Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.03.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, March 9, 1987 at 7:34 P.M. u nr.r. r n r.r. Present: Commissioners Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: Commissioner Garcia Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the February 23, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #1 withdrawn by the applicant; Item #4 continued for study to the meeting of April 13, 1987; order of the agenda was approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT - TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE - 725 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Application withdrawn by the applicant. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAIL AUTO DETAILING SERVICES AT 1405 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/9/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Anthony Stagnaro, applicant, was present. He recognized the drainage problem on the site and confirmed cars would not be washed or engines steam cleaned at this location; he was aware of staff's suggested conditions. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found no problem with this application since the applicant understood there would be no washing of cars on site and there is available on-site parking. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 26, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that no car washing or engine cleaning shall occur on this site without all city requirements installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer being Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1987 met; (3) that failure to comply with drainage requirements or to proceed with car washing or engine steam cleaning or drainage of other wastes from the auto detailing activity onto the ground or into Easton Creek shall result in the immediate voiding of this use permit and the cessation of auto detailing on this site; (4) that this business shall operate six days a week, Monday through Saturday, employ four people full time and one part time and have one vehicle used to transport drivers and for business purposes and shall serve a maximum of 300 cars per month; and (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed in six months (September, 1987) and every year thereafter except in the event of a complaint when it shall be reviewed immediately. Second C. S.Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. REVISION TO PLANS FOR FORMER AUCTION STUDIO TO BE USED FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL USE REQUIRING PARKING VARIANCE AND VARIANCES TO PARKING DIMENSIONS AT 1209-1221 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB -AREA B CP noted there are six seated Commissioners this evening, a motion must have the vote of four seated Commissioners in order to pass, a 3-3 split would be a denial. Reference staff report, 3/9/87, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed Commission's previous action on January 26, 1987; applicant's new proposal and revised parking plan dated March 5, 1987; details of the new parking layout; need for Council determination regarding 3' encroachment into city sidewalk area for landscaping; zoning code regulation that parking requirements must be based on gross square footage, not net square footage; CE and DPW concern regarding reduced parking space dimensions and their request that the parking be provided for low turnover uses. Applicant is requesting variances for parking stall width and parking stall length for the 14 proposed parking spaces and a variance to backup aisle for the four parallel spaces as well as a 12 space parking variance for the first floor retail use and a two space parking variance for office use on the second floor. Commission/staff discussed handicapped access to the building, particularly to the second floor and status of Commission's prior action in January, 1987. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Richard Stratton, attorney representing the applicant, India Club, Inc., presented two letters in support from nearby businesses: Edward Medzian, Carriage House Realty, 1245 Howard Avenue (March 9, 1987) and James P. Sargen, Sargen Associates, 1220 Howard Avenue (March 9, 1987). Mr. Stratton discussed the new proposal with the aid of drawings: he believed this proposal would be better for the city and for the applicant, they are requesting variances in order to provide 14 spaces on the adjacent lot rather than 10, the two lots will be merged, city lot behind has some spaces which are smaller with less turnaround space than the ones being proposed, smaller dimensions are used by several other communities, with 14 spaces on this lot they would hope for approval of full use of the second floor for office, there are fewer large cars being driven today, Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1987 the average American car is only 16' long; addressing the CE's concern, he would expect the 14 spaces to be used by the office uses rather than retail, high turnover uses; these spaces will be occupied first and are likely to have less turnover; applicants feel they have substantially improved on the previous parking plan; they had hoped to use net square footage figures but will not attempt to set a precedent by asking for net, the drawings speak to gross square footage. Commission questioned where delivery trucks would unload. Mr. Stratton thought the turnaround space is large enough and might be used; CE thought most deliveries would take place in front on the street in the early morning when trucks are able to park. K. G. Davallou, applicant's architect, spoke in favor. He discussed plans to meet exiting and handicap bathroom requirements in the existing building, his revised parking plan which meets handicap regulations, stall dimension requirements of other cities in the area and compact car allowances in other cities. He noted the conditions require the on-site parking lot be used exclusively for the second floor office uses; he had spent some time measuring cars and found only one car longer than 181, a limousine at 221; the variances would be a simple solution to upgrading the building and adding more parking; with this proposal the city would not lose any on -street parking in the front; sizes of the on -street spaces in front of the building and across the street are substandard; people may have to be somewhat more careful, cars are getting smaller. In discussion it was pointed out the handicap space is a requirement of the city and is counted as part of the required parking, architect thought if no one parks there it could be used for turnaround space. Jeff Gledhill, Cornish & Carey commercial real estate, spoke in favor of the application: they have had considerable interest in first floor retail and second floor office but have no definite tenants due to the status of the application. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Considerable Commission discussion followed. It was noted Condition #7 limits uses to those which are less intensive. Commissioners' concerns/comments: intent of the previous (January) decision was not that the lot be used for long term parking only (staff noted the suggested condition limiting the on-site parking to second floor office uses was in response to concerns of the DPW and CE about substandard spaces); Burlingame has stayed with 9' x 20' spaces to protect retail users from damage to their cars and to have the ability to open doors freely, what other cities do is not relevant; city will not be getting 14 more parking spaces since this is offset by additional office space on the second floor and intensive use of the building; a compromise was reached in the previous decision, this proposal will not add more spaces, only substandard spaces not benefiting the city; this is a larger intensification of use than the previous proposal, how will applicant keep retail from using these spaces; original use on this site was not retail during the day, it was an evening use; applicant Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1987 knew the limitations when he bought the property; this is too intensive a use with on-site parking restricted only to office employees; reducing parking space size can add to problems with parking; this cannot be compared to the bowling alley site where the variance did not permit an intensification of use. Commission comments in favor: the city needs more parking and has reduced space size on some of its own lots, have had no problem parking in these spaces; conditions restrict more intensive office use of the building, applicant will be removing an eyesore and creating more parking, letters received this evening note there is a problem on that street, this seems a chance to make the best of a bad situation and help the whole area; applicant has come up with a viable alternative, would not want all parking spaces reduced but for these 14 spaces do not think it would be a problem, in favor of anything which will improve that area; spaces could be posted 'employee parking only' to keep retail users out; would like this empty building put to good use, in order to do this some trade-offs are necessary, not comfortable with a two space variance for office use upstairs, city will gain 14 more spaces for the use of the upstairs, would prefer a project which doesn't need a variance but that is impractical; condition restricting use will eliminate intensive office uses; how can the city grant a 65 space variance to the bowling alley site and deny this application. In the interests of improving this street, removing an old building and gaining 14 parking spaces, C. Schwalm moved for approval of the variance requests and the revised plans date stamped March 5, 1987 and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Parking Variance with the 10 conditions in the staff report. He found this is a difficult street, a difficult situation with the existing building which could continue to be vacant and without any parking, that the situation is so exceptional it requires a variance to get this property into use. Second C. S.Graham. In comment on the motion it was noted the conditions include that the variance shall not extend to expansion of the existing building or reconstruction of a new building on either parcel. Further comment: this site has been vacant for so long that whatever is put in could be considered an intensification, parking problems in downtown Burlingame have increased considerably since this site was occupied; it is a matter of degree, the bowling alley site was vacant long before this site. Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham, Jacobs and Leahy dissenting, C. Garcia absent. There were no further motions; one Commissioner stated he could not find hardship to support approval of the variances. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no audience comments. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1987 STUDY ITEMS 4. SPECIAL PERMIT - AUTO REPAIR/BODY SHOP OPERATION - 1305-07 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Application continued for study to the meeting of April 13, 1987 at the request of the applicant. PLANNER REPORTS - Budget Overview and Financial Status, City of Burlingame Dennis Argyres, City Manager, reviewed status of the city's financial position and capital improvement expenditures. - C. S.Graham reviewed Council actions at its March 2, 1987 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary