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