Loading...
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