Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1994.06.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 13, 1994 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairperson Galligan on Monday, June'13, 1994 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Jacobs, Key, and Mink Absent: Commissioners Ellis and Kelly Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 23, 1994 meeting were unanimously approved. Chairman Galligan told all applicants for action items that the rules of procedure for the commission require a minimum of 4 affirmative votes to pass a motion, there are only 5 members seated tonight. If an applicant would prefer to be heard by a full commission, each applicant may request a continuance. There were no such requests. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR Gregory Tancer, 1512 Highway Road presented a letter regarding 1501 E1 Camino Real to the commission for the record, in the event he could not stay until that item was presented tonight. STUDY ITEMS 1. VARIANCES TO FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO AT 2022 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (JERRY AND EILEEN CEGLIA, PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAMARA HARMON, APPLICANT). Requests: Is the foundation engineered to hold a second story; what proportion of interior walls must be modified, are we really building a new house; show the calculation for the FAR; what are: the justifications for the FAR exception. Item set for Public Hearing June 27, 1994. 2. FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 211 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 (CARL KUHN TR, PROPERTY OWNER AND MICHAEL NILMEYER REPRESENTING MR. AND MRS. ROBERT TOWLE, APPLICANT. Requests: There were no questions. Chairman Galligan asked CA Coleman for a determination regarding his participation since he lives 4 houses away from the subject property. Item set for Public Hearing June 27, 1994. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AIR/OCEAN FREIGHT FORWARDING BUSINESS AT 50 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED M-1 (ROBERT F. EDWARDS TR„ PROPERTY OWNER AND NEW JAS INTERNATIONAL INC.. APPLICANT). Requests: What is being stored and how long is it stored; what will the times be for deliveries, will there be any deliveries outside of the business hours noted; where do they park the 2 delivery vehicles, right side/black top; do they use required parking day and night. Item set for Public Hearing June 27, 1994. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR EXISTING GARAGE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED CARPORT AT 1421 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (JOHN Y. CELIKKANAT. PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. G Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. John Celikkan1t, 1421 California Drive, was present to answer questions. The commission asked if the applicant realized that this application provides 37.2% lot coverage where 40% is the total allowed in Burlingame, future additions to the house might be limited because of the large accessory structure. The applicant confirmed he does not plan to add on to the house later. Retroactive permits would be required for the change; to the garage. The Celikkant's purchased the property in 1979. An 1989 aerial does not show the 8' X 8' portion of the building. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted that there are no exceptional. or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this property and the granting of the application would be detrimental to the vicinity and have an adverse effect on the neighbors, based on the reasons stated and the information supplied in the packet she moved to deny these special permits and side setback variance applications. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and upheld on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. In a ensuing action C. Deal moved that the applicant be required to submit plans showing the corrections to the accessory structure returning it to usable covered parking with storage and apply to the building department within 30 days of action on this project. That retroactive building permits shall be obtained for all work retained and done without permits and all penalty fees paid. It was further moved that the drain be reduced to conform with the minimum allowed by the UBC. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 5--0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 5. SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONVERT EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO A RECREATION ROOM WITH A HALF BATH AND WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE AT 301 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (GREG AND JENNIFER COHN, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Ken Iberra, 600 El Camino Real, San Bruno, the applicant's architect was present to answer any questions. He noted the applicant is willing to remove the shower. Angelo DelaCasa addressed the commission and asked that the rules be the same for all. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to approve this application for special permits, by resolution, in accordance with the staff report and with the conditions in the 1994 and conditions 2, 3 and 4 of the May 2, 1989 action; 1) that the project be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 11, 1994 Sheet A.1, General Site Plan and Floor Plan, with the windows adjacent to the side property line inset 31- 2" and the shower stall removed with the plumbing for the shower removed from the wall; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 13, 1989 memo, the City Engineer's March 13, 1989 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors's March 14, 1989 memo shall be met; 3) that retroactive building permits shall be obtained for all work done without permits and all penalty fees paid; 4) that the structure shall be used as a recreation room/study and art studio/dark room only, and shall never be used for living purposes; 5) that the conditions of.' the Chief Building Official's memo dated May 16, 1994, shall be met; and: 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO EXTEND A DECK AT 1551 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (CHARLES AND SHARON BONA, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Charles Bona, 1551 Bernal Avenue was present and asked that this application be granted in order that he might have direct access to his back yard. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 5. SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONVERT EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO A RECREATION ROOM WITH A HA BATH AND WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE AT 301 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (GREG AND JENNIFER COHN, Reference staff report, 6/13194, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteia, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three co ditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Ken Iberra, 600 El Camino Real, San Bruno, the applicant's a chitect was present to answer any questions. He noted the applicant is willing to remove the shower. Angelo Delacasa addressed the commission and asked that the rules be the same -for all. There were no comments and the public hearing waA closed. C. Jacobs moved to approve this application fo special permits, by resolution, in accordance with the staff report a d with the conditions in the 1994 and conditions 2, 3 and 4 of the May 2, 1.989 action; 1) that the project be built as shown on the plans sub itt:ed to the Planning Department and date stamped May 11, 1994 Sheet A.1, General Site Plan and Floor Plan, with the windows adjacent to the side roperty line inset 31- 2" and the shower stall removed with the plumbin for the shower removed from the wall; 2 ) that the conditions of the F re Marshal's March 13, 1989 memo, the City Engineer's March 13, 1989 me o and the Chief Building Inspectors's March 14, 1989 memo shall be m t; 3) that retroactive building permits shall be obtained for all work done without permits and all penalty fees paid; 4) that the structu a shall be used as a recreation room/study and art studio/dark room only and shall never be used for living purposes; 5) that the conditi ns of the Chief Building Official's memo dated May 16; 1994, shall be me ; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform uilding and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. 1 Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on�.a 5-0-2 (Crsj. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. / 6. LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO EXTEND A DECK AT 1551 BERNAL Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Mo the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comme meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for c Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Charles Bona Avenue was present and asked that this application be gri that he might have direct access to his back yard. There comments and the public hearing was closed. -3- , ZONED 'roe discussed ts, and study nsideration. 1551 Bernal nted in order were no other Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 C. Jacobs noted the topography of this property creates an exceptional circumstance and will not have a negative impact, she then moved to approve this variance application, with the following amended conditions; 1) that the proposed deck shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 27, 1994; 2) that a building permit be issued for the deck; and 3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City, including design loads and the height and spacing of guardrails. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 5-•0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE STORY, EIGHTEEN (18) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1209-1211 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4 (TIMOTHY AND JOSEPHINE BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNERS AND N.N. GABBAY, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Mr. Brosnan, applicant and Neil Gabbay, architect were present. An explanation was given regarding open space and the width of the walkway which is the passageway for the handicapped unit. William Turnley, 1201 Bayswater Avenue and Jasson Durham, 41 Lorton Avenue expressed concerns regarding light blockage, parking and traffic. Mr. Brosnan stated this is all done within code and eventually the single family dwellings will be replaced with multiple dwellings. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink noted this is a good project and meets all the requirements of the city and moved to approve this negative declaration, based on the initial study summary submitted by staff and the condominium permit application, 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 May 16, 1994 Sheet Al, A3, A4, and A5; and May 26, 1994, Sheet A2; and May 9, 1994 Tentative Parcel Map; and May 9, 1994 Sheet PL -1 Landscape Plan; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshals' May 10, 1994 memo, Parks Directors' May 10, 1994 memo, and the City Engineers' May 10, 1994 memo shall be met; 3) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided for access to the designated guest parking in the garage and that a total of 5 guest parking stalls shall be designated and marked on the final map and plans, and not assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; 4) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 5) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of director: of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 6) that the parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners and their guests, and no portion of the parking area and aisles shall be converted to any other use than parking or used for any support activity such as storage units, utilities or other non - parking uses; 7) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heater shall be shown in a legal compartment outside of the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; and 8) that the project including egress and access requirements, shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 5-•0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A NEW THREE STORY, EIGHTEEN (1.8) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1209-1211 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4 (TIMOTHY AND JOSEPHINE BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNERS AND N.N. GABBAY, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning.Department comments, and study meeting questions. One structure should be demolished prior to map filing so there is only one structure on the lot. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend approval application, giving reference to CE consideration at their next meeting. There were no comments and the of this tentative parcel map comments, to City Council for Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT AND NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT FOR A RETAIL COFFEE STORE AT 1309 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (GURDIAL JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER AND LOUISE SELIN, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Louise Selini, representing Peet's Coffee & Tea, discussed the corporations concern for litter control, appearance and maintenance of their sites. Gary Cohn, Bruin -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Realty, commented on the seismic work and said it is 130% complete at this time and will be finished about 2 weeks before Peet's begins its tenant improvements.. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that this use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and will be used in a manner compatible with the character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity, he then moved to approve.this special permit and application for a take-out food establishment, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be designated a food establishment and shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped, May 5, 1994 Site Plan and Floor Plan; 2) that Peet's Coffee and Tea shall be open 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Saturdays and 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sundays with a maximum of 2 full-time employees at any one time and 5 part-time during the week and 5 part-time employees on the weekends; 3) that Peet's Coffee and Tea shall provide and maintain trash receptacles at the front and rear entrances to the building and any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 4) that a clear and accessible pathway shall be maintained to the required disabled accessible, male and female restrooms; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at 9:35 P.M. 10. SPECIALS PERMIT FOR DRAPERY SHOP AND DRY CLEANERS AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AT 3.501 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 (CHEVRON, U.S.A., PROPERTY OWNER .AND JACK MATTHEWS, APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. A letter from a neighbor, submitted after the packet was prepared, was read into the record. CP Monroe explained that this application is not for a dry cleaning plant but a use permit for a dry cleaning agency, the actual cleaning of the clothes will be done in another town.. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Bob Vasquez, consultant for the applicant, and Jack Matthews, architect on the project, addressed the commission. It was noted that the design features match the shopping center. In response to the trip generation questions the applicants felt the maximum number of customers each day would be 4 to 5 at any one time, this was estimated by their receipts at another store. The majority of appointments would be in the customers homes. Betty Daggett, 1149 Cambridge Road, Darin Schofield, 1152 Oxford Road, Sandy Towle, 2200 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Hillside, and Patricia Gray, 1616 Adeline, all spoke: in opposition to this application and expressed concern for the cleaning business already present in this strip center. They also expressed concern for the impact on traffic and problems with the bus stop at that corner and the children en route from school. Gregory Tancer, 1512 Highway Road repeated the viewpoint stated in his letter that was presented to the commission earlier in the evening. Ms. Terrell, owner of the Adeline Center expressed her concern that this would be too close to the already present dry cleaner and the problems with the monitoring well, she had been advised not to buy the parcel until it is cleaned up. She presented a petition to the commission containing 97 signatures all in opposition to the application. Ms. Terrell added that the cleaner currently located in the center has an average of 35 to 45 customers on Saturdays, weekday traffic consists of about 25 people. There was speculation that any business could go into the building when it is complete. CA Coleman clarified every business has to get a special permit approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Vasquez and Mr. Matthews responded to the comments stating they would not object to additional conditions adding a bus bench and a refuse box that they would maintain. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs was unable to find any exceptional circumstances applicable to this request, the traffic generation/ customer figures were not realistic, the traffic impact would be too great, the visibility is high and it does not fit in a residential neighborhood. The granting of this application would not be beneficial to the vicinity, she then moved to deny this special permit and parking variance application. In comment on the motion the earlier rezoning was discussed. It was noted that it was rezonedL with conditions in an effort to develop this property in a reasonable way in accordance with adjacent residential uses and the zoning code. This use is consistent with the zoning code of the City of Burlingame, however, at this time it is felt there is a need for development to adhere to the 20' setback requirement. on E1 Camino. Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 4-1-2 (C. Mink dissenting and Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (BOREL/POPLAR DEVELOPMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER AND PAUL GUMBINGER, APPLICANT). A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED C-1. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL, SHOPPING AND SERVICE TO MULTIPLE.FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. C. REZONING OF 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE FROM C--1 COMMERCIAL TO R-3 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. -7- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 D. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED C-1. Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, 60 E. Third Avenue, San Mateo, applicant, addressed the commission. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved to recommend approval to City Council of these applications; negative declaration based on the information in the staff report and the initial study; the general plan amendment to medium high density residential based on supporting documentation in the staff report; and the rezoning as the use is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and general plan. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 5-•0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. A subsequent motion was made by C. Mink recommending approval of the condominium permit application based on information received from the applicant and compliance with the requirements for residential condominium development, 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 March 23, 1994, Sheets SD1 and SD2 and Tentative Map dated April 15, 1994; 2) that the conditions set forth in the City Engineer's memo dated April 19, 1994, the Fire Marshal's memo dated March 28, 1994, the Park Director's memo dated April 14, 1994 shall be met; 3) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 4) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner/purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all warranties and guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 5) that the project shall meet:: all federal access standards, all other requirements of the Burlingame Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Codes and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) that the parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners and their guests, and no portion of the parking area and aisles shall be converted to any other use than parking or used for any support activity such as storage units, utilities or other non - parking uses; and 7) that for the protection of pedestrians a silent auto warning system shall be installed at the access/egress to the parking area at a location approved by the City Engineer. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. Due to public noticing requirements the City Council Public Hearing on this project will be held July 5, 1994. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY -COMMERCIAL AREA (BOREL/POPLAR DEVELOPMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER AND PAUL GUMBINGER, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CIE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend approval of this tentative parcel map application to City Council, by resolution, for consideration at their next meeting. Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) voice vote. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AT 1313 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 (MACY MAK, PROPERTY OWNER AND TUNG NGUYEN, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Sam Hayoti, 681 Thirteenth Street, San Mateo, asked that the commission consider wholesale as well as retail as wholesale would create less traffic. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs, based on the testimony and the information supplied in the packet, moved to approve this special permit for retail sales application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the improvements shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 9, 1994 and corrected to show only one roll -up door at the rear of this tenant space; 2) that the business shall be open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, shall have a maximum of ten employees and a maximum of 15 vehicles in repair on-site at any time; 3) that at least two of the five assigned parking stalls at the front of the building be reserved for arriving customers or visitors only and shall not be used to store vehicles in repair or waiting to be repaired; 4) that, within 30 days of action on this application, the requirements of the Fire Marshal's memo dated April 24, 1994 shall be met by changing the swing on the rear emergency exit door so that it opens to the outside of the building; also, the applicant shall provide information to the Building and Fire Departments about the rating of the door between the two tenant spaces; 5) that the project shall meet all Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 requirements of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amendment by the City; and 6) that this use shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in six months (December, 1994) and upon complaint thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 5-0-2 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 14. AMENDMENT TO PARKING VARIANCE TO ADD RESTAURANTS ON THE FIRST FLOOR AT 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (MAURICE HACK, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 6/13/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Doug Denny, real estate agent representing Mr. Hack, discussed the hardships in renting the building with the current conditions. Restaurants want to be. tenants. In order to assist in the financing of the retrofit it will be: necessary to lease those other portions of the building. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. The commission discussed the agreement already in place, wherein the owner was allowed the 43 space variance and he agreed that there would be no food establishments on site. C. Mink moved, based on the information received in the packet and from the applicant, approval of this application to amend the parking variance and add restaurants on the first floor. The application complies with the requirements in Subarea A, since there is no requirement for parking for first floor restaurants and he must comply with the URM ordinance, 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 May 4, 1994, Sheet A.2 First Floor portion of the plans only, Sheet A.3 Elevations, Sheet A.4 Sections and Details; and May 6, 1992 Sheet A1.6 Site Plan, Sheet A2.0 Basement Plan, Sheet A2.2 Second Floor Plan, Sheet A2.3 Third floor Plan, Sheet A2.4 Fourth Floor Plan; 2) that the maximum gross floor areas per floor shall be 7,700 GSF basement, 7,700 GSF first floor (including two food establishments each 2,572 SF), 4,821 GSF mezzanine/ second floor, 7,700 GSF third floor, 7,700 GSF fourth floor; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshals" May 16, 1994 memo with attached October 26, 1983 letter from Ed Williams to Steve Parker shall be met; 4 ) that the uses by floor shall be basement storage related to the uses in the building not leased to a separate tenant; first floor retail sales and service including 2 food establishments each 2,572 SF; second , third and fourth floors office uses as permitted or conditioned by the zoning, with no health services allowed; 5) that the separate lot at the rear shall be retained for parking, shall provide 30 parking spaces available to the tenants of this building and their customers/clients and shall not be leased separately for a fee to any other business, use or activity including valet parking without amendment to this use permit; 6) that eight spaces in the at -grade parking at the -10- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 rear of the building shall be marked "two hour parking for customer use only" and this use shall be enforced by the property owner; and 7) that this structure shall include compliance with all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame and the requirements for seismic upgrade. The history of this property is an issue since the property owner came in previously and asked for a number of variances so that a retrofit could be done to the building. Part of the justification for reopening areas in the building that had been closed for a long period of time, without providing any parking was the desire to retain the structure and do seismic retrofit for safety. Part of the previous agreement was that, in addition., to getting usable space in the structure itself, the property owner offered to reduce parking impact by eliminating the restaurant uses on 'the first floor. It is understood that parking requirements for first floor uses are not calculated by staff. This is a retrofit of the entire building and the parking variance was for the entire building. The trade off to open up areas that had been closed down for a long period of time was that the intense use of the restaurant would be terminated on the first floor and replaced with a retail use. The matter was previously denied by the Planning Commission on a vote of 4-1-2 and subsequently appealed to the City Council where it was felt that the variance for the additional spaces was warranted. It is not felt that enough of a good faith effort has been made to fill the current space and no mitigation is offered. Motion was seconded by C. Key and failed on a 2-3-2 (Cmsrs. Jacobs, Key and Galligan dissenting and Crs. Ellis and Kelly absent) roll call vote. The application is therefore denied. Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council regular meeting's of June 6, 1994, and - Floor Area Ration Determination: measurement of area over 12'-0" within a structure. Commission determined requirement to code was clear and area over 12'-0" within walls/ceiling should be counted in FAR calculation. The proposed project should be brought forward for a variance. The fact that the envelope of the proposed structure does not exceed the code allowed development envelope on the site should be noted. -11- Burlingame Planning commission Minutes MIN6.13 June 13, 1994 The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 A.M. in honor of Lindsay Galligan's birthday. -12- Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary