Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1994.03.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 28, 1994 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, March 28, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan (7:43 P.M.), Graham, Jacobs, Mink Absent: Commissioner Kelly Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Assistant Fire Chief MINUTES - The minutes of the March 14, 1994 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was adjusted to allow Item #8 to be heard as the first action item, the order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO RETAIN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USES AT 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 (ALLEN AND ANN MENICUCCI, PROPERTY OWNERS AND ALLEN MENICUCCI, APPLICANT). There were no•questions and no requests. Item set for Public Hearing April 11, 1994. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE AT 816 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (ROBERT ISOLA, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Requests: Is there a heating system in the building? :tem set for Public Hearing April 11, 1994. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 3. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 733 FARRINGDON LANE, ZONED R-1 (JIHAD CHEDID, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Requests: a letter stating the specifics for the variance, i.e., what is unusual about this lot; what information about accessory structure was disclosed at the time of the last purchase (1992). Item set for Public Hearing April ll, 1994. ITEMS FOR ACTION Chairman Deal advised all applicants that since there are 5 Commissioners present rather than the regular 7, a 4/5 vote is necessary to pass any item. He asked if any applicant wished to continue their item to a future meeting with a full commission, there being no requests, Chairman Deal proceeded with the meeting. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR A BAGEL BAKERY AT 1152-1156 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUBAREA A, (GURDIAL S. JOHAL TR, PROPERTY OWNER AND BILL HUGHSON, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/28/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. (Commissioner Galligan arrived at this time.) Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Dan Alper, one of the owners of Noah's Bagels, Berkeley, was present to answer any questions. Sam Malouf, 1426 Burlingame Avenue, encouraged the Commission to issue this permit. Larry Chassy, 3484 LaMesa Drive, San Carlos, and owner of the House of Bagels spoke in opposition to the project because of its impact on his business. Kathleen Payne, 1110 Laguna believes the Broadway area would better benefit by the business because there is no bagel shop there. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs observed the approval of this permit will be a positive influence on Burlingame Avenue and the applicant has made it clear that they will abide by the conditions, this will not increase the traffic, she then moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 10, 1994 (floor plans) and March 1, 1994 (basement plan); 2) that all deliveries to this business shall be made before 10:00 a.m.; 3) that adequate, well labeled trash receptacles shall be provided, and that an employee shall have the responsibility of scouting for trash hourly while the bakery is open and shall "scout" within a 100' radius at the end of each business day; the bakery manager shall be -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 responsible for insuring trash receptacles are emptied and trash in the area picked up before it becomes a nuisance; 4) that trash receptacles shall be placed at the front door and outside the front door at a location approved by the City Engineer; the business shall maintain and regularly empty the trash receptacles, including those on the public right-of-way at all times and failure to do so would result in review of this use permit; 5) that plans submitted to the Building Department shall meet the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo dated 2/14/94; 6) that the basement area accessible to this tenant shall not exceed 300 SF as noted in the Fire Marshal's memo dated 2/17/94 and shall only be used for storage in association with this business; 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 8) that the use shall be reviewed for conformance with these conditions in nine months (December, 1994) or upon complaint thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. It was specified, for the record, that Noah's is also a deli. 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES AT 1131 - 1141 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/28/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If recommended to Council for approval, 7 conditions were suggested. The Commission asked for clarification of to the distribution of the parking; of the 27 spaces on site, 13 are for the district and 14 are for the tenants according to the School District proposal. The number of parking spaces required for the new office area is based on square footage. There was also a question pertaining to the condition of the ramp used to access the rear parking area. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Burlingame Elementary School Superintendent Beuthel was present to answer any questions, he clarified there are 2 separate sources of funds, Capital funds available for construction and General funds available for program. Often the public combines these in their mind, however the district is not allowed to legally intermingle these funds. Three criteria have been examined in arriving at the decision to use Roosevelt, 1) space; 2) construction dollars; and 3) program. This option is the most effective of these options considered. The district has been involved in strategic planning since 1991. The projected enrollment shows steady increase in students. The district relies on the lease income to continue the current programs. They would like to move the district office to Roosevelt in 1994; and to move toward reopening Roosevelt as a district school in approximately 3 years. In Burlingame, the district office has been housed in a public -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 school since 1913. For this reason the request to have a district office at Roosevelt is in accordance with and remains consistent with the zoning ordinance and general plan. As a part of the district's presentation Lee Carney, AIA, VBN, 501 - 14th Street, Oakland, introduced a new landscape plan that he felt would explain the mitigation proposed to some of the unusual problems. If the rear parking lot is approved the ramp would be replaced with a new a concrete ramp. Speakers in support of the application were; Fred Herin, current principal at McKinley school, formerly the principal at Roosevelt school when it was closed in 1980, Lisa Rosenthal, 2008 Easton, a tenant at Roosevelt, owner of Peninsula Parent Magazine, and a school board member of the Burlingame Elementary School District, Steve Warden, 736 Acacia Drive, representing the Burlingame School District Budget Advisory Committee, a group of parents, teachers, school employees and local citizens appointed by the School Board to advise them on various aspects of the school budget and to look at methods of income and other ways of controlling expenses. The intent at the time of closure was to reopen Roosevelt when enrollment was such that it could be reopened. Use of Roosevelt school as district offices will not interfere with the return to a public school use. It would be preferable for everyone if the school could be "owner occupied". New and improved equipment would certainly be a plus for the children and neighbors in that neighborhood; the educational purpose of the Burlingame School District will not cause any disruption to the neighborhood. The Peninsula Parent Magazine will be leaving in June which will free up the space for classroom use or the business of the district. This relocation of administrative functions is the most cost effective and reasonable option available to the district, the Budget Advisory committee request that the Commission approve the District's request to relocate the District Administration Office to Roosevelt School. The following spoke in opposition: Ron Neugauer, 1170 Vancouver, resident/parent, James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver Avenue, Dan Ping, 1219 Vancouver, Wayne Parker, 1245 Armsby, Hillsborough, Robert Kane, 2112 Broadway, Harvey Bracken, 2100 Roosevelt, Peggy Kane, 2112 Broadway, Mark Dollosso , 1104 Vancouver, Peter Jampowie, 2112 Roosevelt, John DeHoney, 1120 Vancouver, Kathleen Ping, Vancouver, Oscar Newelt, 1150 Vancouver, Kathy Peto, 1160 Vancouver, Pauline Irons, 2108 Broadway, Sue Ping, 1219 Vancouver, Art Dollosso, 2116 Roosevelt. Points made by opponents were: will cause an unnecessary, harmful effect on property values; the peak hour traffic between 8:30 and 9:00 is not representative, each individual stays 3 to 4 minutes; this plan for the district offices is the same as presented before except the portable is removed and 4 parking spaces are added next to the fence; how will the kindergarten room be used, is in serious need of repair; Franklin is a better location because have separate driveway for pick up and drop off; -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 access to Roosevelt is poor, narrow street frontage, dead end on Broadway frontage, street too narrow to turn; portable at Franklin would be cheaper than proposed renovation at Roosevelt; Franklin's site is bigger and intensification does not affect residential property; the district offices have been a Franklin for 14 years and have caused no problem; will need space in Roosevelt if reopen as neighborhood school; parking proposed will take about a third of the school yard; addition of a driveway mid -block on Vancouver to access the district offices is unsafe; tenants want to expand and have done so for several years; the parking lots in the school yard will impact adjacent neighbors who will get their exhaust, noise and glare; Vancouver gets a lot of through traffic from Hillsborough and across town, this will add to it, want it back to neighborhood school so traffic will be local; with out the play yard it will not be the same quality school; concerned about need to light the parking areas for safety; some school employees will be there as early as 6 am and others after 5, so will not be an 8 to 5 use; in addition there will be vendors and other visitors to the district offices during the day; the more heard the greater the impact seems to be. Additional comments in opposition were: the rear parking area seems to be a open ticket for Olympian Day Care vans and buses; houses behind the raised area at the back of the site are far enough above that they see the tops of buses and vans parked on the site; concern vans will be an attractive nuisance for vandals; the school yard will be a place for kids looking for a place to park and party; less play field area will mean more balls in his yard; school district repaired fence between his property and school but only after first hearing; only time can show house for sale is mid-day, mid -summer; reviewed the history of the district's proposed uses of site since 1988 noting that district did not ask for city permit to let vans/buses use the tennis court; feels facility is presently being overused to make money and would like it back to neighborhood school; opposed to parking lot; for income from tenants they could rent office space on Rollins Road; concern about noise and air pollution from parking area since 20' from bedroom window about 15' below window, exhaust will rise; school yard is an echo chamber, can hear balls bounce now; no way to add a new gym to the site if the school district comes in; the school yard is used everyday by children; not want an office building in the middle of a residential neighborhood; school district proposal represent about a 20% increase in trips to the site. Final comments in opposition were: why relocate the district offices if the school is to be reopened in three years; landscaping will not make this additional use compatible with the neighborhood; the district has guidelines for the use of schools, this allows light commercial use; find a permanent location for school district offices in business area, it is hard on them to move all the time; each employee does not need private parking; private parking costs money and is not necessary; proposal does not address how the district will reduce traffic; public school would have a stronger sense of community and parents would work together; concern about -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 unsafe driving and parking habits of people who now come to school to leave off children, block street for emergency vehicles;play fields are needed for practice during little league, will loose if offices relocated not enough spaces. At the end of the testimony Superintendent Beuthel spoke again. He noted that this was a complex issue the effect of a decline in funding from the state and a need to maximize resources and space. The objective is to maximize the instructional program of the district. The district has repaired fences as soon as they were made aware of problem not mentioned until this request for offices was made; enrollment figures were discussed and targets for opening Roosevelt; selection of Roosevelt for district offices was the result of reviewing a wide variety of options; at this point in time Roosevelt is the most effective, economic and efficient option in terms of space, construction and program. If the school is reopened as a public school the district offices would remain at the Roosevelt site. A second petition in opposition was submitted. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted in their discussion that the school district has a real financial need; there is an alternative of adding space at Franklin which has a bigger site, the present uses with the district office have an impact on the integrity of the residential neighborhood; with the district offices here the impact would be reduced by to acceptable levels eliminating one major morning lessee; people are more likely to drive to school today than in 1980 so public school will have traffic impact; public school serving local people more willing to follow a prescribed pick up/drop off routine and avoid blocking driveways; it would cost a lot of money to reopen the school but it would be ideal; Franklin site council may not want portable classrooms but they are a fact of life in today's budget times, there is room for portables at Washington school which has a smaller site. C. Graham moved to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration to the City Council, the motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 5-1-1 (C. Jacobs dissenting and C. Kelly absent) roll call vote. Commissioners expressed understanding of the school's need for money, however also understands the needs of the neighborhood. It was further stated the school district office is not the problem, have had district offices on a school site historically and the offices do not represent that big an incremental increase in traffic, it is the tenants that are the major problem and burden on the neighborhood; improvements appear to have been done as cheaply as possible, the parking off Broadway does not appear to add to the project except for full time staff only; parking at the rear might create a 24 hour problem not present now; parking at rear not necessary to approve district office; play area is more important than parking at school. cm Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 C. Graham acknowledged the concerns of the local residents, more thought needs to be given to the direction the school will take, she then moved to deny the application for a Special Permit. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and failed on a 3-3-1 (Cmsrs. Ellis, Galligan and Mink dissenting, C. Kelly absent). The City Attorney informed the Commission that in the absence of any further motion the application was deemed denied. Appeal procedures were advised. The commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 11:05 P.M. and reconvened at 11:15 P.M. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AFTER SCHOOL DAY PROGRAM AT 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER AND LEN BEATIE, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/28/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. It was pointed out that some of the testimony given regarding the prior item would be relevant to this hearing and should be included by reference as part of this record. Also, the parking stalls proposed in the previous application cannot now be considered since the previous application was denied. There was clarification in the event this Special Permit Amendment is denied the original permit for this use would stand. Eight conditions were suggested. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Mr. Beatie, owner of the Olympian Day Camp, at Broadway and Vancouver was present to answer any questions. All children are picked up by 2 vans from the 4 Burlingame Elementary Schools. He has always been licensed for 44 children however there was only 1 room available from the school at the time of his original application so he was limited to 22. There are 38 children at this time. The second room became available last year. Mr. Beatie acknowledged he should have come before the Commission at that time to request this amendment. Fred Herin, principal McKinley School, spoke in support of this Day Care plan. Many children from his school participate in this program and the parents need choices, this is one of those choices. All the programs of this type are full. Harvey Bracken, 2100 Roosevelt and Robert Kane, 2112 Broadway spoke in opposition to this request. Parking has infringed on the property owners and gets out of control and asked that the earlier commentary this evening relating to this issue be incorporated into the minutes pertaining to this matter. The fact that Mr. Beatie and the school district allowed this to take place without following procedure disturbs him. The problem has escalated a little each year. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. -7- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 C. Jacobs moved to approve this application, by resolution, amending the conditions to allow 2 vans three days a week and 3 vans two days a week to park on the street during program hours (12:30-6:00) and no parking of vans or employees on site at anytime. The approved conditions are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 10, 1994, Sheet 1, Parking Lot Plan; 2) that the 1,368 SF of classrooms (Rooms #6 and #8) shall be used for after school day care from 12:30 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday throughout the regular school year (September through June) for a maximum of 44 students and a maximum of 5 employees, September - June, and no parent meetings shall be held in the evenings at this location; 3) that the students shall have access to the program except that this use shall be limited to the 44 students who are in Rooms #6 and #8; 4) that children shall be brought to the site in 2 vans three days a week and 3 vans two days a week, these vans shall be parked on the street during program hours (12:30-6:00 P.M.) and no vans or other vehicles associated with this or any other owners shall be parked on the school site at any time; 5) that any change to the number of students, the hours of operation, the area of building used, the number of months this program uses the building, the method of transporting students or the time of year the site is used, the number of vans stored on the site, or any change to the operation of this program at this site shall require an amendment to this use permit; 6) that this use permit shall be subject to review in two and seven months, June, 1994 and October, 1994, for compliance with the conditions and thereafter upon compliant; and 7) 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. Galligan and approved on a 4-2-1 (Cmsrs. Ellis and Mink dissenting and C. Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN EIGHTEEN (18) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 601 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3 (ANSEL FLORIBUNDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER AND HABITEC, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/28/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission asked the specific time work is permitted on weekends and asked for enforcement of the code. A letter of opposition was received from Mrs. Hagstrom and is entered into the record. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Jerry Yates, Habitec, San Jose was present to answer any questions. He felt the size should not be an issue since their plan conforms to all the ordinances and they have been generous about parking space, landscape and patio areas. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Paul Hagstrom, 1443 C Floribunda, asked that since access was on to Floribunda a heavily traveled street had a traffic study been done on the project. CE explained that it was not a requirement on this project. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration by resolution to the City Council, the motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Kelly absent) roll call vote. The action was then forwarded to the City Council. C. Jacobs noted that with compliance with the CE memo on this project and incorporating the facts in the staff report it will not create an unacceptable impact in the community, she then moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans date stamped March 21, 1994 Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 , L-1 and Tentative Map dated March 7, 1994; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official (February 14, 1994 memo), Park Director (February 15, 1994 memo), Fire Marshal (February 17, 1994 memo) and City Engineer (February 28, 1994 and March 15, 1994 memos) shall be met prior to the issuance of the building permit; 3) that the roof elevations shall not exceed elevation 59.00' for 95% of the roof area and shall not exceed elevation 65.00' for 5% of the roof area where the elevator tower is located; 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 the board of directors of the condominium association an owner manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of 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 for the protection of pedestrians a silent auto warning system shall be installed at access/egress to the parking area; 8) that the permanent drainage easement at the rear of the lot shall be maintained by the condominium association; and 9) that the project, including egress and access requirements, shall meet all Uniform Building codes and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. MIM Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 7. TENTATIVE MAP FOR AN EIGHTEEN (18) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 601 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3 (ANSEL FLORIBUNDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER AND HABITEC, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/28/94, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted that for the reasons cited before this tentative map will not have an impact on the area, she then moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) a lot combination map is required to be filed prior to issuance of the Building Permit. At least two (2) houses must be demolished prior to map filing. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER'S REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council actions/discussion at its March 21, 1994 regular meeting. The Commissioners were reminded of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting April 16, 1994. ADJOURNMENT MIN3.28 The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 P.M. -10- Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary