Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.03.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, March 25, 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 MINUTES - The minutes of the March 11, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1233 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: findings to support the parking variance; why does applicant need the shower and toilet in the garage; were second set of plans submitted to the Building Department, these plans show sink was converted to a shower, is this accurate. Item set for public hearing April 8, 1991. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A LIMOUSINE SERVICE AT 875 MAHLER ROAD AND 1560B GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests and comments: why will visitors come to the site, which site; permit should be made clear that only four limousines are allowed; no limousines will be parked at 875 Mahler, site is included as it is linked to the 1560 Gilbreth use; surface area limousine drivers must use at 1560 Gilbreth is in poor condition, badly broken up. Item set for public hearing April 8, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 25, 1991 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL A 10' DIAMETER SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA IN THE REAR YARD OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 3018 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/25/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP and CA explained the provisions of Chapter 18.18 of the municipal code, Radio and Television Antennas. Chm. Graham opened the public property owner, was present. taken from the backyard of a questions, he stated the anten on both sides of the property the canyon is such that goin difficult, reception is from E the dish be painted white to n will be quite visible against foliage blocking view of the s hearing. Ross Schendel, applicant and He presented photographs of the site house on Arguello Drive. Responding to as is at this height for reception, trees are approximately 150' high and slope of g further down reception would be more past and west. A Commissioner suggested atch the house, proposed black wire mesh the white wall of the garage, there is no fish from the north. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan found, after reviewing the proposal and site, there are only two places the antenna could be placed, close to the house or further downhill; if placed further downhill it would be more visible to the neighbors at the side, viewed from Arguello the dish is far away, it will be visible but not as obtrusive as to the next door neighbors; he had no problem with color and found the proposed location is the best considering impact on all neighbors; given the reception direction the proposed location is appropriate; the use is consistent with the general plan and will be compatible with uses on neighboring properties. C. Galligan 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 February 12, 1991 with a maximum height from adjacent grade of 151; (2) that the antenna and its supporting structure shall be painted with nonreflective paints a color to match the color of the garage wall and the nonreflective coating shall be maintained by the property owner; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 25, 1991 4. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 6'-0" TALL FENCE IN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD AT 950 NEWHALL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/25/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, letter received today (March 25, 1991) from applicant's landscape architect with comments from the City Engineer (3/25/91) and Director of Parks (3/25/91); study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission and staff discussed grade change on this lot, measurement of fences and this fence in particular; no planting will be allowed on the guardrail, it is a safety rail and motorists need to see through it. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Michael Price, attorney representing the property owners, Dr. and Mrs. Richard Florio, presented three letters in support from the following neighbors: Anne H. Hinckle, 1616 Sanchez Avenue; Mary E. O'Leary, 1700 Sanchez Avenue; Denis Metaxas, 1704 Sanchez Avenue. Mr. Price had not seen the March 25, 1991 memos from the CE and Parks Director but indicated applicants would agree to the conditions. Richard Varni, 1617 Sanchez Avenue spoke in support: the Florios need privacy for their outdoor space, he would not object to a fence height of 61. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this lot was created by an approved subdivision, its configuration caused by retaining the trees, the house is a nice addition to the neighborhood, neighbors. are in support of the application, the side yard is effectively the useable back yard area and they need privacy, the fence will not be damaging to neighboring properties. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the fence exception by resolution with the suggested conditions. Staff suggested a fourth condition, that the guardrail shall be retained with no planting on it. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: cannot support this application, Commission allowed the lot but did not create the house, the house is too big for the lot, the property owners created their own hardship and knew what they were getting into when they purchased the house. Possibility of reducing the fence to 5' was discussed, staff advised a 6' fence is required for a swimming pool enclosure. Seconder of the motion requested a fifth condition addressing the need for an encroachment permit from the City Council; this was accepted by maker of the motion. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 7, 1991 Sheet One; and the fence location and plant materials and plant heights shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memos of February 14, 1991, March 18, 1991 and March 25, 1991 and the Director of Parks' memos of February 15, 1991 and March 25, 1991 shall be met; (3) that the project shall meet all Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 25, 1991 Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; (4) that the guardrail shall be retained and no vegetation shall be planted on or under it; and (5) that the applicant shall receive an encroachment permit from the City Council. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 1/19/88 SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT THE HYATT REGENCY HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 3/25/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Shirley Simpson -Johnson, American Neon, representing HTKG Development, property owner, was present. Her comment: the new "Knuckles" sign is needed to attract attention to the bar's existing outside entrance, there are canopies all across the building with the exception of this location, the new canopy will complete the symmetry of the building and let the public know the bar can be entered from the outside; there will be strip lights at the bottom, they are stationary, not flashing. A Commissioner did not like the steel door at the entrance to "Knuckles"; Ms. Simpson -Johnson commented the canopy and soft lighting will make the entrance more attractive. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved for approval of the sign exception with the conditions as suggested by staff including an amended condition which states the size (18 SF) of the canopy sign. Conditions follow: (1) that the master signage program shall be amended to include the project, an 18 SF canopy sign, which shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 22, 1991 Sheet One sign details and December 11, 1990 Sheet Two Plot Plan; and (2) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT 1,031 SF OF WAREHOUSE TO RETAIL SALES AT 1461 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. UNIT #1, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/25/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff explained that retail sales are a conditional use requiring a special permit in the M-1 district. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 25, 1991 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Stelvio Storace, applicant, was present. He stated retail sales would start at 10:00 A.M., he would like to have large truck deliveries made between 7:00 and 10:00 A.M., his retail business might be characterized as a miniature Price Club, everything is discounted, striping for the parking will be changed as present parking would be nonconforming. Nicholas Crisafi, Peninsula Properties, property owner, spoke in favor. He stated the applicant is an Italian wholesaler selling primarily Italian food products, when Mr. Storace moved in he planned only wholesale but then wanted to try a small cash and carry business; when it was found they needed a separate section for retail the architect redesigned the interior and found some of the parking stalls did not meet backup area and dimension requirements; they will restripe the parking to conform to code requirements. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain and commented he was involved with this building before the special permit application was made, when the use changed to include retail he noted the parking was not conforming and changed the parking design. Commission discussion/comment: this is not the first application for a retail use in the M-1 area, have no problem with wholesale but do have a problem with retail uses in this district and a concern about parking, it will set a precedent, the business could grow, this is an issue which should be discussed at a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, cannot support the retail portion of this business. Further comment: about 14 years ago there was considerable discussion about allowing Repo Depo retail sales in the M-1 zone, this was allowed but it seemed Council was taking a hard look at the issue, since then it seems Council direction has been no retail in M-1; am concerned about location of the proposed retail business, the code states the purpose of M-1 is for product manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, a retail business could become very successful and the retail portion be the major part of the business; there are existing retail uses in the M-1 district, delis, etc. which are retail but tend to be incidental to the main uses in the building, retail becoming the primary use could become a major problem, they will have signage; if on a side street with lots of available parking it might be all right but not on Bayshore Highway with poor access. With the statement that is what City Council did 14 years ago what we want to do today and how can we presume what the present Council wants, C. Kelly moved for approval of the special permit to allow retail sales by resolution with the conditions as suggested in the staff report. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Jacobs moved to deny the special permit for the reasons stated in discussion. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 25, 1991 Comment on the motion: do not think this issue will end here, it should go to City Council to allow the new Council to give direction to the Planning Commission, would like the record to reflect if this application is denied and subsequently there is a change in direction from Council that the applicant could come back and Commission will look at the merits of the proposal a second time; it might be a good subject for the April 27 joint Council/Commission meeting. Motion to deny the special permit was approved on a 5-1-1 roll call vote, C. Kelly voting no, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE AT 1742 ROLLINS ROAD AND AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESS AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/25/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, negative declaration prepared for Phase I of the project, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Eleven conditions for the 1742 Rollins site and two conditions for the 1730 Rollins site were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE commented on the drainage area and flooding, maintenance of the culvert, he stated paving the parking area will not cause any change to the natural drainage, water flows toward the city pump station. Commission and staff discussed how number of members for an athletic club is regulated. A Commissioner requested that Planning Commission and City Council discuss parking requirements for athletic clubs. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Arthur Michael, Sr., applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: regarding flooding of the drainage easement, his property is approximately 2' below the highest water level, the railroad track is 4' higher, he has been at this location for 10 years and never seen 4' of water accumulate; when culverted there will be grates to pick up any water runoff from the parking lot; membership in the athletic club is roughly 2,800 to 3,000 memberships, 60% family memberships, 40% single; 5:00 to 7:30 P.M. is the busiest time as it is for other athletic clubs in the area, the Fire Department makes an inspection once a month. A Commissioner told of a call received from one of the current members who was very concerned about any increase in parking, the supplemental parking lot might encourage increased membership and create further parking problems, this member stated she now has to wait 15 minutes -for use of exercise machines and has to park three blocks away. Mr. Michael replied it is not their intention to overuse the building, such a member would resign in time, all athletic clubs in the city have the same parking problem at peak hour (5:00-7:00 P.M.), 90% of complaints they receive are lack of parking, their policy is that staff will escort to their cars anyone who asks, the new parking lot will be well Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 25, 1991 lit, they could require that staff park there. Applicant stated some people are parking in the back -now, the proposed parking lot will be east of that area; they are proposing this supplemental parking to take the cars off the street, people feel it is not safe to walk down the street, some have to park two to three. blocks away; they have also had complaints about people parking in driveways or lots of other businesses during business hours. If this request is approved applicant believed there would be no more than 10 cars from Prime Time parking on the street at one time. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved for approval of the negative declaration by resolution, finding on the basis of the initial study, mitigations proposed and comments received there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved unanimously on voice vote. C. Mink found there are exceptional circumstances, this is a very intense use in the area with inadequate parking, the proposal will relieve the parking situation in the area significantly, the project providing more parking while maintaining and improving the drainage in the area is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the applicant and for other property owners in the vicinity, it will not be injurious to other property owners, the aesthetics will remain the same since the parking lot will not be visible from the street. C. Mink moved for approval of the landscape variance at 1742 Rollins Road by resolution with the following conditions: 1. that the drainage improvements installed and the parking lot improvements including lighting shall be made in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 28, 1991 and noted as Phase I except the drainage improvements shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer based on submittal of more detailed plans and the area shall be posted warning users that the parking lot is subject to periodic flooding, removal of cars during storm periods and any possible flood damage to cars or the area shall be the responsibility of the property owner; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of March 11, 1991 shall be met and the installation of the drainage and parking improvements shall be conditioned on receiving an encroachment permit from the City Council; 3. that the proposed paved 35,840 SF parking area cannot be used for any expansion of permitted or conditional uses on any adjacent parcel of land or for required parking for any use on any adjacent property; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 March 25, 1991 4. that work shall occur only between May and September, areas subject to grading shall be sprinklered continuously sufficient to control dust during construction using reclaimed water; stockpiled debris, construction materials and soil and trucks hauling materials shall be covered and their wheels washed before exiting onto a public street; and the driveway and street shall be swept of any debris at regular intervals as required by the city; 5. that the drainage plan submitted and approved by the city shall be designed to accept worst case flood conditions as determined by the City Engineer so that the parking lot and new drainage channel will not impede the flow of storm water to the pump station; 6. that the drainage plan shall include a system approved by the City Engineer for collection and filtration of hydrocarbons and petroleum products in the storm water runoff from the parking lot, this system shall be placed in front of any pumps used to pump water into the storm collection system; 7. that the property owner shall regularly clean, on a schedule established and approved by the city, and maintain all relocated or presently installed storm culverts and ditches; 8. that all grading, paving and other construction shall be placed during the hours set by the Uniform Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9. that all lighting of the lot shall be provided at intensities required for safety of people and property and shall be installed so light is focused on the site and does not extend onto adjacent properties; 10. that the access driveway to the pump station and the supplemental parking across the property at 1730 Rollins Road be available at all times and that the insurance that the access shall be unobstructed by parked cars or other vehicles or materials shall be the responsibility of the property owner; and 11. that this use permit shall be reviewed for conformance with the conditions in one year (April, 1992) or upon complaint and shall apply only to Phase I as noted on the plans date stamped February 28, 1991. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved unanimously on voice vote. C. Mink moved by resolution for approval of the special permit for a parking lot at 1742 Rollins Road and amendment of the special permit for access to the lot at 1742 Rollins Road across 1730 Rollins Road, and that this action shall address only Phase I of the proposed project, for the reasons stated earlier including by reference the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 March 25, 1991 staff report (3/25/91, Item #7) and with a further finding that the proposal meets all requirements of the city, with the same conditions listed above for the landscape variance at 1742 Rollins Road and the following conditions for 1730 Rollins Road: 1. that the 10' fire lane and the additional 12' to 14' driveway access to the city pump station and on-site parking along the north property line shall be kept clear of all obstructions including vehicles and materials in order to provide access only to the supplemental parking area on the separate site improved for parking as shown on the plans date stamped February 28, 1991 at 1742 Rollins Road, the city pump station and the required parking located on the site at 1730 Rollins Road; and 2. that the access drive may only be used for vehicles associated with the athletic activities undertaken by members of Prime Time Athletic Club. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: this is a good use for this property, it is admirable the applicant wants to get parking off the surrounding streets; concern about intensification of use in the future, applicant should be aware intensification is not just physical changes but an increase in membership; ensure conditions note this is only Phase I of the project and an encroachment permit is required from City Council. Motion was approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its March 18, 1991 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary