HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.06.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 24, 1991
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, June 24, 1991 at 7:32 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink
Absent: Commissioner Graham
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City
Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the June 10, 1991 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SIX SPECIAL PERMITS FOR TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AT 724 PALOMA
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: who was the owner and occupant when each structure was built
and when were they built; why need a kitchen when it is to be a
workshop; were permits received for anything in the rear yard; when
will conformance with the UBC be required; copy of title report;
regarding CBI's comment that fence be 3' minimum from limit of roof,
what does this mean; CBI comments unit must be heated, if it has to be
heated it is habitable space which needs a vapor barrier underneath the
concrete, ask CBI to address this; how long have applicants resided
here, can they obtain an assessor's record, am curious about a parking
structure which should have been there when the house was constructed,
check original assessor's records if possible and identify original
parking; can Commission grant this request for a structure which
extends across the rear yard; who was the contractor on the remodeling.
Item set for public hearing July 8, 1991.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL AGENCY AT 1588 GILBRETH ROAD, SUITE
201, ZONED M-1
Requests: applicant's May 21 letter refers to off-street parking for 40
vehicles, plans show 34 spaces, please clarify; who are the other
tenants using the 34 spaces, how do they use parking; applicant states
he can use the entire building for office area since it was constructed
for this use before the area was zoned M-1, can he do this; are there
any other existing retail travel agencies on this side of the M-1 zone;
is this near Coit Cleaners, parking is a problem in the Coit area.
Item set for public hearing July 8, 1991.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
June 24, 1991
ITEMS FOR ACTION
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AT
1408 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/24/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comments, applicant's letter, required
findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. FM Reilly advised eave
ventilation is not counted as openings within 3' of property line.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Darren Powell, Darren's Designs,
representing the property owner, Jack Gollier, was present. He
referred to his discussions with the CE, the garage has 6" between
structure and property line, he has modified the drawings so there is
no eave overhang, CE has waived the requirement for a site survey.
Regarding eave ventilation, he has revised the plans for one hour
rating, eave on the right side has been removed and vents added in the
front and rear to compensate for ventilation; the structure is narrow
and long, applicant wants to extend it to park his boat and/or truck
inside.
It was determined the plans Commission has do not include the revisions
mentioned by the applicant this evening. Responding to a Commissioner
who noted the plans do not show attic storage but do show an access
ladder at the back, designer stated this would give the applicant an
option for storage; Commissioner requested the plans reflect what is
going to happen and show plywood on the floor of the attic since attic
access is provided. Designer advised the boat is the size of a small
fishing boat; a Commissioner noted the boat is wider than the present
garage opening. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Commissioner comment: can find nothing wrong with the project, would
like to have attic storage space shown on the plans and this be added
as a condition.
C. Deal moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the
following conditions: (1) that the garage shall be built as shown on
the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 31,
1991 Sheets 1 and 2; ( 2 ) that the garage shall provide a 10' x 201
space for the required covered parking space; (3) that the Fire
Marshal's May 2, 1991 memo, the City Engineer's May 28, 1991 memo and
the Chief Building Inspector's June 3, 1991 memo shall be met; (3) that
the garage shall be built to meet all the requirements of the Uniform
Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame;
(4) that the Chief Building Inspector approve the plans for ventilation
and the City Engineer approve distance from property line; and (5) that
the plans show attic space in the garage for storage use only.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
June 24, 1991
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C.
Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. DECLINING HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A TWO STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED
GARAGE AT 1109 GROVE AVENUE ZONED R-1
Item continued until the floodplain issue has been resolved.
5. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING GARAGE AND THREE
VARIANCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS AT 2105 ADELINE
DRIVE. ZONED R-1
Item continued until revised plans are received.
6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR'SIX UNITS AT 1532 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE,
ZONED R-3, PORTION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 7, MAP NO. 2 OF BURLINGAME LAND
COMPANY
Reference staff report, 6/24/91, with attachments. CE Erbacher
reviewed the item. The property recently changed ownership and is
presently under construction, however the new owner was not aware that
the two year expiration time on the tentative map would expire during
construction; he has refiled the tentative map together with the
approved architectural condominium permit plans so the map can be
extended through construction. A Commissioner pointed out that the
fire exits on the second and third floors did not seem to be adequately
accessible; the CE suggested that while they did meet requirements
since there was also private open space in this project a condition be
added to cover this concern. CP advised each unit meets the private
open space requirement without the exit balconies.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Duke Wall, property owner, was
present and accepted the condition suggested by the CE. There were no
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the comment this map and plans have been seen and approved by the
Commission previously, C. Ellis moved to recommend the tentative
condominium map to City Council for approval with the following
condition: (1) that the exit balconies on the left rear of the second
and third floors shall be common area, shall not be used other than for
exiting and shall be designed for fire exiting as approved by the Chief
Building Inspector. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 5-1 on
roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Graham absent. Staff will
forward the map to City Council.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
June 24, 1991
7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR SEATING AND EXPAND
INDOOR SEATING FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1190 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE. ZONED UNCLASSIFIED LAND
Reference staff report, 6/24/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
C. Ellis advised he would abstain. A concern was expressed about
parking, especially if the restaurant is successful and has as many
patrons as they project, this restaurant is isolated by the location of
streets and train track; why won't the CalTrain parking lot be full
during the daytime.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Yannick Merlet, son of the
applicants, was present. His comments: at present they are not open
seven days a week nor are they open at 7:00 A.M. but they would like to
have that option; they have more parking than the other restaurants in
the area, most people park in the CalTrain parking lot and in city
parking across the street. A Commissioner was concerned restaurant
patrons would fill up the CalTrain lot and there might not be room for
people taking the train. Applicant said they could not have 75 people
for lunch at one time, commuters fill the lot by 7:00 A.M., the
restaurant has 10 slots and will not be taking any more parking than
they are now using; seating capacity of the restaurant would be 60-65
people, 35 inside and 30 outside, seating capacity would set the
maximum number of patrons they could have at any one time; there would
not be 75 customers at one time, the figure 75 refers to total number
of customers per day. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Mink found that the three required findings for a special permit
have been amply supported and commented that parking spaces in the lot
are for the people who use CalTrain, CalTrain's property contains a
restaurant, those parking spaces are as valid for the restaurant as
they are for the people using CalTrain; further, he would like to see
another fine restaurant in the city, especially in that section of
town. C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit by resolution
with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as
shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped May 2, 1991; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Inspector's May 29, 1991 memo (the indoor restaurant expansion may
affect exiting, handicap and energy requirements that will need to be
resolved before issuing a building permit) shall be met; (3) that the
number of employees shall not exceed a total of eight full time and
part time, and the hours of operation shall be from 7:00 A.M. to 12:00
midnight seven days a week; (4) that the project shall meet Uniform
Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (5)
that this permit shall be reviewed for consistency with the conditions
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
June 24, 1991
in one year (July, 1992) and every two years thereafter or upon
complaint.
Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 5-1 on roll call vote,
C. Ellis abstaining, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL AUTOMOTIVE RESTORATION BUSINESS AND A
PARKING VARIANCE AT 1295 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 6/24/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required
findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Letter in opposition (June 24,
1991) was noted from N. A. Crisafi, owner of Whitethorn Way, a private
street directly behind 1295 Rollins Road. A Commissioner asked if the
owner of Whitethorn Way could close off access to this building; CE
advised there is a nonexclusive ingress/egress easement to the property
line of 1295 Rollins Road across Whitethorn Way. It was noted the
square footage of the service area includes parking.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Leon Kazarian, architect
representing the applicant and property owner, Walter Baumgartner, was
present. He distributed photographs taken on Wednesday and Thursday
showing on -street parking around the site, time was noted on the
photos. His comments: applicant bought this building not too long ago
and wants to occupy it when his present lease expires, the property is
zoned M-1 and surrounded by other auto repair businesses; architect
referred to a color coded aerial photograph in Commission's packet,
everything marked in red is auto repair and body shop, this shows the
use is compatible with the area. Since the building covers the entire
lot, providing parking outside is impossible but if they provide 10
spaces inside there will not be any room for service, they are
requesting a four space parking variance and a variance for one space
which has compact dimensions; total number of employees will be four
including the owner; there will be two to three cars per day for
service by appointment only.
Architect said he called the records clerk at the Police Department and
was advised no citations had been given in that area, semi truck
trailers are a problem but applicant does not have trailers. The
amount of square footage dedicated to parking cars in the building is
about 1,100 SF. Applicant did not object to signage on the outside of
the building advising there is customer parking inside nor to spaces 4
and 5 being dedicated for customer parking only; the owner has four
service bays at his present location, he will have three in this
building, there will be lifts. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: it is an exceptional circumstance that because the
parking is inside the building then a parking requirement applies to
the parking and inflates the number required; 100% lot coverage is an
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
June 24, 1991
exceptional circumstance, there is adequate parking for customers at
the curb if necessary; the concerns of the owner of Whitethorn Way are
valid, applicant must be sensitive to parking of customer vehicles in
the area, there are sufficient findings for a variance and this will be
a low impact type of use.
C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit and parking
variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the site
shall be developed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped June 17, 1991 with six parking spaces
inside the building for customers one of which shall have compact
parking dimensions 8' x 171; (2) that there shall be a maximum of four
employees on site and the business shall operate five days a week
Monday through Friday; (3) that all the conditions of the City
Engineer's memo of May 28, 1991, the Fire Marshal's memo of May 14,
1991 and the Building Department's memo of June 17, 1991 shall be met;
(4) that this site shall be inspected for conformance with the
conditions in nine months (March, 1992) and every three years
thereafter or upon complaint; (5) that a sign shall be placed on the
building indicating the entrance for customer parking, this sign shall
be a 2' x 3' directional sign and not be counted in the on-site
signage; and (6) that two parking spaces inside the building, both full
size, shall be designated for customer parking and no repair shall be
done on the public street or on adjacent private property.
Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C.
Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOTIVE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL SALES, SERVICE,
REPAIR AND DETAIL SERVICE AT 1280 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 6/24/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions, required findings. Eight conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
A Commissioner asked why Condition #2 includes a requirement that the
building be sprinklered if it exceeds 3,000 gross SF when the plans
show the building to be over 3,000 SF; CP advised this is included
since the applicant could in fact reduce the mezzanine square footage
and not be required to sprinkler the building.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Mike Coffey, representing the
applicant, Willy Ostertag, Autohaus-Europa, and property owner, Wells
Fargo Bank, Trustee for the Dore Trust, was present. He confirmed the
building at 1316 Marsten Road (Lot 14) directly behind the site is part
of the Dore Trust and discussed with Commission the easement at the
rear of 1316 Marsten and who has access to it. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
June 24, 1991
Commission discussion: concern about two parcels with one use, the
Trust could move the property lines and there would be no access to the
parking behind the building known as 1280 Rollins Road, these spaces
cannot be reached by going across 1280 but can be accessed by going
across the Lands of Dore which also owns 1280, the function of a trust
is to make decisions which benefit the estate, it would be a great
benefit to the estate to wipe out the property -line between Lots 12 and
13, support Condition #5 in the staff report but would require removal
of the property line between 1280 Rollins and the vacant lot on the
corner, otherwise you may not be able to get to the parking on 1280
Rollins.
The Chair allowed applicant to address this concern. Mr. Coffey noted
there is a nonexclusive access easement from Nerli Lane, 1280 Rollins
has access to this easement. Commission discussion continued: the city
has had the same kind of problem with Whitethorn Way which is a private
street with unrestricted access; the solution is to eliminate the
property line merging the two lots in the proposed project thus giving
both direct street frontage and make it a condition of approval;
Condition #5 may solve the problem of getting this application approved
but it won't solve the problem when someone else wants to do something
with the property in the future. Some Commissioners could understand
the problem/issue but not the extent of the concern. One Commissioner
illustrated his remarks with a drawing on the blackboard indicating the
need to remove the property line to eliminate the future reliance on
the easement for access. Additional comment: understand the concerns
but do not understand the legal ramifications of eliminating the
property line or not doing so; not many businesses in the city are
allowed to operate with their parking on a separate lot, the suggestion
to merge the parcels is for the future, not the present; think the
existing suggested Condition #5 is adequate.
C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with
seven of the eight conditions listed in the staff report, substituting
for Condition #5 "that the property line between APN 026-134-120 and
APN 026-134-130, Lots 1 and 2, Dore Track RSM 100/6 be deleted."
Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs
Staff noted Commission's options are: the item could be continued for
the CA's determination; action could be taken on the suggested
conditions in the staff report; or action taken on C. Mink's motion.
Considerable discussion on the motion followed: applicant has not had
sufficient time to respond to this issue, would like to hear from him
before casting a vote. Mike Coffey stated the application is for both
parcels, the site provides more than three times the required amount of
parking, the two parcels are contained in a single lease; they are
required to have five parking spaces and will provide 18; application
provides adequate access and egress for the term of the lease, they
have responded to everything they were asked to address including
treating the two parcels as one, applicant is offering to pave and
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
June 24, 1991
landscape, he will be removing an eyesore from that site, removing the
property line is outside their control, the Trust has that control.
Commission continued: can appreciate Mr. Coffey's comments, application
does address most concerns, have a problem with what is technically
off-site parking, do not understand the legal ramifications and am
uncomfortable voting for something which is that nebulous; have seen
this problem before, normally it is handled by merging the lots which
this motion proposes, do not feel able to vote in favor of merging
tonight; historically the reason to merge two lots is so that an
applicant may not sell a property and change a use which creates a
problem; believe a significant concern here is possible prescriptive
rights affected by this proposal and the exposure of the Trust if the
value of the property is affected by loss of such rights; am more
comfortable with this proposal since a Trust is involved, would support
the proposal as presented by staff.
Commissioners continued: cannot see the problem, if the corner lot gets
a different use they must come back to the city, if they want to put a
building on it they must come back to the city. Staff pointed out if
the lots were divided and this use did terminate the two lots could be
used for a permitted use without coming to the Planning Commission. A
Commissioner gave an example of a similar situation, a roller skating
rink at the present D&M site, there were extensive ingress/egress
problems and many actions by the Commission, and it was all on land
owned by the same property owner.
C. Mink stated this proposal does not have access to appropriate
supporting parking, the city does not allow others in town to do this,
but he would be willing to withdraw his motion in order to allow time
to get an opinion from the CA regarding his substitution for Condition
#5. C. Mink withdrew his motion, C. Jacobs withdrew her second.
C. Ellis moved to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled
meeting, July 8, 1991, and asked for the CA's legal opinion regarding
most if not all of the discussion this evening, seconded by C. Jacobs.
Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Galligan and Kelly
voting no, C. Graham absent.
C. Mink resubmitted his previous motion by resolution with all previous
conditions including substitution for Condition #5, seconded by C.
Jacobs. Motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis,
Galligan, Kelly voting no, C. Graham absent.
C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with
the conditions as listed in the staff report, seconded by C. Deal.
Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Jacobs and Mink
voting no, C. Graham absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
June 24, 1991
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
Regulation of Hedge Height in R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts.
CP Monroe reviewed her staff memo with proposed revisions to Chapter
25.78 Fences and Hedges. Commission discussed definition of hedge, is
a planting just inside a fence defined as a hedge or does it act as an
extension of a fence; cypress trees are put in for privacy, not with
the intent of separating the property as a fence would; fences and
hedges on corner lots, how are they defined; findings for a fence
exception; consider adding to hedge findings #2 "or view affected in
the hillside area"; do not want to regulate trees; what is compact
planting; how would regulations affect planting in easements at the
rear of houses. Staff will redraft the ordinance and bring it to
Commission for discussion.
CP reviewed City Council actions at its June 17, 1991 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry L. Deal
Secretary