaints have been received about the present occupants of the school; with only two full time employees and a possible part time employee it seems unlikely this use would be a problem; have no objection to an organization oriented to children and schools but would be opposed to a commercial endeavor on a school site, this use appears to be strictly a business. With the statement that schools need the revenue from leasing space in vacant school property, this use appears to have minor impact even though it is a business in the R-1 zone, permit will be conditioned to limit number of employees, use would not impact the neighborhood or set a precedent, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the area leased for office use shall not exceed 939 SF and shall be limited in use to 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, with a maximum of two full time and one part time employees; (2) that all parking shall be provided in marked spaces on site, and no staff or visitors shall use the parking on the Hutnick easement; (3) that the joint use of the bathroom facilities shall be satisfactorily worked out with other tenants on the site; and (4) that this use permit shall be amended for any changes in operation, amount of space leased or number of employees and shall be reviewed for compliance with required conditions in one year (July, 1987). Second C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: city must be careful what uses are allowed for schools in residential neighborhoods, this use has some school connection, a limited number of employees and will help support the school district. Motion approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR EXCEEDING ALLOWED SIGNAGE AND SIGNAGE FACING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR WALGREEN'S DRUGS, 1420 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 7/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's justification for the request, questions at study. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: request is for replacement of existing signs on primary and secondary frontages and two facing private parking lots; no sign permit or building permit can be found in the files for the existing signage. Wade McClure, American Sign and Lighting, was present representing the applicant (Walgreen's Drugs). He discussed the proposal to replace existing signs with a newer plexiglass design, script will be the same but 4" longer than the existing signage; Mr. McClure, who has worked in this area for many years, believed the existing signs had been in Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 place for more than 20 years; he commented that most downtown buildings have exposure on only one frontage or at the most two, this building has exposure on all four sides; there are four existing signs, under current State law they can stay for at least 10-12 more years; Walgreen's standard sign was increased sometime in the past, reason for the 4" increase was to have an ideal spread between letters and make it more readable; Walgreen's is entitled to a sign on Primrose and on Howard, they would like to protect the sign facing Safeway but would be willing to remove the sign facing Wells Fargo. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Two Commissioners appeared to have no problem with this proposal, if Walgreen's were turned down the old signs would remain in place. Staff discussed intent of the code, Commission's decision is a discretionary act for signage facing a private parking lot. Commission comment: believe intent of the sign code was to allow signage on two frontages, these signs were put up without a permit, think it is excessive to put signs on four sides of a building, the sign facing Wells Fargo is not needed; reason for the request is to upgrade their signs, for maintenance and to screen the light source, would vote for all but the sign facing Wells Fargo; regardless of the fact that there is existing signage, by granting the request Commission would be showing favoritism, the size of the sign facing Safeway is not needed for identification; there are very few four frontage buildings in the city, think this is an exception from the sign code on which Commission should make a decision. C. Graham moved to grant the sign exceptions with the two conditions in the staff report. Second C. Schwalm. C. Graham's justification: this is a different type of building than the sign code addresses with all four sides visible and an unusual circumstance in the city, it was not discussed when the sign code was adopted. Comment on the motion: intent of the sign code when it was adopted was to give adequate signage to businesses but to have some type of control, recall that all frontages were discussed. C. Schwalm moved to amend the motion to grant this request with elimination of the sign facing Wells Fargo. C. Graham withdrew his motion and then moved to grant the sign exceptions for signage on the primary and secondary frontages and the sign facing the Safeway parking lot with elimination of the sign facing the Wells Fargo parking lot with the following conditions: (1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 30, 1986 and as described in the sign permit application dated May 27, 1986 with elimination of the 44 SF sign facing the Wells Fargo parking lot; and (2) that Walgreen's shall refrain from putting any signs in the windows for any purpose except noting hours of operation and other signs required by law without specific amendment of this sign exception or as approved by the city in conformance with Code Sec. 22.54 and Code Sec. 22.58. Second C. Schwalm. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 Comment on the motion: signs on the building are attractive and are not overwhelming in view of the size of the structure; this is an opportunity to modernize signage and eliminate some of it. Motion approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. AMENDMENT TO .1979 SPECIAL PERMIT IN ORDER TO REDUCE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING FOR MIRE HARVEY CHRYSLER -PLYMOUTH, 1006-1008 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, questions at study. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, applicant, advised these properties fronting on Carolan and Rollins Road have been merged, there are some birch trees in front on Carolan as well as shrubs, they have planted three or four trees across the front of the existing warehouse as well as installed planters which were not reflected in the original plans; in 1979 when permit was approved there were fewer franchises, they are now running out of room; the 179 permit did require 10% landscaping; he believed the matter of landscaping was discussed with the then City Planner during the period between approval of the special permit and construction of the building, however he did not remember exactly what had been agreed. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: will amendment of the permit set a precedent; applicant could add landscaping by continuing the 2' strip along property line on the north side, but there are cars parked there all day and no one would see the landscaping; this is an unusual, long lot with two frontages, two-thirds of it cannot be seen from the street. With the statement that Mike Harvey has improved the site, the middle of the lot cannot be seen from the street, there has been work and expense put into the wall next to residential, the two ends of the lot are what is visible, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following condition: (1) that the applicant shall be required to provide 7.6% landscaping for the development on the single lot at 1006-1008 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1015 Rollins Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 25, 1986. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: parking is critical here, no neighbor complaints have been received this evening, think Commission should approve. Motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 14, 1986 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SELF -STORAGE OPERATION IN AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE AT 1231 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: this site fronts on a private street, if it were on a public street parking to code would be required, there are no restrictions on the public using this street. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Nick Crisafi, property owner, was present. His comments: Whitethorn Way is a private street, there are parking stalls along the buildings which front on Rollins Road, parking is more than adequate for self -storage customers, 75-80 parking stalls. He stated 1044-1060 Broadway has ingress/egress on Whitethorn Way, 1070 Broadway (Bekins building) does not; the only parking problem has been with tenants of the buildings on Rollins Road. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Crisafi advised some customers of the self -storage operation park across the street and wheel their goods in, some back into the driveway, park and unload; there is an average of 5-10 people a day during the week, on weekends the number may double; occasionally a moving van parks parallel to the building to unload; there is a stationary fork lift which is maintained by the owner and inspected regularly, there will be no elevator in the new building as it is on one floor. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: good use for the area with less traffic than most uses. With the statement there have been no complaints, this is a workable business in that area and small enough so that it will not compound a problem, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the self -storage operation shall include 24, 17' x 10' storage lockers, be open from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Tuesday through Sunday, and be supervised by a manager, when open, who can direct parking as necessary; and (2) that parking for patrons using this self -storage operation shall be limited to Whitethorn Way and shall not at any time obstruct through automobile traffic or the required 12' fire lane access. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 A. VARIANCE FOR COMPACT PARKING STALLS B. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT Reference staff report, 7/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, environmental review, redesign of the project Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 subsequent to certification of the EIR, mitigations identified in Exhibit A which have been adjusted and appear in the suggested conditions of approval for this project, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, questions at study. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing; findings of overriding concern must be made. Discussion: concern about noise levels, gas station on this site closed around 9/10:00 P.M., restaurant in the proposed building may be open until 11:00 P.M. or midnight, parking ramps could generate more noise, nursing home was in the area first and will be affected; has applicant addressed the four findings necessary for variance approval. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. John Lee, architect for the project, was present. Commission/applicant/staff discussion: off-street parking and access for the previous project and this project; need to find justification of the variance request; clarification of the ramps to parking areas as well as walls. Mr. Lee commented that if more full sized stalls were required it would increase the size of the building. Further comment: there is an extreme parking problem in this area now, concerned about allowing more compact stalls than code maximum, cars in future may not fit. Applicant stated they exceed code maximum for compacts by only eight stalls . It was confirmed 167 spaces are provided, access is entirely off Trousdale in the present plan, applicant felt one entrance was easier given the size of the lot; there was concern this would increase impact on the adjacent convalescent home; would prefer a change in design. Mr. Lee noted in this plan the garage in the back has a solid wall and they have set back the entrance to open up light and air to the convalescent home, based on the approved EIR he did not feel noise from the parking ramp would be a problem; it would be possible to control parking at night for the restaurant, half of the parking might be closed off and a structural barrier to reduce noise could be put up. Helen Hui, attorney representing Mitzi Lee, property owner commented on staff's suggested conditions and the requirement for landscaping the 12' strip between this property and the convalescent hospital; that land is not owned by the applicant, they would need permission to plant and maintain it. Staff advised the previous administrator of the hospital had met with the EIR consultant, the present administrator has not been in contact with the city about this project. There were no audience comments in favor. Bill Ojakian, 1601 Davis Drive, representing the owner of the liquor store next to the site, spoke in opposition: he was not opposed to development of this property but had concerns about height of the structure and parking; will this set a precedent in the area for other property owners; people are going to mid-size cars and there is no parking now; buildings down the street are vacant, they will fill up and increase the problem; all permits may be considered individually by the city but it will set a precedent; elderly from the convalescent home gather in the 12' area between these properties, concern about accidents. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 CP clarified heights of nearby buildings and other tall buildings in the city; this would be the tallest building in the area; review line is 351. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. The Chair noted the need to make findings for the variance request and that the major concern appeared to be noise on the ramps and whether it could be shielded. Commission comment: ramp going up has 4' wall on the side, convalescent home residents would only see the top of a car and noise would be shielded to a great extent; possibility of controlling traffic on the upper decks at night to mitigate noise; rest home people go to bed at 7:00 or 8:00 P.M.; there are other alternatives, there will be screeching of tires on the ramps; think consideration should be given to enclosing the entire ramp or ask for redesign, applicant knew the convalescent home was there when the property was purchased, existing buildings must be taken into consideration; could Commission require that the ramp be enclosed. Further comment: anyone who owns this property will develop it, the convalescent home may not always be there, some consideration should be given to both; have no problem with closing the ramp if it doesn't result in huge bulk, commend applicant for leaving the open space between the properties, would not like to see 20' wall on property line; concern about visual effect on the home, applicant could work with property owner next door to plant trees in the 12' area. C. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the following findings: the number of stalls involved is only 4% of 167 or eight stalls, an insignificant amount, most cars today will fit in a compact stall (believe Commission will eventually need to reconsider the 20% compact figure), the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, the variance is necessary for this project and the alternatives are either more bulk or less project which may be detrimental to the design concept. C. Graham then moved for approval of the special permit for height with the statement height does exceed the review line by 31' but this height is typical for the area, there are others which are higher. These motions were made with the 12 conditions in the staff report and with motion for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit and Variance. Seconded by C. Garcia. Comment on the motions: cannot find there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property which will result in undue property loss; it will affect the zoning of the city, it will affect codes, applicant could come back with a project which meets code; it has not been proven that this building will not be injurious to the private enjoyment of the neighbors. Exceptional circumstances can be found in the location of the property itself, if the permit is denied the property owner Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 cannot use his property; possibility of denying without prejudice; parking is a problem, think the building could be redesigned with parking to code; parking will always be a problem in that area regardless of what size building is constructed. Motion for approval of the variance and special permit failed to pass on a 2-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Schwalm and Giomi dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:00 P.M., reconvene 10:07 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE 7. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE Requests: why no secured parking spaces? address fencing and possibility of a rolling gate for auto access. Items set for hearing July 28, 1986. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - PRIVATE SCHOOL - 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE Requests: location of loading zone, what time do students of the other school on site arrive and depart, fire access. Item set for hearing July 28, 1986. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - FLOWER SHOP - 1199 BROADWAY Item dropped from the agenda; property owner's consent withdrawn. 10. VARIANCE TO EXPAND CANDY MANUFACTURING - 1170 BROADWAY Requests: number of employees now and number added as a result of expansion; equipment located on the second floor. Item set for hearing July 28, 1986. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT - PENTHOUSE EXTENSION - 10 GUITTARD ROAD Requests: existing roof line; how will penthouse extension affect height. Item set for hearing July 28, 1986. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT - ART SCHOOL AND STUDIO - 1530 GILBRETH ROAD Requests: address uses in rest of building and parking; how many schools/meeting places are located in the M-1 district; age of the proposed art students. Item set for hearing July 28, 1986. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 CITY PLANNER REPORTS The following permits were reviewed and accepted: 2220 Summit Drive - YMCA after-school childcare program 801 Howard Avenue - A Child's Way preschool program 1722 Gilbreth Road - Sears, Roebuck & Co. service/repair facility 1199 Broadway - United Mail Offices,.Inc. Two reports (2109 Broadway, Carden Private School and 50 and 70 Star Way, landscape and parking requirements) were continued to a later meeting for follow-up. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its July 7, 1986 regular meeting. Commission concluded its meeting with a few thoughts about Tom Taylor. C. Jacobs: he had a zest for life and dedication to the city; have lost a fellow gardener; admired his tenacity. C. Garcia: he was my neighbor for over 27 years, our children went to school together; we were passing friends and have always admired him. C. Giomi: as a new Commissioner he told me "do your homework, go to meetings with an open mind, cast a vote the best you can and then go home and sleep"; that was the philosophy he tried to live by; he was very conscientious in his work and did so much. C. Graham: have fond memories of Tom when I had the store on Burlingame Avenue, about once a week while out for his lunch walk he would come in with a question or pose a problem regarding the city; we didn't necessarily agree but both of us understood where the other was coming from; it was a joy to come to the final decision that we couldn't agree at times. C. Schwalm: I liked Tom, think very few people didn't like him; he served well; looking at the organizations he was involved with one can see he had an open mind and was farsighted, his interests were many - music, strong in Planned Parenthood, things like that - he served well and with energy. ADJOURNMENT Following a moment of silence in memory of Tom Taylor, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles F. Schwalm, Vice Chairman