Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.07.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 22, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, July 22, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the July 8, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN 80 SF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AT 445 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1 Item set for public hearing August 12, 1991. 2. REAR SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE REAR UNIT AT 1003 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED Requests: confirm lot coverage figure; documentation on why structure was built with the existing 12' rear setback; what is encroachment of the staircase at the front, height over parking; letter from applicant addressing variance findings, what is unique about this property; why is a lot coverage variance required since lot coverage is not changing and the existing structure is a legal nonconforming building, if this variance is granted what would be allowed if the structure were destroyed, would Commission be giving them an entitlement to increase lot coverage, the same question applies to the rear setback, why is a variance required; what are rise and run requirements for the treads on the stair. Item set for public hearing August 12, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 22, 1991 3. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR AN EIGHT UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1103 DOUGLAS AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Requests: how close is proposed driveway to the Douglas/ California intersection; is this one lot now or two lots, if two will they be combined; where will water heaters and furnaces for the upstairs units be located, where will electrical panels in the basement be located; a couple of the parking stalls can only be entered by backing into them, check parking dimensions; where will security gate slide to; address CE's concerns about the driveway ramp prior to the next meeting, concerned about slope and transitions; designate guest parking spaces on the plans; could conditions require that owners do not rent parking spaces to others. Item set for public hearing August 12, 1991. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AND AREA TO CHANGE THE COPY ON AN EXISTING SIGN AT 1095 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-1 Item set for public hearing August 12, 1991. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FOUR STORY COMMERCIAL RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING WITH TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW GRADE AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Requests: applicant mentions maximum of 400-450 people being on site at one time, 151 parking spaces are provided, where will these people park, proximity to public parking; why can't applicant meet code dimensions for parking spaces; what is unusual about the site; is there parking by the fence next to the nursing home, concern about impact on the home, can this be mitigated; reason for the penthouse on the building and exceeding maximum height allowed. Item set for public hearing August 12, 1991. 6. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR AUTO STORAGE AND PARKING DIMENSION, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARCEL APN 025-272-160 WITH A TEMPORARY ADDRESS OF 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: explanation of how this land was subdivided in 1983, clarify history of the parcel, why wasn't it merged with adjacent parcel; how will access be gained to fight a fire if the parcel is developed lot line to lot line; how many cars will be stored, how often will they be moved in and out, where is applicant storing cars now; clarify history of the parcel, why wasn't it merged with adjacent parcel; are cars stored with gas in them, if empty where is fuel stored; why can't structure be pulled back further from the street and more landscaping put in front and perhaps in the back of the building; if constructed would this building be permanent for any M-1 use. Item set for public hearing August 12, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 22, 1991 7. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, HEIGHT AND AREA OF SIGNS AT CROWN STERLING, 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 7/22/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, changes from the application denied without prejudice on June 10, 1991, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Wade McClure, applicant, addressed Commission: he believed that with the proposed changes any hotel in the area has taller letters than the 3'-6" letters proposed for most of this signage, most hotels have 4' letters; they have reduced the large sign to substantially less than the approved Holiday Inn sign; the name of the hotel has been changed to Crown Sterling. Responding to a question about why Sign A, the existing pole sign, is necessary if Sign B, the new wall sign, is added, applicant stated it serves a function since the wall sign cannot be seen after one crosses Airport Boulevard, the pole sign also has restaurant identification. Mr. McClure advised they decided to use a wall sign rather than the parapet sign used by the previous owners because it has better visibility from the freeway exit than a parapet sign. A Commissioner commented there could be less square footage with two parapet signs, applicant responded they cannot get the 4' letters on the parapet and use their logo. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there were special circumstances because of the name change and use of the logo, this property is farther from the freeway, Embassy Suites did not look oversigned. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the sign exception by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 20, 1991 Sheet 1 - Sign Location; Sheet 2 - South Elevation_; Sheet 3 - West Elevation; Sheet 4 - Logo and Letter Sections; Sheet 5 - D/F Elevation, and as described in Table A Sign Program for Crown Sterling, 150 Anza Boulevard, July 22, 1991; and (2) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE OFFICE AREA TO 21.8% AT 40 BRODERICK ROAD ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/22/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 22, 1991 Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Tad Sekino, architect representing the applicant, Nomura and Company, Inc., was present. He stated the staff report was very clear, staff representatives had been very helpful. He advised striping of parking stalls in front of the trailer has been done and the additional parking spaces have been put in. Essentially this is a conversion of warehouse to office, they put the staff room in the warehouse and thought it'would be considered part of the warehouse area, staff clarified that it would be considered part of the office area because it was accessible from the office space; it is their intention to use the staff room as a meeting room for staff, people who work there eat in the staff room; he had no objection to a fourth condition that the staff room not be converted to work station area without an amendment to the use permit. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found that because the proposal does meet existing requirements for parking it will not be a problem to the area and moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 4, 1991 Sheets AS -1 through AS -3; (2) that the parking lot shall be striped to add two new parking spaces and the existing five parking spaces in front of the trailer shall be striped to the required 20' length within 60 days; (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that the staff room shall not be converted to work station area without an amendment to this use permit. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN ATHLETIC FACILITY AT 888 HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/22/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. She noted July 16, 1991 letter from Richard K. Hopper, RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, addressing peak hour traffic volumes and parking demand on and adjacent to the proposed site. Letter in support was also noted from Alfred Hansen (July 12, 1991), property owner of 1616 Gilbreth Road adjacent to the subject property. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion noted the estimated number of vehicle trips per day and the fact that the number of people on site at one time and total number of people on site per day are totally different numbers. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. George Avanessian, architect representing the applicant, World Gym, addressed Commission: his clients took over this business about two months ago, the building needed modifications, they wanted to clean up its image and do some Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 22, 1991 remodeling, when they applied for a building permit they discovered they needed a special permit amendment; applicants have no problem with the suggested conditions of approval. Mr. Avanessian believed the traffic engineer's report clarifies Commission's traffic concerns, number of car trips does not mean number of cars, each use on site has its own trip generation number; the business will be open 6:00 A.M. to 10 P.M. weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Saturdays and Sundays and will average 30 people for weight training at one time, about 200 people on site per day; cardiovascular refers to the type of equipment in the training room; estimates of number of people on site at any one time were obtained from World Gym headquarters, this is a franchise operation and the figures are undoubtedly average numbers. Dan Caprini and Dean Rodatos, applicants, responded to Commission's questions. They checked with the World Gym operations in San Carlos and San Francisco who said they scheduled people on equipment 20-30 at one time; this will not be a family club type business, most of their customers are into health and fitness and will come in, spend one hour and leave; they are trying to get people to make appointments; they hope to keep the aerobics classes to a maximum of 20-30 people in order to be able to work individually and have more space. A Commissioner noted the traffic engineer's report was based on the intersection of Gilbreth and Hinckley, he asked if the Bayshore/Hinckley intersection wouldn't be more appropriate. Richard Hopper, Traffic Engineer, said his discussions with Planning staff did not mention the Bayshore/Hinckley intersection; the numbers used for parking generation were based on studies done all over the United States for athletic clubs put into a formula of so many trips per parking space per 1,000 SF; this figure is a conservative number, it would vary depending upon hours of operation, type of facilities and would vary from club to club; statistically this is what his projections would indicate; although the number might exceed the number of on-site parking spaces, from his observations it can be accommodated. Mr. Hopper thought there would be more traffic impact at the Bayshore and Hinckley intersection but this would depend on what roads are used and where the people come from; he did not expect any problem in the area from this additional traffic. Applicants are talking about 30 people per hour, over the number of hours they will be open that could be a lot of people, these types of facilities have their peak hours after 6:00 P.M.; in reality 960 trips per day is a conservative figure based on all types of athletic clubs, applicants do not anticipate a large staff, classes are small and will be held throughout the day. Architect advised number of people per hour was arrived at by the applicants, in the past the club generated much more traffic, they hope to make it convenient for their customers; maximum number of staff would be four including office staff. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 22, 1991 Mr. Caprini advised a member of another World Gym could not use his facility as a guest, a Commissioner had been concerned because of all the Burlingame hotels in the general area. Applicant did not object to a condition limiting the number of aerobics classes to five per day with 20 people in each class. He stated they wanted everyone to park on the site and not have to walk to the facility, they do walk ladies to their cars at night; day care will be provided by a certified person, just two hours in the morning and two hours at peak in the evening, this person will be one of the four employees on site. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found the proposal would not be detrimental to the area with the suggested conditions and after listening to applicant's testimony this evening, applicant's intent is good, times of operation and review in six months are stipulated in the conditions, there is parking to code on site. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit amendment by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. In discussion on this motion a possible condition limiting the number of aerobics classes per day and number of people per class was mentioned, consensus was that review in six months would pick up any problems and the condition was not added. Conditions of C. Jacobs' motion follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 2, 1991 Sheets 1, 2 and 3; (2) that the athletic club shall operate Monday through Friday 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and Saturday and Sunday 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. with no more than four employees; (3) that the City Engineer's July 8, 1991 memo (bollards to protect exit pathways through the parking lot and the parking spaces clearly marked); the Chief Building Inspector's July 10 and 15, 1991 memo (all facilities to be handicap accessible on the first level and a handicap restroom for each sex); and the Fire Marshal's July 9, 1991 memo (sprinkler coverage to be maintained during remodel and adequate exiting to be maintained in all areas of the building) shall be met; (4) that 54 parking spaces shall be maintained on site exclusively for the use of the athletic club; (5) that the pro shop and snack bar shall be for the use of employees and members only with no outside advertising; (6) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (7) that the special permit amendment shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in six months (February, 1992) and again with attention specifically to traffic and parking impacts in one year (February, 1993) or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: supplement to the application states applicants hope for 350 clients per day, even with 200 people between 5:00 and 10:00 P.M., the typical person staying about one hour, they would not load up the parking lot unless they were highly successful, am not at all worried. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 22, 1991 10. PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY TRAILERS AT 845-855 STANTON ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/22/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission questioned the placement of the trailer on Stanton Road which appears to be in the middle of the grove of trees, will any of the trees be removed; who uses the trailers now on site; it appears the trailer in front is in place now. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Barry Jodatian of Leo A. Daly, representing United Airlines International Flight Kitchens, was present. He advised the trailers in the back belong to the general contractor, the temporary trailers referred to in this application were installed yesterday or the day before, trees will not be removed since it is easy to maneuver around them. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. A sixth condition was requested regarding replacement and maintenance of any damaged trees. C. Jacobs stated she had made a site visit, applicants are taking care of their parking, it is a nice project. C. Jacobs moved to approve the permit for temporary trailers with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 25, 1991 Site Plan; (2) that the temporary trailers shall be removed by July 31, 1992 and the landscaping and parking spaces shall be restored to their original condition; (3) that temporary parking for employees shall be provided at 1660 Gilbreth Road for 60 cars and 1633 Bayshore Highway for 20 cars until July 31, 1992 or the construction is completed and the trailers removed from the site at 845-855 Stanton Road; (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (5) that the project shall be reviewed for compliance in August, 1992 or upon complaint; and (6) that if trees are damaged during construction they shall be replaced and maintained by the applicant. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CITY PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its July 15, 1991 regular meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 22, 1991 - Proposed Revisions to Chapter 25.78 Fences and Hedges. Commission and staff discussed intent of the ordinance in regulating hedges in setback areas, the definition of hedge "which acts as a fence" includes treating a compact planting on one side of a fence as a hedge subject to the 8' height limit. C. Jacobs moved to forward these proposed revisions to Chapter 25.78 to the City Council for consideration, seconded by C. Mink, approved 5-1 on voice vote, C. Galligan voting no, C. Graham absent. Staff will forward to City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary