Loading...
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