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