Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.09.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, September 28, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Ken Musso, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the September 14, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - It was noted Item #11, Special Permit, 1405 North Carolan Avenue was not complete and had been removed from the study agenda. City Attorney requested discussion of prohibiting campers in front setbacks (under Planner Reports) be continued to the next meeting. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FENCE EXCEPTION AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK AT 1301 SANCHEZ AVENUE. ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 9/28/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request. Using slides to demonstrate she noted the property line on the lot is 2' inside the inner edge of the sidewalk, thus the proposed fence is 5' from the sidewalk; the house is 7' from the inner edge of the sidewalk, 5' from property line; the ground slopes up from the sidewalk to the location of the fence, fence height is measured from grade at the bottom of the fence, therefore this fence may appear higher than the 8'-9' requested. CP discussed staff review and applicant's letters. Revised plans indicate the new fence can be placed 3' from property line. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A letter from Planning staff to the contractor for the deck was referenced (September 22, 1987) reminding of city requirements for permits which were not obtained by the contractor prior to construction of the deck. During discussion it was determined the 3' change in elevation is from the inner edge of the sidewalk to the bottom of the proposed fence, fence would vary from 8' to 9' in height, height being measured from the grade below the fence; deck is 3' above grade. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1987 �Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Thomas Newburn, applicant, was present. Responding to Commission questions, he stated their request for an 8'-9' fence height is because of the slope of their property and that the deck was put in at a 3' height, the existing fence on the west side of the property is 6' tall plus lattice work on the top, this fence was constructed by the applicant and a neighbor to replace an older fence. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: it would appear applicants are not at fault with regard to the deck, they assumed contractor would get the necessary city permits; with the variance in grade, if contractor had applied for permits the deck would not have been raised, access under the house could be achieved in some other way, think contractor should come back and do it right; approval would set a precedent, all residents want privacy, if need crawl space under the house they could use a trap door; agree with the previous statements, if deck were at the same level as the brick patio or even 6" higher with a shorter fence even if over 61, would be more receptive to the proposal, cannot see granting a fence exception because a contractor made a mistake; originally favored the fence since it would add privacy, after listening to comments this evening would favor a denial without prejudice so that applicants could come back if the contractor does not rectify the error. Staff and Commission discussed possible actions. C. Jacobs moved to !deny the fence exception and the side setback variance for the deck. Second C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: it may not be the applicants' fault but granting the request would compound a mistake. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 14 UNIT WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING AT 1731 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/28/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed criteria for evaluation of a condominium project as they apply to this project, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: on-site parking provided, staff's requirement for a 14% limit on office use, commercial standards for noise transmission will be used, issuance of certificates of occupancy, office areas are designated clearly on the plans, any permitted use in the M-1 district may occur without a use permit in any of the units. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. George Avanessian, architect representing the applicants, was present. His comments: as a condominium the physical condition of the structure does not change, only the ownership; 14% office applies to the total building, not per unit; no individual unit will exceed 20% office but on average this structure does not have more than 14% office which meets the parking Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1987 requirement; regarding the requirement to build to H-1 occupancy standards which are required for storage of hazardous materials, auto repair, cabinet shop, etc., there would be a noise problem and that type of operation will not be allowed to locate in this structure, the site does not have parking for H-1 occupancy, to meet Building Code and Fire Code requirements for such occupancy is totally unnecessary; the typical buyer of a unit will be a business such as electrical contractor, plumbing contractor, import/export storage; requirement for 14 water meters seems overkill also, the association pays the fees, there will be no manufacturing on the site nor businesses which require large amounts of water. Architect asked Commission to waive the H-1 occupancy requirement. Commission/staff/architect discussion: architect stated the building was designed for storage uses and small service businesses; CE clarified utility connections required by the Building Department, separate meters were not required, separate shut-offs were; CP noted H-1 occupancy is being required in order to be sure any use permitted in the M-1 zone could occur, city does not want enforcement responsibility, this will protect future users; architect felt the condominium association itself could control uses and would not want hazardous materials, etc. in the same building, this would be better control than with a retail property; CC&R's do not address uses in building. It was determined applicants had no problem with the other conditions suggested by staff. An additional condition was suggested that a temporary certificate of occupancy be required prior to the close of escrow on each unit; applicants had no problem with this condition. Fire Marshal commented his department would prefer sprinklers designed to H-1 occupancy, they are concerned about auto repair, welding, paint storage, etc. uses by a future owner. In further discussion about 14% office use in this structure it was suggested a table be included on the final condominium map which indicates square footage and percent of office space for each unit. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Responding to Commission question, staff felt deleting by resolution H-1 occupancy uses from this development would be an unusual exception and cautioned against taking such an action. C. Jacobs found this project meets all condominium requirements and moved for approval of the condominium permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's September 21, 1987 memo, the City Engineer's September 22, 1987 memo and the Fire Marshal's August 26, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that the developer shall prepare and have approved prior to receiving final inspection a sign permit for a master signage program on this site and that the standards of this program shall be included in the CC&R's for all of the properties on the original site; (3) that the project shall be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 18, 1987 with changes as required by Condition #1 and construction as described in the architect's letter of August 27, 1987 including that mezzanine areas are designated solely for light storage, shall be open to the warehouse area below and protected by a 42" high railing and accessed only from the warehouse area below; and Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1987 (4) that a temporary certificate of occupancy be required prior to close of escrow on each unit. Second C. H.Graham. Further comment: in staff's opinion H-1 occupancy requirements would provide adequate sound attenuation, the slab would be level with grade enabling autos, service vehicles and trucks to drive into the storage area when the door was raised. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 14 UNIT WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING AT 1731 ADRIAN ROAD, PARCEL 1 (P.M. 50 Page 27) Reference CE's staff memo (9/22/87). CE reviewed this map; the tentative condominium map together with condominium permit plans complete the application. He requested two conditions be placed on the map. Responding to Commission questions, CE stated applicant had indicated he would allow parking by the roll up door, it is not required parking and would not block access there; CP confirmed architect had said average office use would be 14% for the total building but office space for any one unit may be up to 20%, actual office space will be shown on the map by square footage and percent. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Robert Kent, applicant, addressed Commission: he noted the only issue seems to be that uses will be restricted because of the on-site parking provided and yet there is a requirement to build to the highest, H-1 occupancy; this is the first office/warehouse condominium development in the city, there will be a certain amount of investment by the unit owners, these owners will be very protective of the building, H-1 occupancy uses could be restricted in the CC&R's and each owner would protect his investment. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham moved that Commission recommend to City Council for approval this tentative condominium map with the following conditions: (1) that uses shall be limited on the map and permit to warehouse/office; that a table be included on the final condominium map indicating square footage and percent of office space for each unit and the total average for the development at 14% maximum; and (2) that parking spaces be assigned on the map by unit (one minimum per unit) and that guest parking also be designated. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Recess 8:40 P.M.; reconvene 8:52 P.M. 4. REVISIONS TO SIGNAGE REGULATIONS FOR AUTO ROW Reference staff report, 9/28/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed her staff memo. With the aid of slides she discussed major changes proposed and auto row areas addressed in the revision. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1987 Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Joe Putnam, representing several major auto dealers in the audience, addressed Commission. He stated the dealers would like an opportunity to study the proposed revisions further, noted how the auto dealership business has changed and expanded in recent years and requested an informal study session with the Planning Commission in approximately 60 days. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Following some discussion about the need for a response from the auto dealers to Commission's proposed revisions and timing and manner of an informal meeting, C. Jacobs moved to table this item until a response is received from the auto dealers at which time staff will schedule a study meeting. Second C. H.Graham. C. S.Graham stated she would abstain from discussion on this item due to a conflict caused by her employment with a law firm. Motion was approved on voice vote, C. S.Graham abstaining. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - SATELLITE DISH - 1201 BROADWAY Requests: what will new barrier wall be made of; is new barrier wall proposed only to shield the dish; will there be one on each side of the building; blow-up of aerial photograph showing location of the proposed wall and the dish; has property owner's consent to application been received. Item set for public hearing October 13, 1987 (Tuesday). 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - LOAN AGENT TRAINING COURSE - 840 HINCKLEY ROAD Requests: what is the current parking situation on this site, are there problems, what about other tenants; parking requirements for this building when it was constructed, would this satisfy current code requirements; is this business currently located in the building; will students be local or from out of state; what percentage of office space for the entire building will be used; other uses in the building. Item set for public hearing October 13, 1987 (Tuesday). 7. SPECIAL PERMIT - ONE DAY AUCTION - 1309 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE Requests: can items be purchased by phone order, will they advertise nationally, can people reserve items in advance. Item set for public hearing October 13, 1987 (Tuesday). 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR OF FOREIGN AUTO PARTS TO SELL AT RETAIL - 1295 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: where will people park; what has this building been used for in the past; surrounding uses. Item set for public hearing October 13, 1987 (Tuesday). Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1987 9. AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE - 860 STANTON ROAD Requests: more detail on transportation of employees to the site; does exit at the rear of the building go into a parking area; is applicant the only business in this building; how does applicant plan to get employees committed to the use of vans for commuting; more information on the nature of minor remodeling; why is this the only building applicant can operate in and out of. Item set for public hearing October 13, 1987 (Tuesday). 10. SIGN EXCEPTION - 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: statement from applicant as to why this building is exceptional; history of how this sign has been designated, i.e. roof, parapet? Item set for public hearing October 13, 1987 (Tuesday). 11. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT - 1405 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE Application not complete. Removed from the study agenda. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Planner's memo (9/21/87) re: 60 Bay View Place, change of copy to signage - City Attorney's letter (9/15/87) to National Car Rental, Burlingame PLANNER REPORTS - Discussion of Prohibiting Campers in Front Setbacks - continued to meeting of October 13, 1987 (Tuesday) - C. Harrison reviewed Council actions at its September 21, 1987 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham, Secretary