HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.07.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 8, 1991
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, July 8, 1991 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; Steve
Langridge, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the June 24, 1991 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE AREA OVER 20% AT 40 BRODERICK ROAD,
ZONED M-1
Requests: what research is done by this company; staff review indicates
21.8% office area, permit application refers to 20.57%, which is
correct; are staff rooms and handicapped toilet areas counted as office
area. Item set for public hearing July 22, 1991.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN ATHLETIC FACILITY AT 888 HINCKLEY
ROAD. ZONED M-1
Requests: do the figures for daily visitors on the staff review form
and information on the supplemental form submitted by the applicant
agree; A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts in the area; size of
aerobic classes, how long and at what times; a more complete
description of the cardiovascular training room, what are staff's
qualifications for this; do they intend to have a pro shop and coffee
shop, will these be for employees and people using the facility only or
do they intend to advertise separately. Item set for public hearing
July 22, 1991.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
July 8, 1991
ITEMS FOR ACTION
3. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AT 724 PALOMA
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/8/81, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required
findings, study meeting questions. Letters in opposition were received
after preparation of the staff report from the following: Colleen R.
Clarke, 749 Paloma Avenue; Mervin R. Francies, 729 Acacia Drive;
Stephen A. and Fiona E. Hamilton, 725 Acacia Drive; Steve and Shirley
Warden, 736 Acacia Drive; and a letter from Elizabeth Phelps Davis and
Janet Phelps, 726 Paloma Avenue, discussing their concerns. Seven
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Staff advised applicant was aware of the R-1 zoning regulations and
discussed side setback requirements for the carport; the need for a
building permit for the 61+ fence which contains the backyard.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Mehmet Bayramoglu, applicant,
was present. He stated he is not building anything new, he bought the
house in 1987 and the accessory structures were there at that time, he
did not know they were illegal, he did not read all the 'fine print'
since his English was not that good at that time; the structures were
built without a building permit years ago, why didn't the neighbors say
anything at that time. Applicant continued: he is an electrical
engineer and has not been able to find employment, he rented out his
house in order to be able to pay the mortgage, tenants didn't pay the
rent and were evicted, then they complained to city hall. Responding
to Commission questions, applicant said he had a real estate agent when
he purchased the house but just signed the papers since he could not
read much English at that time; he bought the house with a friend who
helped him with credit; at present he lives off the site with his
girlfriend, tenant lives in the main house; he has not lived there
within the last month although he has some things stored there.
The following members of the audience spoke in support: Janet Phelps,
726 Paloma Avenue: she presented another letter amending her previous
letter and commented the unit in the back was built in 1981 and was
almost always rented as an additional unit when the previous owner was
there; this was a problem 10 years ago, why is the city going after
someone now who was not the cause of the problem; he undoubtedly bought
the house thinking it was a two unit piece of property, in the back it
is in the same condition it was five years ago, can understand why the
city would want to bring it up to code but cannot understand all the
neighbors complaining about it now, support the applicant. Responding
to a question about her statement that removal of the existing
accessory structures will affect her property value, Ms. Phelps said
removal of the structures will cost applicant a lot of money, any time
a house sells anywhere it affects property values, if the price goes
down everyone's property value will be reduced.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
July 8, 1991
Roberta Dill, 720 Paloma Avenue: she bought her house in November, 1985
and confirmed Ms. Phelps' comments, there were people living in the
cottage up until the applicant bought the property and this didn't
cause a problem in the neighborhood, it has been much quieter since the
previous owner left, cannot understand the carport requirement,
applicant has a long driveway, would prefer view of the driveway
without a carport; while the previous owners were there the cottage and
the main house were occupied most of the time. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners' comment: do not want to get involved in a neighborhood
dispute, think it appropriate to continue the item for consideration of
a variance for the carport after it has been noticed, would like to see
the disclosure statement which should have been given to the applicant
by the realtor, everyone parks on the street in this neighborhood, it
appears to be a home carpenters delight.
C. Jacobs believed action should be taken on the application before
Commission this evening, she found this is substandard housing on the
back of the lot, applicant should have recourse against the realtor who
sold him the property; people have been living in the workshop and in
the lanai, she understood applicant's problems with finances but this
is an R-1 single family property in an R-1 neighborhood, she could not
vote for this nonconforming structure or for this unit even if it were
conforming because it invites people to rent; any house with two
bedrooms should provide one covered parking space. C. Jacobs moved for
denial of the application for the reasons stated, seconded by C.
Graham.
Comment on the motion: agree with these comments, am sorry applicant
was deceived, but Commission has a duty to work for the whole city,
this structure is not conforming in any way with building codes, there
is no way it can be saved, applicant needs to come back with another
application for a new building, am not concerned about the carport this
evening; it is unfortunate but the structures are there, Commission is
dealing with codes for the whole city; a condition not allowing a
cooking element is unenforceable since the advent of the microwave
oven, this is a living unit according to the neighbors and not
accessible from the front house according to the tenants, think it
would continue to be used as a living unit.
C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny this application by resolution
with a condition that the applicant obtain all necessary permits for
reconversion of the workshop to a covered parking space and obtain
building permits for the lanai, hot tub and any other facilities
installed without a building permit, the demolition and building
permits shall be obtained within 30 days and the work shall be
completed in six months (January 8, 1992). C. Graham amended her
second, motion appKoved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
July 8, 1991
4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR EATING ESTABLISHMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY RETAIL -
OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 1218-1230 BURLINGAME
AVENUE/1209-1215 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A BURLINGAME
AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA
Reference staff report, 7/8/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the revised plans, revised negative declaration, staff
review, initial project and revised project proposed for this site,
required findings. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing. Some discussion followed: staff advised the
suggested conditions require applicant resolve the issue of access to
the rear of the building at 1210-1216 Burlingame Avenue to the
satisfaction of the CA and CE before issuance of a building permit; the
garage is 8'-2" high through line of access and over handicapped stalls
for handicap clearance; responsibility for protection of footings of
adjacent properties was discussed.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Jack and Jim Kemp, architects
for the project, were present. Jack Kemp addressed Commission: he
noted corrections to the first paragraph of the staff report, the
project is a 33,400 SF two story structure with an 18,750 SF
underground parking garage for 50 cars. The new plans have minor
variations in footages and an increase in parking, a pedestrian walkway
at ground level will link Donnelly and Burlingame Avenues, it is
covered for weather purposes; there is a mix of ground floor retail and
second floor office/restaurant/service retail including storage
elements; they hope to be under construction by next winter; the owners
considered the downtown parking situation and concerns expressed, this
design will bring optimum on-site parking; these plans have a more
flexible arrangement on the second floor, restaurant on the second
floor will be better, with maximum office there will be more options
for leasing; they will be mitigating increased parking on adjacent
streets from more intensive use by taking care of it on site.
The plans have been revised based upon access to the rear of the
building at 1210-1216 Burlingame Avenue and applicants concur that no
building permit be issued until this access has been resolved. Mr.
Kemp stated they are providing parking to code for the more intensive
use of the second floor. He objected to Condition 12 regarding
management and operation of the parking garage, he had no problem with
a validation system. He had been told if people had to pay for parking
nobody would use it. A Commissioner suggested many people will not use
below grade parking. Applicants wanted to be able to use extra space
in the garage for storage. A Commissioner commented 50 parking spaces
is not too many for the restaurant and the building. Architect
suggested elimination of Condition 12 entirely, he did not see why any
of these restrictions were needed, they would like the right to charge
for the parking although they would not necessarily do so.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
July 8, 1991
A Commissioner commended architect on the design of the building and
said validated parking is permissible under Condition #2, applicant is
only being asked to make parking available to the people who will be
using the building. The following members of the audience spoke. Mike
Tseng, applicant: owners do not have experience in management of a
parking garage, want a project which is viable and will meet community
needs; Condition #2 seems restrictive and government interference in
free market conditions, might not meet future community needs or
project needs, he has spoken to parking garage professionals and no one
can tell him the best way to manage the garage.
Bruce Kirkbride: he was puzzled to hear about the easement, it is an
easement of record, he did not believe city lot has a right to use this
driveway but they are doing so, hope applicants are not planning to
build over that easement. John Kockos, 133 Pepper Avenue: it is a
beautiful project but am concerned about its feasibility, he wanted to
go on record to the owners that he was a tenant in the building that
burned down, he had about 2,000 SF and had about 15 years remaining on
his lease which in the opinion of his legal counsel has not been
extinguished, he put the owners on record but has not heard from them
and thought this a good opportunity to let them know they should take
into consideration that 2,000 SF which he has not released for the next
15 years. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission/staff discussion/comment: plans seem to reflect 50 parking
spaces in the garage; parking in the old Crocker building is used by
the tenants of the building only, staff did not know if there was a
gate; don't think there is any surplus parking anywhere downtown;
regarding free parking, if someone is a tenant he will pay through the
lease. Considerable discussion followed regarding Condition 12 and the
parking validation concept; it was pointed out that if the developer
later wants to propose something different for parking control he can
come back to the Commission and Council for subsequent amendment to the
condition. There was consensus the language of Condition 12 proposed
by the CA this evening was adequate at this time. Comment on the
easement: city is an equal party to whatever resolution is made, would
like it to be part of the record that the city will have to give up as
many as four parking spaces on its parking lot to accommodate access to
the adjacent property, city may have to realign its parking lot to be
a good neighbor.
C. Mink found that on the basis of the initial study and comments
received there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and moved for approval of
Negative Declaration ND -445P (Rev.). Seconded by C. Galligan and
approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit for height and special
permit for an eating establishment with findings as listed in the staff
report by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
July 8, 1991
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped July 2, 1991 Sheets 1-5 and E with a
maximum height of 40' for 7.5% of the roof area and a pedestrian mall
and retail sales space on the first floor and a 4,800 SF eating
establishment and 11,100 SF of office space on the second floor with 50
parking spaces in an 18,750 SF below grade garage provided on site for
the use of the owners, tenants, their employees and customers; (2) that
the below grade parking garage shall be designed to city standards and
shall be managed and maintained by the property owner to provide
parking at no fee; such parking may be restricted to the tenants, their
employees and their customers; shall be available for parking use
whenever any portion of the building is open for public use; and shall
not be leased separately to any off-site user and no portion of the
garage shall be converted to any other use than parking; (3) that the
project's construction may be phased with the 160' front portion (from
Burlingame Avenue) of the structure being built first, including below
grade. garage, first and second floors; but the second floor and garage
area shall not be finished off, used for storage by first floor users
or leased for any purpose until the below grade parking garage has been
completed, has adequate access and has been determined to be safely
usable for parking cars by the City Engineer and Chief Building
Inspector; (4) that no building permit shall be issued for any
construction on this site until the access to the rear of the building
at 1210-1216 Burlingame Avenue has been resolved to the satisfaction of
the City Attorney and City Engineer; (5) that a trash receptacle shall
be provided on site designed to the standards and satisfaction of the
City Engineer; (6) that safe ingress and egress with proper warning
systems be provided to the garage and approved by the City Engineer;
(7) that when a specific tenant is selected for the eating
establishment he/she shall apply for an amendment to the eating
establishment special permit in order to define specifics of size,
location within the structure, number of employees, hours of operation
and any other aspects of the operation which are appropriate to include
in the use permit; (8) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo
of June 24, 1991, the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 19, 1991
and the City Engineer's memo of July 1, 1991 shall be met; (9) that the
project shall have an at -grade loading area along the southwest side of
the building; and (10) that the project shall meet all the requirements
of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the
City of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 6-1 roll call
vote, C. Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:35 P.M.; reconvene 9:45 P.M.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
July 8, 1991
5. RECONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOTIVE WHOLESALE AND
RETAIL SALES, SERVICE, REPAIR AND DETAIL SERVICE AT 1280 ROLLINS
ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 7/8/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
new facts revealed by the CE's further investigation of subdivision
maps for the area (CA had determined a reconsideration of the use
permit was the most appropriate action). She reviewed Commission's
previous action and discussion. Eight conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing; revised Condition #5 does not
require merger of the two lots.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Mike Coffey, representing Willy
Ostertag, applicant, and Wells Fargo Bank, Trustee for the Dore Trust,
property owner, was present. He distributed site plan and plan
indicating access easement; applicant wanted to take both parcels
primarily because he operates a business across the street and
improvements required by the city will improve that site; the issue was
no access to 1280 Rollins should the vacant lot be sold, the sheets
passed out this evening show there is an unrestricted access easement;
the lease is for both parcels and if Dore 1 were sold the leasehold
rights must be maintained by the new purchaser; there are five legal
parking spaces provided on site with the required turnaround area.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement he supports this project, it is compatible with the
surrounding area, has adequate parking, applicant has answered the
question on access, think access only off Marsten is an improvement, C.
Ellis 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
27, 1991 Site Plan, and Lower Floor Plan and Mezzanine Plans date
stamped May 9, 1991; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's
memo of June 3, 1991, the conditions of the Fire Marshal's June 3, 1991
memo and the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's June 3, 1991
memo shall be met; (3) that the parking lot, aisles and driveway areas
shall all be paved as approved by the City Engineer; (4) that all
landscaping as shown on the site plan date stamped June 27. 1991 shall
be drought tolerant evergreens with a maximum height of two feet (21)
along property line with a drip irrigation system as approved by the
Director of Parks; (5) that both parcels (APN 026-134-120 and APN 026-
134-130, Lots 1 and 2, Dore Tract RSM 100/6) shall be treated as one
parcel and these conditions shall apply to both parcels with a current
joint address of 1280 Rollins Road; and should either or both the two
parcels be employed for different uses than those specified in this use
permit or the properties leased to different operators in the same
business then this use permit shall terminate; (6) that the automotive
business shall operate Monday through Saturday 7:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M.
with a maximum of three employees; (7) that the project shall meet all
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
July 8, 1991
Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame;
and (8) that this use permit shall be reviewed for conformance with its
conditions in one year (July, 1992) and every two years thereafter or
upon complaint.
Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SERVICES FOR A TRAVEL AGENCY AT 1588
GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 7/8/91, 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.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Larissa Stone, Bay Area Travel
Consultants, applicant, was present. She stated she has been at this
location for a year and a half and was not aware she was in an M-1
zone; she has had no complaints from her neighbors, some have become
her clients; customers do not come to this site, everything is done by
telephone and with delivery services; another office does all their
ticketing for them. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
With the statement applicant has been there 1-1/2 years with no
complaints, it is a small travel agency, C. Jacobs moved for approval
of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1)
that a travel agency shall occupy the 640 SF second floor office space
at 1588 Gilbreth Road as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped June 4, 1991; (2) that there shall be no
more than three employees on site and the business shall operate from
8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday; and (3) that this permit
shall be subject to review for conformance with these conditions in one
year (July, 1992) or upon complaint.
Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its July 1, 1991
regular meeting.
Discussion of Floor Area Ratio - continued.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
July 8, 1991
Amendment to Fence and Hedge Ordinance
Commission discussion: definition of hedge, concern about the word
"intended", intent is not the controlling factor, change to read
"which acts as a fence"; does Commission really want to get into
obstruction of view with hedge exceptions; regarding hedge
exceptions, people want privacy, should a one story house be
entitled to the same height of hedge as a two story house; is
showing unnecessary hardship sufficient; there is no great
utilitarian value to a fence other than separating property lines,
landscaping is an attempt to mitigate harshness of buildings, does
Commission want to promote the concept of lush backyards and, if
so, to what point; with a fence there is no ecological advantage
whether wood or metal; it is difficult to use logic to support a
finding of unnecessary hardship; "materially damaged" means "to
some substantial degree".
Commissioners agreed to eliminate the underlined portion of Sec.
25.78.120 (2) and to retain Sec. 25.78.120 (3). Staff will bring
back a revised draft ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry L. Deal
Secretary