Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.08.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 27, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, August 27, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the August 13, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - CP advised that the hillside area construction permit at 2729 Burlingview Drive on the agenda under Planner Reports has been called up for review by a neighbor. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A CONCRETE BRICK AND WROUGHT IRON FENCE AT 1300 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: will spiral staircase be relocated behind the side setback; check with Public Works to determine if they have had a site survey; what is exceptional about this property to justify the fence exception. Item set for public hearing September 10, 1990. 2. REAR SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 2807 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 3. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - 2807 HILLSIDE DRIVE Requests: elevation indicating location of the 13 SF outside the declining height envelope; CE's comments on how a usable pedestrian sidewalk can be put in and still have two or more on -street parking spaces, some of the big trees are close to the street but elevated, where would sidewalk be located, would a retaining wall be required, suggest an arborist address the issue of lowering some of the land around the trees; average lot size in the area. Items 2 and 3 set for public hearing September 10, 1990. �T Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEM FOR ACTION Page 2 August 27, 1990 4. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE LIMITATION ON MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ALLOWED IN UNIT J, 890 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 8/27/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed that if American National Can (the proposed tenant of Unit J) or a subsequent tenant wanted more than the four employees allowed by the approved use permit they could come to the Planning Commission for a special permit amendment, this request must be authorized by the property owner; the suggested condition that the office area improvements be removed from Unit J when American Can leaves the site was not included in the original conditions, at that time staff used conditions suggested by the applicant limiting employees to four. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Bert Sandell, Trammell Crow Company, applicant, was present. His comments: they want to add a small amount of office and shop area to an existing warehouse in order to allow American National Can to operate a business; at the time of the original application he should have questioned the limitation of four employees; this area has a number of office as well as warehouse uses; there are 104 parking spaces on site. The property owner, New York Life Insurance Co., has a real concern about removing the office area improvements when this tenant leaves, it would limit their use of the building, there is more than adequate parking, why remove valuable improvements which might allow them to bring in a quality tenant in the future. Responding to Commissioner questions, applicant advised American National Can does not foresee a need for more employees at the present time, but applicant did not want to bother the Planning Commission at a later date, he felt Commission's intention was not to limit the number of employees but to control the office use; there are only 32 employees in the building now and more than adequate parking. Commissioner comment: five years from now the building could fill up dramatically with a use which generates a lot of customers needing parking, that was the reason for the four person limit, a permit amendment could always be applied for. Applicant said the remainder of the building is primarily warehouse with a small amount of office, is it necessary to go through the use permit process again. A Commissioner noted there are two reasons for parking requirements, safe and adequate access to and within the area and availability of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 27, 1990 parking within a district, only a certain amount of vehicles can go into that area without having an impact and causing congestion, and that is the reason for limiting a warehouse building to 20% office use. Staff/Commission/applicant discussed the number of employees most acceptable to the applicant, procedural questions, staff's objective to maintain the level of office to 20%. CE commented there is a large percentage .of vacancies in the area now, but staff is concerned about the long term when the entire area might be fully occupied. Applicant advised property owner recently purchased the property, they want to have flexibility in managing their property and do not want to be restricted to a bare minimum; the three vacant tenant spaces are about 2,500 SF each. In a closing comment, Mr. Sandell said, given the option, if Commissions intent is to try to limit the number of employees, he thought it would be preferable to raise the limit on the number of employees allowed by the UBC rather than remove improvements at the end of American National Can's lease. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion CP explained her reasons for requiring the office area improvements be removed from Unit J when this tenant leaves the site, she was concerned should someone come in with a permitted use how could staff require them to come to the Planning Commission when more office space had already been granted, how could staff keep track of this if it were done all over town. Commission comments: have no problem with the original permit as it was granted, American National Can or a future testing laboratory tenant could come back to the Commission to amend the permit for number of employees; can sympathize with the concern of New York Life, it is the Commission's intent to protect the property itself and area, the tenants in the building and adjacent tenants; limits have been imposed on number of employees in other projects, am satisfied with the previous action, there is protection for this tenant, do not like the condition requiring removal of valuable improvements, all a tenant would have to do is come back to the city to amend his permit for number of employees and this might easily be approved. C..Galligan moved for denial of the special permit amendment for the reasons stated, seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: agree completely, there is a reason for the 20% office limitation and that is traffic impact, Commission dealt with that the last time it acted on this, applicant can come back to amend his permit, do not think it is an undue restriction on this property; this happens frequently, people come back to amend permits when they wish to change number of employees, it is not a waste of valuable Commission time. CA advised applicant could reapply to increase the number of employees when he has the facts to support the request. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 27, 1990 Further comment: cannot understand the problem Commission is having, Commission has allowed the building to be improved to allow 10 employees in that space based, on parking requirements, why not grant a limit of 10 people, the previous request was for four employees, now they want 10, if they go beyond 10 employees then applicant will have to present facts and support for special circumstances; concur with this statement, holding them to four because somebody said four at a meeting last month doesn't make sense, let's give applicant a number he can work with. Comment in support of the motion: have not heard that 10 was a number he could work with; what is being requested is a blanket approval for an office use, Commission does not know what might be down the line, American National Can may not be a problem with four or 24 employees but am concerned that if Commission picks an arbitrary number sometime in the future the use itself might be such that it will bring a tremendous amount of traffic into the area. Motion to deny the special permit amendment was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Commissioners Kelly and Mink voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its August 20, 1990 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary