Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.12.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, December 12, 1988 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, Jacobs Absent: Commissioners S. Graham, Harrison Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos, Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the November 28, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #2, Parking Variance, 1545 Ralston Avenue, was continued to the meeting of January 9, 1989. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEM FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT - SECOND FLOOR REAL ESTATE OFFICE - 1105 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Requests: are the businesses with which applicant will share this second floor space presently operating there; number of employees of each business; is any on-site parking available. Item set for public hearing January 9, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. PARKING VARIANCE - 1545 RALSTON AVENUE - ZONED R-1 Item continued to the meeting of January 9, 1989. 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 615/617 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 12/12/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, letter in opposition from the owner of 610 Ansel Avenue, negative declaration, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 12, 1988 applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing; CA has recommended that condition #4 be removed. It was determined this project involves two parcels, one with a two unit, two story apartment building, the other with a two story, four unit apartment building. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Tim Brosnan, Trico Pacific, applicant and property owner, was present. He stated he was familiar with the suggested conditions of approval and saw no problem. Commission noted this applicant was presently completing a project at the corner of Ansel and Oak Grove, during construction the sidewalk and sometimes the street has been messy; applicant stated he tries to keep a site as clean as possible, it is sometimes difficult when replacing sidewalk, he will do his best to keep this project site clean. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Mrs. Pat Lewis, owner of the building at 618 Ansel Avenue, across the street from applicants present project: she has had many complaints, a tenant's car was dented, water service was interrupted, they have worked on Saturdays and Sundays; she expressed concern about environmental impact and parking problems. Commission advised the project meets all city codes. Mrs. Lewis felt there still would not be enough on-site parking and cars would be parking on the street. Applicant advised they only worked one weekend on the present project, normally they do not work on weekends. Mike Lewis, tenant at 618 Ansel: he had to call the police when there was work being done in the building at the present site at 10:00 in the evening on a Saturday night; he has experienced dirt and mud in his driveway caused by trucks from the construction site across the street, he had to spend two weekends cleaning this up. Staff advised developers are told what hours are allowed when they take out a building permit; applicant stated he did not know someone was working on the site at 10:00 P.M. on a Saturday and suggested he could leave his phone number on the site so people could call him if there were a problem. Tonya Light, 1201 Oak Grove Avenue: she felt it was important to consider this in the context of other projects which have been approved in the area, rents are high and consequently two adults often live in a one bedroom unit, these two adults each have a car, one car will be on the street; on -street parking in the area is difficult now, projects of this size will add to the parking problems. Commission pointed out zoning in the area is R-3, this project meets code parking requirements and the code allows three stories. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 12, 1988 Commission/staff discussion: the older apartment buildings in the area would not meet current parking requirements, the condominiums built since the mid -70's have met current parking requirements; if these parcels were not merged the density of development would depend upon the dimensions of the existing lott and how a project were laid out, perhaps there would be fewer units or perhaps more units. Commissioner comment: this project meets all the requirements of the city, it is a combination of lots, think it can be found compatible with the area. C. Giomi moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND -414P to City Council and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Negative Declaration. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Harrison absent. C. Giomi then moved for approval of the condominium permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 23, 1968; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's December 5, 1988 memo and the Parks Director's November 23, 1988 memo shall be met; (3) that final inspection be completed and certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (4) that the storage units in the underground garage which have doors opening into parking spaces shall be designated to the same unit as the parking space; (5) that the Association Room shall not have a full kitchen; (6) that the final landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building permit and that this landscaping shall comply with the water conservation guidelines adopted by the city, which shall include the removal of the proposed fountain; and (7) that at least six spaces in the underground garage shall be designated for guest parking and that an intercom system shall be provided at the entry to the driveway to allow guests to contact the appropriate condominium unit in order to gain access to the parking on the other side of the security gate. C. Giomi asked that the developer observe construction hours and that the city watch the construction site to ensure the neighborhood is kept clean. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 12, 1988 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, PORTION OF LOT 14 AND PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 7, BURLINGAME LAND CO. MAP #2, 615/617 ANSEL AVENUE Reference CE's memo, 12/12/88. CE advised these maps may be recommended to Council for approval, one condition was suggested. C. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved to recommend approval of these maps to City Council with the following condition: (1) that at least one of the existing dwelling structures be removed prior to the filing of the lot combination parcel map. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Harrison absent. Staff will forward to Council. 5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO VARIANCES FOR PARKING FOR AN OFFICE -RETAIL BUILDING AT 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 12/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, Planning staff comment on access to the site, staff review, applicants' letter, negative declaration, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. At the request of the Chair, CP explained the kinds of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a negative declaration has been prepared for this project. Staff explained the limits of its on -street parking study. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bill Britton, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: tenants and customers of his building will use on -street parking on Oak Grove vacated by tenants of the condominiums when they go to work; addressing the parcel between his proposed project and the one with a building on it now, he said he has tried for two years to purchase that parcel and has reached an impasse, he offered his parcel for sale to this owner and was turned down; he spent a great deal of money removing the tanks; he saw no other alternative for the site and doubted there is another commercial lot of this type in the city, it is small, it is unique. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Tonya Light, 1201 Oak Grove Avenue: she lives across the street from the site, there is a major parking problem on Oak Grove, cars are there all day and all night; people park on Thursday and move on Monday, there is no towing or ticketing during the weekend; recently the city eliminated another parking space on that street; people from the apartment building are required to back out, this is across from the present Christmas tree lot which makes it more difficult; cars are backed up to Ansel Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 12, 1988 now, they will be backed up even further if this new development is allowed; if there are 10 employees in the new building the impact will be great. Helen Piper, 1210 Oak Grove Avenue: her garage backs onto San Mateo Avenue, she would like to see this property developed, prior to the Christmas tree lot there was trash there, the majority of buildings in the area were built before 1970 prior to the present parking regulations, there is no space for additional commercial use or residential use; she suggested Council study parking provided by buildings in that neighborhood. Paul Cotton, a merchant at 725 California Drive: he has been located in this complex for the last 16 years, there is not adequate parking for merchants, employees or customers, apartment dwellers are taking some of the spaces because there are more than two adults per apartment which adds more cars; the occupants of the new building under construction on Oak Grove will take more spaces; he could understand applicant's concern but would ask Commission to suggest alternatives for use of this property without a parking variance. A resident of 1210 Oak Grove Avenue: there are too many businesses without parking now, to allow this would further impact the neighborhood and hurt existing businesses; would suggest the city consider dedication of that property for public parking or a playground. Commissioner comment: the basic problem has been created by changing times, previous code regulations did not require as much parking; not many variances to parking are granted today. In rebuttal Mr. Britton stated his lot was cited once for weeds and was cleaned within 24 hours, the problem is the adjacent parcel; people are presently parking on the perimeter of his lot; he would suggest the city consider putting parking meters on that street. During further discussion applicant suggested a reduction in the square footage of his proposed retail and office space which would reduce the parking required from nine to eight spaces and the variance request from four to three spaces; if this were pursued staff would prefer a denial without prejudice, asking applicant to come back to the Commission with revised plans. Commission asked how the square footage would be reduced, applicant responded he would leave that to his architect. Tonya Light commented again: she is a renter and believed most of the people on her side of the street were renters, noticing of renters is not required, many property owners are absentee landlords (owners who live elsewhere) and are not concerned, she asked if there was some way the neighborhood could be notified of pending hearings. Staff advised it would be appropriate to write City Council about the noticing policy with her suggestion a copy Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 12, 1988 of the public notice be posted in the area or on the site. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: there will be an impact with either a three or four space parking variance, concern about what businesses will be allowed in this building; do not have a problem with the negative declaration, if building to code there would be no problem, property owner has a right to develop his property within the city ordinances, regarding backing onto San Mateo Avenue exceptional circumstances could be found which require this, this is a very narrow lot; would like applicant to meet code requirements for parking; regarding suggested condition #5 would like staff to clarify "other intensive office uses", think this should be denied without prejudice and have applicant return to the Commission with a revised project and revised environmental document. With the statement the parking variances are Commission's concern and with direction to the applicant that he return with a project without parking variances, C. Giomi moved to deny the application without prejudice. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Applicant noted the time spent trying to design a project for this lot; hearing this evening that Commission does not want any variances he would welcome any suggestions. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M. 6. SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR A SIGN PROGRAM FOR MIKE HARVEY ACURA, 1070 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 12/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, property owner, was present. He commented on ingress and egress from this site which will have to be discussed at another time, not with this application, and stated some of the percentages and square footage in the staff report are inaccurate and encouraged Commission to review the table. CP said she would rework the numbers in the staff report, some of the signs used as a comparison are no longer there, Commission can tell from the table the relative amounts of signage at the various dealerships. In support of his request Mr. Harvey stated they rely on 85% of their business from out of this area, all of their business is brought by advertising and this building historically has not been auto related; aesthetically it would be nice without signage but Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 12, 1988 there would be no business without it. To make this signage less visible to the residential areas he offered to remove two of the four Acura parapet signs, one at the rear of the building and one on the driveway next to the S. P. Commission/applicant compared total square footage with other auto dealerships and the possible need for additional signage when the maintenance building is completed. Applicant noted the newly proposed parking structure on the Bayshore Freeway side of the building would block the 17' Sign F1 after it was built; he did not see a benefit in putting a lot of service signs on the maintenance facility. A Commissioner commented hotel signs seem higher than these wall signs but their letters are smaller; applicant said conceivably they might install something smaller, he would want to look at it first; regarding lighting, it is not intended to be real bright and will be on from dusk to dawn. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. H.Graham noted he had discussed this application with the applicant when he ran into him at a coffee shop. During Commission discussion it was suggested Signs C and D (parapet signs on the rear and on the side facing the S.P.) as well as the 17' Sign F1 on the side by the exit driveway be eliminated; total signage would be 854 SF with removal of these signs. Comment: hotel signage cannot be compared to auto dealerships because none of the buildings are this low; 3' letters are sufficient for hotels but it is more important for a retail business to have a sign which will attract attention as long as it doesn't impact the residents of the city; it is not necessary to have a garish appearance to sell a car, with a location close to the freeway why do the letters need to be that tall; will not vote for any letters over 3' tall; this will be the tallest building in this area of Burlingame and will stand on its own merits, 3' letters at that height will be amazingly large; this is a retail business and needs people from outside the city, hotels serve non -local people also. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the sign exceptions and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Sign Exceptions with the elimination of Signs C, D and F1 and with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's November 7, 1988 memo and the City Engineer's December 5, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the signs as installed shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 22, 1988 except as amended by the following conditions: (3) that any additional signage on any other building or anyplace else on this site (including window signs) shall be required to get an amendment to this sign exception and shall not be installed prior to Planning Commission action on an amendment except directional signs not to exceed 3' in height from grade and 2 SF in sign dimension; (4) that letters on all parapet signs shall not be taller than 3' ; and ( 5 ) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance in six months time (June, 1989) and if not found in Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 12, 1988 compliance may be reviewed by the Planning Commission at that time, subsequent review will be based on complaint. It was noted the conditions require letters on all parapet signs shall not exceed 31 in height. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: concern about requests for additional signage for this building with future office development; concern about all signs at 671 on the other two sides, do not feel they are needed, think a 17' sign would have enough visibility and that 17, signs could be reduced in size, keeping applicants name and dealership name. CP clarified the motion: all conditions accepted; the following signs excluded: Sign C (wall sign, 153 SF, 67' above grade), Sign D (wall sign, 153 SF, 671 above grade), Sign F1 (wall sign, 171-6" above grade, 164 SF), total square footage approved 854 SF which will be slightly less if the letters are all 31. Applicant commented further: building was designed as an office building because an auto dealership alone can no longer service the debt, best materials were used for a good looking office building, Commission has eliminated a sign to the freeway, need more than 3' tall signs, without signage for the auto dealership would rather use the entire building as an office building. C. Garcia moved to amend the motion to retain Sign F1 and to relocate it to another location that side of the building or parking structure. Maker of the original motion accepted this amendment. In comment on the amendment applicant stated he would rather not put "Mike Harvey" on top of the building, he feels it would affect the ability to lease it for office use; there is no place to relocate Sign F1, Sign F is the only sign on this key side of the building, location is more important than advertising; request 41 letters. Applicant said he does not plan to come back for more signage for the office building even when used as offices. Motion for amendment failed on a 2-3-2 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi and Jacobs dissenting, Cers S.Graham and Harrison absent. Original motion was approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AUTO PAINTING AND BODY REPAIR BUSINESS AT 55 STAR WAY ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 12/12/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, history of the site, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised applicant works on five cars a month, these cars are parked inside, there are two employees one of which is the owner. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 December 12, 1988 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jorge Hernandez, applicant, advised his business is limited to 55 Star Way and he understood the requirements for sprinklers and fire walls. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that this business shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. with occasional overtime work till 6:30 P.M., Monday -Friday with a maximum of two employees and a maximum of five cars to be worked on over the period of a month; (2) that this business shall consist of auto painting and body repair and shall not include any mechanical repairs; (3) that the business shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshal's November 14, 1988 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's November 14, 1988 memo, and that all the required corrections shall be made to the building within 90 days of issuance of the use permit; and (4) that this use permit shall be reviewed for conformance to the conditions of approval in 90 days and each year thereafter. C. Giomi found the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity nor to the public health, safety, welfare or convenience; the building will be brought up to Building and Fire Codes, it is a low profile business with little turnover, there are few employees and parking is adequate, required continuous review will assure the business will be conducted in accordance with the general plan and Title 25; the required conditions will take care of any reasonable concerns. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION AND AN AUTO REPAIR, PAINTING AND BODY WORK BUSINESS AT 50, 60, 70 STAR WAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 12/12/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of uses on this site, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: intent of condition #5 that employees park on site; if they want to park across the street should this be discouraged; there had been concern that the city could not enforce where people cross the tracks; if they wanted to park across the tracks don't think this should be prohibited; suggested condition #5 would require five employee parking spaces on site; conditions of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 December 12, 1988 original special permit; access to the site which is partially on each of two properties. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Charles Potts, applicant, advised he had not been aware of the need for an amendment to his special permit for expansion; building and fire code problems have been resolved; Mr. Hernandez of 55 Star Way had been employed in the past by Mr. Potts as a part time employee, he has not worked for Mr. Potts for 6-7 months. Applicant understood the suggested conditions and had no problem with them; he can provide on-site parking and understood if changes are made in the business he would be required to come back to the Commission for an amendment. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment and parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit Amendment and Parking Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's November 14, 1988, Fire Marshal's November 14, 1988 and City Engineer's November 14, 1988 memos shall be met; (2) that conditions 1, 3, 5 of the March 4, 1986 special permit shall be required; (3) that the business shall be limited to five employees operating Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., in the 9,088 SF area at 50-60-70 Star Way and that the use of 2,982 SF shall be auto storage, and that 5,527 SF shall be used for mechanical repair, auto body work and painting; the remainder of the floor area shall be used for miscellaneous uses including 600 SF of office and restrooms as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 18, 1988; (4) that the parking lot shall be repaired, restriped and landscaping reinstalled before finaling a building permit allowing use of the entire building; (5) that all employees shall be required to park on site and five parking stalls shall be designated for their use; (6) that this use permit and its amendment shall be subject to immediate revocation hearing should all the code required corrections and improvements not be installed and completed within 60 days of approval; or at any time should any subsequent fire code or building code violations be reported to the Planning Department; and (7) that this use permit and amendment shall be subject to review in 65 days from approval, in six months (June, 1989), and annually thereafter, or upon complaint. C. H.Graham found expansion would not be detrimental to property or improvements in the general vicinity; the business will be located and conducted in accordance with the general plan, it is already operating in 50 Star Way, just expanding that space; there will be fewer employees than if 50, 60 and 70 Star Way were separate businesses; there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property in this general area, it is on a private street, expansion of one business into three sites will create a less intensive use, proposed existing parking is sufficient even short three spaces, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 December 12, 1988 expansion is necessary to conduct the business, it will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or detrimental to the general welfare, and it will be compatible with existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved on a 4-1-2 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, Cers S.Graham and Harrison absent. C. Giomi voted yes reluctantly with the statement this action as conditioned will provide a better enforcement tool. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no audience comments. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Ordinance 1383, Regulating Automobile Rental Businesses in the M-1 and C-4 Districts, adopted December 5, 1988 - 1989 City Council Calendar PLANNER REPORT - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its December 5, 1988 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary