Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.04.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 23, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, April 23, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan (arrived at 8:50 P.M.), Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal; Sheri Saisi, Zoning Technician MINUTES - The minutes of the March 9, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. A ENDA - Order of the agenda approved, with the following amendments: Item #2: Address is 1499 Oak Grove Avenue, rather than 1449 Oak Grove Avenue. Item #6: Divided into 6A -Negative Declaration and Condominium Permit and 6B -Tentative Map. Item #7: Has been continued to PC Meeting of May 14, 1990 at applicant's request. It was later noted that in Item #4 zoning district is R-3 rather than the R-1 which is noted on the agenda. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 16 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Requests: Where is the 35' height limit measured from; on pages 6- 7, do two units have two master bedrooms; regarding slope of slab in garage, elevations seem to be incorrect -how are designers going to get the 41-6" differential; how do we verify height once building begins --concern building height will increase during construction --with proposed floor to floor dimensions and ceiling heights, still need a place to put the plumbing -shows 81-0" Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 23, 1990 ceilings now; automatic sprinkler system is not noted. Item set for public hearing May 14, 1990. 2. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 16 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Item set for public hearing on May 14, 1990. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE AT 1501 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Requests: Will any contract laundering (including dry cleaning) be done for other off-site companies; will there be pick-up and delivery trucks; how has ingress/egress changed from previous application; is shoe repair a part of Dryclean USA or is it a separate business with separate entrance, only one restroom shown; what are adjacent properties zoned and what are the uses; what are the dimensions of handicapped spaces; concerned about employee parking, please address. Item set for public hearing May 14, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE TO BUILD A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1014 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 4/23/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, CP Monroe noted the children's room was not considered a bedroom because one of the walls was opened up more than 50%. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Joyce Chong, applicant, was present and answered questions of the Commission. She noted that the agenda showed her address as being zoned R-1, but it is R-3. A Commissioner commented other large buildings in the area have more parking available; asked why the addition was so large; what other exceptional circumstances existed on the property. Ms. Chong noted her lot was not only small, but it was long and narrow; there was no other way to design the addition. Responding to an inquiry as to why there was vinyl flooring in the children's room, Ms. Chong stated her daughter wanted black and white tile in her bedroom. There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: understand the applicant's reasoning for wanting a larger home, however when adding so much would prefer additional parking; the property to the rear has a building which would be very close. C. Kelly stated he had visited the site and found exceptional circumstances in the lot size; that granting of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 23, 1990 the variance would not hurt neighbors and moved to grant the variance. The motion died for lack of a second. Further Commission comment: a second story addition is possible, therefore a variance for lot coverage would not be needed, concern about granting a variance for lot coverage. C. Graham moved to deny the application for lot coverage variance for the reasons stated. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Kelly dissenting and C. Galligan absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE REAR OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 1337 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/23/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Michael D'Ambra, applicant and property owner, was present. Responding to a question regarding why he wanted to expand the garage, Mr. D'Ambra stated that if he had the garage expanded, in the future he could do an addition of a dormer in attic area to add a master bedroom. If he addresses the parking requirements now, the addition could be done without having to worry about requesting a parking variance at that time. A Commissioner asked how long Mr. D'Ambra has lived in the home and he responded he had been living there since August, 1989. Mr. D'Ambra stated he had not measured the garage at the time he bought the house; later discovered it was substandard; several accessory structures on adjacent lots. There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: would prefer to wait until an addition was proposed before requesting a parking variance; do not care for not knowing what future addition size would be. Agree, if this variance is granted applicant will not be coming back to the Planning Commission later. Code requirement for an existing garage is 181-011; granting of the variance would be "creating" an existing garage condition, therefore providing a loophole to minimum code requirements of 20'-0" x 201-0" for a two car garage, which would be required with the bedroom addition if the 181-0" x 18'-6" garage were on site at that time; prefer seeing variance request when 5th bedroom proposed. Mystified by the applicants letter which stated applicant would provide code size garage when garage proposed does not meet code; would like to know requirements for the bedroom addition if it were less than 201-0" deep at the time of that application. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 23, 1990 C. Graham moved to deny the application for a side setback variance based on the comments. The motion to deny was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Galligan absent. 6A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 4/23/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, plans dated 4/5/90. She noted this item was a continuation from the 3/26/90 meeting; at that meeting the Planning Commission asked the applicant provide plans to show where the gate to the garage would be placed and address their concerns about the location of one of the decks. CP Monroe noted that six revised conditions were included for consideration at public hearing. She reviewed the revised conditions. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Renan Dominguez, engineer for the project, was present. He stated the project would be built as shown on the plans date stamped April 5, 1990. A Commissioner inquired about the crawl space underneath the units between the ceiling of the garage and the floor of the units above the garage. He was concerned about the clearance to get the soil pipes to the back of the property; the top slab appears on plans as sloping opposite to the back of the property. Mr. Dominguez responded the purpose of the crawl space was to get the soil pipes to the back of the property. The Commissioner stated he wanted to be clear regarding this matter so that in the future, when the building is under construction, the height would not need to increase to accommodate plumbing. He noted that on page C-2, unit #2 has a floor elevation that is low enough that it is almost the same height as the slab elevation at the rear of the property; due to the fact you have to have a limited distance to get to the back of the property, either the elevations are incorrect or at some point the soil pipe will need to penetrate the slab to get to the back of the property; either the basement will have to be deeper or the building will have to increase in height. Mr. Dominguez responded there are many ways of working around the restrictions; the Commissioner reiterated for the record he did not want to see the building increase in height after the fact. Mr. Dominguez was thanked for making the changes PC requested, with the statement these changes would make a better project. Liz Watson, 1444 Balboa was present. She stated she was not speaking for or against the project; she lives behind the proposed project and is concerned about what is built in her neighborhood; stated she is putting her trust in the Commission. The Commission thanked her. She added that from her yard she can see the backs of the apartments which have frontage on El Camino Real; so far all the apartments look nice; concerned about new projects because she Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 23, 1990 will have to look at them all the time; thanked PC for reviewing them. There were no other audience comments; Chm. Ellis closed the public hearing. C. Graham stated the applicant has done what the Commission requested; she moved to approve the Condominium Permit and recommend the Negative Declaration to City Council with the following revised conditions: 1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to Planning Department including all notes thereon and date stamped April 5, 1990; 2) that all concerns and conditions of the City Engineers memos of March 6, 1990 and April 11, 1990 shall be met; 3) that a security system with an intercom to each residential unit shall be provided for access to the three designated guest parking spaces behind the security gate; 4) that three guest parking stalls shall be designated in the below grade garage and marked and documented by symbol on the plans and a note shall be placed on the tentative map designating that these spaces be maintained by the condominium association; 5) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; and 6) that the developer shall provide to each initial purchaser of a unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association an owner -purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of'all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture. The motion was seconded by C. Mink; there were no questions about the emotion. The motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Galligan absent. Chm. Ellis noted the project is subject to being called up by City Council; appeal procedures advised. 6B. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 CE Erbacher stated the map was ready to go to the City Council and recommended PC forward it to CC for approval. C. Mink moved to approve the tentative map and recommend it to CC for approval. C. Graham seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0 _, C. Galligan absent. 7. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT AT 347 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A CP Monroe noted the applicant had requested this item be continued to the PC meeting of May 14, 1990. Mr. Mac McManus, Vice -President of Fox & Carskadon, approached the PC and asked the PC to postpone item #8 until architect and developer arrived. The PC agreed and continued with item #9. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 23, 1990 9. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AMBULANCE COMPANY IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DWELLING UNIT IN CONNECTION WITH A BUSINESS AT 1801 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 4/23/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the details of the request, staff review, applicantes letter, study meeting questions. CP suggested the applicant clarify the details of vehicle maintenance; April 11 correspondence from applicants notes vehicle maintenance would be performed by an outside dealer; however, substantial vehicle maintenance will be occurring at this site. She also noted the landscaping requirement was discussed; requirement for the zone is 10%; when rear building was added to the site, 10% requirement was met; with this application, no removal of landscaping is proposed. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CA Coleman suggested that conditions 4 and 5 should be stated as a maximum; as phrased now may be construed as imperative rather than maximum. A Commissioner noted the resolution included in the PC packet makes reference to variances and a condominium permit. CP clarified this was clearly an editing error and that a new resolution would be prepared for signature. There were no other questions of staff. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Michael Coffee, Real Estate Broker and representative of the applicant and building owner, was present. He commented the area that the Planning Department called a dwelling unit is similar to a firehouse, a microwave and refrigerator, and a room where employees on the 24 hour shifts can lie down; shower is a convenience for employees who get duty in emergency situations. Regarding maintenance: Routine maintenance includes tire and oil changes, tune ups, preventative and general maintenance which would assure emergency vehicles are available for calls. Non -routine maintenance includes engine removal and replacement; no major work is done on the engine or transmission other than removal; new engines or transmissions are delivered and replaced into vehicle. Commission inquired about the use of red lights and sirens as specified in the special permit application. Mr. Coffee responded the ambulances are "staged", kept off the site during the day; Mercy is not an emergency operation, it contracts with hospitals, it does serve as a backup to Mobile Life Support in the event of a major emergency such as an earthquake; in 99% of the cases the ambulances are "staged", so the time when red lights and sirens are used from this site would be few. There was a further inquiry about engines/transmission work and what is permitted concerning oil and chemicals. CP clarified that the issue is the type of maintenance activity which will occur; the type of activity will affect interior construction/separation/ Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 23, 1990 occupancy requirements; therefore it is important to know exactly what will occur so the Fire Department regulations can be met; use not prohibited by the City, but it would make a difference in how interior walls will be constructed. CE Erbacher commented the applicant's description of maintenance activity included everything except machine shop and auto body work. Comment about the 24 hour service: seems to be described as both a transport company and as an emergency services operator; would like some clarification. Applicant's representative responded Mercy Peninsula does not contract for emergency services, however is available for that if the community served needs it. A Commissioner asked how often a Code 3 was used last year. Charlie Royce, Vice President of Mercy Peninsula stated in general terms it was about 10% of the time ambulances traveled with lights and sirens; as far as traveling with lights and sirens from the facility itself, the figure would be even lower, perhaps 1%. There was an inquiry about the extent of engine removal. Mr. Royce responded engine removals are very infrequent, in the last year he thought Mercy Peninsula had done one; engine replacements are done when the ambulance itself is still in good shape; occasionally an engine will be removed to have heads machined. There would be a full time mechanic on staff, they have a computer program and replacement schedule for parts. Fire Marshall noted that engine and transmission removal is considered repair work and not service and a three hour fire wall separation will be required between garage and living area. There were no other audience comments; Chm. Ellis closed the public hearing. C. Graham did not have any problems with the proposed project; lights and sirens on Adrian Road even in the middle of night wouldn't bother anyone; she did not find there would be any compromise of the property at all; the project would not be detrimental to surrounding properties. She moved to approve, by resolution, the application with the following conditions: 1) that the project be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 30, 1990; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 20, 1990 memo and Chief Building Official's March 23, 1990 memo shall be met; 3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City; 4) that the ambulance company, at a maximum, shall operate a 24 hour ambulance service business seven days a week, with administrative hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., that there will be 17 employees with three working after 5:00 p.m. and on the weekends and, at a maximum, this business will have 10 ambulances, one pick-up and one mini -van on this site; 5) that the shop area will be used for maintenance activities as noted in the applicant's letter received April 17, 1990; no machine work, body work or painting will be done at this site; and 6 ) that this permit shall Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 23, 1990 be subject to review in one year (April 1991) and each year thereafter or upon complaint. C. Kelly seconded the motion. Comments on the motion: is the three hour wall part of the conditions; it is not a condition, but a requirement of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, which are listed in condition #3; ambulance service operations have to go somewhere and this is the place to put it. Motion was approved 6-0--/, C. Galligan abstained (arrived during discussion). Appeal procedures advised. 8. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE OFFICE USE AT 1412-1416 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, staff review, applicant's letter, negative declaration, study questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Inquiries: does the current/projected number of employees table include clerical; visitor parking; hours of operation. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Steve Patrick, Project Architect, 831 Midglen Way, Woodside CA 94062 was present. He stated the project complies with all City codes regarding coverage, height and other building requirements; it also complies with very restrictive parking requirements for intended use; study was requested by City to investigate project's impact on parking in the area; it seems parking is not the issue; feels the project stands on it's own merits, with landscaping, buffers, screening, parking area with turf blocks, low profile building with friendly human scale and 31 parking spaces provided on site to be used by the employees and visitors. In light of submitted parking study, feels building is not using any more on -street parking than other businesses would use in the area, nor would it harm the area; building code allows 45 persons in the office based on square footage; he feels special use permit should be granted without this condition. A Commissioner commented parking availability in this area is better now than it has been in the past because of the new parking structure; many applicants who come before the Planning Commission look to the parking structure to solve the problem downtown, amazed Mr. Patrick could say he could do business. Mr. Patrick responded the parking study shows the maximum number of people at the site would be at the Monday morning meetings, at that time there wouldn't be any visitors; at other times there would be visitors, however head count showed number of employees would not be as great at that time, never exceeded 15 persons; understands they may need to search for spaces on street when head count exceeds 15; however l Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 23, 1990 study seems to show a plethora of parking spaces; parking spaces are designated for upstairs uses; if these spaces are not used Fox & Carskadon (hereafter referred to as F & C) visitors could park there; one handicapped space available. C. Mink noted that he, at Mr. McManus' invitation, visited F & C office for about 45 minutes to discuss this proposal; he asked the architect if he had designed other buildings in Burlingame. Mr. Patrick responded he had, in affiliation with William Patrick, designed the Great Western Bank building on Chapin Avenue and some apartment buildings on E1 Camino Real; in addition he had designed the interiors of some 30 F & C offices. Mr. McManus, Manager of F & C at 406 Primrose Road in Burlingame, approached the podium to address the Commission: their objective is not to have this project mistakenly perceived as an attempt by a large real estate firm to become even larger; he reviewed history of F & C; objective is to retain F & C presence in City of Burlingame; current offices located in a building that is bequeathed to the City of Burlingame by the Duncan family for eventual use by the Burlingame' library; explained lease and lease option; feels precedent set by"new upstairs tenant who was granted a one year lease; president of F & C asked Mr. McManus to watch for site for new office; these lots became available and seemed to be the perfect solution not only for F & C, but for the library; believes design fulfills requirements of parking and provides Chapin Avenue with an exciting addition to street which in recent years has become an attractive block of professional offices. Mr. McManus referenced F & C's letter of intent concerning future use of current F & C location; understands CA Coleman's discomfort as to its legality; rather than an integral part of proposal, F & C offers letter as intention to cooperate in assisting City and library in achieving goals. He took exception to conditions restricting number of employees and that F & C must undergo some type of future review of application; a parking survey was done, engineer's conclusion was clear that proposed building, even when fully leased, will make no impact on public parking; provided the engineer with weekly head count before engineer tendered his final analysis, therefore full use of building was taken into consideration. " Responding to an earlier question, head count did include three members of full time staff plus himself as well as any clients who were on the premises at the time. Mr. McManus stated present location has 26 independent contractors using F & C offices as their base of operations; 1/3 of staff work primarily on weekends and some evenings because of other occupations held; felt it was unrealistic to base adequacy of parking facilities counting desks or names on a roster; main concern was that if too many stalls other people would use F & C parking stalls; building meets all City ordinances, respectfully Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 23, 1990 asks for approval allowing F & C to remain as long term members of Burlingame's business community. A Commissioner asked about the nature of the real estate business traffic, client arrives, parks, then client and agent both leave in agent's car. Mr. McManus responded this is still the basic way the business is operated; if someone is listing, agent will go to client site for listing appointments; when client arrives you are supplanting one car with another. Regarding full time equivalent of staff at any reasonable time, Mr. McManus stated approximately 2/3 of agents could be considered professional full-time; does not imply they are in the office all the time; real estate is done in the field, when agents are in the office it's generally for two reasons, either they have "floor time", a three hour period when F & C has one agent in the office to respond to phone calls/walk-in clients, or to make phone calls or do some paperwork; a good portion of agents he only sees once or twice a week; doesn't expect second floor to fill up 16 parking spaces; described possible second floor uses. Commissioner comment: concern about uses on the second floor, about overlapping situations where businesses on second floor would have meetings at the same time real estate offices would have meetings; Mr. McManus responded currently they have 30 people working from a building with no on-site parking; planning to add a few agents in a building with 31 parking spaces; thinks it is a win-win situation. C. Jacobs stated she had spoken with Mr. McManus over the phone and told him she preferred to speak in public about the proposal; thanked him for calling her; commented she was not as concerned about an office building as she was about a real estate operation; there is more activity in a real estate business; had been in real estate offices with back to back desks and people; understands where F & C is coming from because they have no parking now; considers this an important issue because of the number of real estate offices in this area. Mr. McManus responded: F & C has studied the situation in the City carefully; well aware parking is problem; done everything humanly possible to impress upon the City this will satisfy City's needs; in fact did overkill by having parking survey done; took an in-house survey one full week, including every hour of every day; conformed to City's special use ordinances; designed building basically around a parking lot so F & C could meet City requirements; becoming an extremely expensive building at $300.00 per square foot in order to conform to City requirements; discussed proposed hours of operation; stated there are four in the support staff; a support staff includes everybody excluding real estate agents and includes McManus himself plus three secretarial positions; present operation has 29 employees; proposed new location expects 36-38 employees including staff; real estate business is cyclical in nature, may at times of year need Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 23, 1990 more agents, concerned about conditions limiting number of employees; sees it impossible to control number of employees coming to meeting; traditionally 2/3 of staff will attend Monday morning meetings. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Ellis closed the public hearing. Commission comment/discussion: concerned about limiting number of employees at the office; if additional people are hired will have to come back to PC for review; thinks McManus makes valid point in that regard; thinks it is appropriate for City to maintain a review period; assumes 8:30 A.M. opening time appropriate; concerned about putting a maximum attendance on those agents attending the Monday morning staff meeting; if problem with that attendance a complaint will be made and problem will be reviewed at that stage; limitation might be overstepping bounds; feels application appropriate but conditions restrictive. Inclined to go along with project; thinks all right to limit agents on premises, only means City has for limiting use of building; if don't have condition like this, then no basis for pursuing complaint; agrees with condition limiting Monday morning meetings to 22, City has means to go back and correct situation; in favor of project with conditions. Inclined to agree with removing limitation on number of employees and attendance at Monday meetings, F & C has done everything possible to go along with all required; will be leaving building with no parking facilities whatsoever; applicant working very hard to offer all parking requirements City has; thinks key phrase is "upon complaint" under condition #5; feel complaints would give City opportunity to review project; conditions limiting employees is unrealistic and difficult to follow-up; liked project but did not care for condition limiting number of employees at meeting. View condition 5 as a "two-way street". In 18 months applicant could come back to PC and say the conditions are too restrictive; both City and applicant have opportunity to say a mistake was made; very difficult to trim back once you've allowed; better to use somewhat more restrictive model before Commission tonight; if facts demonstrate can be relaxed in 18 months, then can do so; support application and`'conditions as submitted. Could not support application; there will be an empty building left on Primrose; there will be an impact in the area; parking structure helps library and businesses, but it should also help retail; tremendous amount of impact with these types of businesses in this area; project will have an impact; other applications turn to parking structure for answers; will be back to where we cannot use the library again; need to consider expanding on south side of downtown where the parking problem is less. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 23, 1990 Support application; do not like idea of limiting attendance of Monday morning meetings, think this is unenforceable; do not understand why had to put maximum hours on business. The Chair asked CA Coleman about the issue of the current building at 406 Primrose; referred to F & C letter which Mr. Coleman feels is not a legally binding document; referred to statement by Mr. McManus addressing Mr. Coleman's concerns. Mr. Coleman stated he viewed the letter as good intentions; believes F & C would certainly try to do that; however cannot make it a condition. Regarding 406 Primrose, the property is held in trust. The trust has never been willing to show the lease to the City, so the City doesn't know what the conditions are; thinks it's too far removed and unwise for City to get involved in something it has no control over and may have many wrinkles City doesn't know about; it's another property off-site; should focus on this site. Further Commissioner comment: tend to want to support this application; do not necessarily agree with Mr. Patrick's statement that there is a "plethora" of parking in this city; understand comments against conditions proposed; only enforced if there's a major problem; can't do anything with a complaint unless have something to measure it against; will support staff recommended conditions, otherwise do not think we have anything to measure performance by. CP noted the hours of operation would be the _hours the office is open to the public; this property abuts a residential neighborhood at the rear of the property; if single individual goes in doesn't think it would become an issue unless for some reason becomes disturbing for neighbors; applicant may ask for an amendment to use permit at any time. C. Graham moved to approve the Negative Declaration and Special Permit for the proposed application for property at 1412-1416 Chapin Avenue, citing as findings discussion and comments made at this evening's meeting; does not feel proposal will be detrimental or injurious to public health safety and welfare with conditions as listed in staff report, except as part of motion, would like to eliminate condition #2 and modify condition #3 to eliminate maximum attendance. number. The motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: we limit the use of buildings in many ways, occupant load, parking, type of use; this is just another means the City uses to limit possible use of this building; intent is to put a number on the permit for some criteria to measure by; applicant can ask for an amendment to permit. CP and CA noted the application could be called up at any time, without a benchmark j it's more difficult to define. Further comment: needs a benchmark; makes it easier for the process if there is a benchmark; otherwise we wouldn't put limits on any of the special permits we see; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 April 23, 1990 wouldn't support changes to amendment of condition #3; have concerns with elimination of condition #2 addressing hours of operation. In light of comments, C. Graham amended her motion. Motion would still include elimination of condition #2 stating the hours of business operation, would change condition #3 to allow a maximum attendance of 30 agents and include a condition regarding tentative map. C. Kelly agreed and seconded the motion to approve with the following conditions: 1) That the 4,490 SF first floor of the structure shall be used for a real estate office which has a maximum of 3 full time and 33 part-time agents; 2) that a group agents meeting shall be held only once a week and shall be over by 11 a.m. with a maximum attendance of 30 agents; 3) that the real estate use shall not extend to the second floor of that building without amendment to this use permit nor shall the number of full time and part time agents or duration and frequency of the weekly group meetings change without amendment to this use permit; 4) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in 1.8 months time and every two years thereafter or upon complaint and 5) that a lot combination map shall be filed and approved prior to issuing a foundation or building permit for this property. The motion as amended was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. A five minute break was taken. 10. LAND USE STUDY AND GENERAL PLAN REVIEW FOR THE BROADWAY- ROLLINS-TOYON-CAROLAN PLANNING AREA Reference staff report, with attachments. CP Monroe noted a letter had been received from Mike Harvey supporting the General Plan Amendment and rezoning which includes his parcels at 1007 Rollins and 1008 Carolan; she also presented overhead graphics, summarized the project area, existing land use and zoning, proposed land use, presented options for action open to the Planning Commission and Council to guide future use in the study area. Comments/questions from PC: what is the difference between alternatives #2 and 3#. CP responded that in alternative #3 all of the commercial uses were changed to C-2 zoning; alternative #2 proposes to change the zoning to C-2 on just the parcels at northeast corner Cadillac and Rollins. There was an inquiry about the effect the alternatives would have on the existing auto dealerships. CP Monroe clarified that in the M-1 auto dealerships are conditional uses, any change in operation at the dealerships requires a use permit or an amendment to use permit; auto sales and services are permitted uses in the C-2, so if rezoned to C-2 would only require review if deviated from code requirements; signage would be the same for either zoning designation. Additional discussion: difference in use patterns and noise between C-2 and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 April 23, 1990 M-1 uses; consistency and conformity of alternatives; whether Velvet Turtle parking lot with tennis courts above would become non -conforming if changed to C-2 zoning. There being no further questions of staff, Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Mr. Al Molakidis, 627 Occidental Avenue, San Mateo, was present. He stated he is the owner of 1017, 1019 and 1025 Rollins Road; he reviewed history of properties and uses; felt properties were long overdue to get C-2 classification; M-1 not compatible with impacts; urged rezone to C-2. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Ellis closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: likes C-2 also; finds #3 the cleanest of the alternatives, would recommend it to Council; would rather see the C-1 zoning for the Velvet Turtle, service station and office building areas proposed for C-2 zoning; C-1 would not create an anomaly; feels some of the uses permitted in C-2 would not be compatible next to Northpark Apartments; C-1 less intensive use and better next to Northpark than C-2; concern with balconies at rear of Northpark, would be surrounding Northpark with C-2, they deserve a quieter, less intensive use, cannot accept a C-2 use. Asked if uses in the Cadillac/Rollins area would become non -conforming if changed to C-1; CP clarified office and restaurant are permitted uses in C-1, service station requires a special permit in any district; discussed differences between C-1 and C-2 including uses requiring a special permit in C-1; gasoline stations can have a service/repair bay in the C-1. Further Commission comment: aesthetics should be taken into consideration;. go along with C-1 in that area though concerned about removing lands zoned R-4 since state is concerned about housing; regarding noise, CNEL profiles in the region show the three greatest noise generators are the Southern Pacific Railroad, the freeway and the airport; garages are closed at night; felt there was no argument regarding noise generated in C-2; there is not just noise, but odors from C-2 uses. Not troubled by C-2 in area; sensitive to noise and odor comments, they are valid; felt uncomfortable with R-1 low density designation along Toyon; spoke about buffer zones; felt more comfortable with R-3 high density in this area which starts at the end of Toyon block at Rollins. Discussion: practicality of putting those lots into R-3, they're only 50' x 1001; makes concern that much more exacerbated, smaller lots to begin with and backing up to commercial properties; typical planning techniques use strips like that as buffer zones; feel high density would be more appropriate; Northpark has more depth; there would be public outcry; owners were noticed but not to change zoning from R-1 to other R designation; agree typical planning technique, but do not see need to do that; wouldn't want to go that way. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 April 23, 1990 C. Graham, citing findings in the Negative Declaration, moved to approve by resolution and recommend to City Council land use designation and zoning changes in the area bordered by Broadway, Toyon Drive, Rollins Road and Carolan Avenue. Changes are as follows: 1) land use designation to high density residential (as shown in alternative 3) for area housing Northpark apartments; 2) land use designation to low density residential for the Toyon frontage; 3) zoning of 1011 Cadillac, gas station and restaurant to C-1; and 4) zoning on the remaining properties to C-2. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0. Recommendation will go forward to City Council to set a public hearing; will appear on agenda for second City Council meeting in May. i Iomsiva eimmm None. PLANNER REPORTS - Chm. Ellis noted officers would be elected at the next meeting. - CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its April 2 and April 16, 1990 meetings. FROM THE FLOOR Bruin Realty was present but did not speak regarding their item because the item was already set for public hearing (Item #7 - 347 Primrose Road). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary