Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.10.23MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 1995 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Tuesday, October 23, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink (8:05 p.m.), Wellford and Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman and Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the October 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - It was noted that Item #3, at 2836 Hillside Drive was withdrawn and Item #8, 150 Anza Boulevard, is continued from Tuesday, October 10, 1995. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED POOL TO ALLOW 2'-6" WHERE 4'-0' IS REQUIRED AT 1152 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (JAMES AND SHAREEN BARRY, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANT). Requests: what is the structure behind this lot on El Camino at Broadway; is it appropriate to put the pool equipment enclosure and pad in the side setback. If all information is complete, item set for November 13, 1995. 2. SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR NUMBER, SQUARE FOOTAGE AND OVERALL HEIGHT AND SECONDARY FRONTAGE DETERMINATION AT 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 (RED ROOF INN, PROPERTY OWNER AND MARK E. ALBERTSON,APPLICANT). Requests: compare with sign programs of other recent hotel sign programs in the area; show comparison with current Days Inn signs and the height of the letters on these and proposed signs; color photograph of an existing comparable Red Roof Inn sign program showing day and night illumination; on table indicate signs A, B, C, etc.; 'gat would the consequence be if the "r" in the Red Roof wall sign were 3' in height, what effect would it have -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 23, 1995 .,n the height of the other letters and what effect would that have on the signage and proposed size, what is the size of the tallest letter; what would the square footage then be; what would the effect be if the "R's" in Red Roof were reduced to 3 feet - on the wall mount signs; why do they need a free standing pole sign next to their monument sign; there is a difference in elevation (height/mass) on the existing and proposed monument sign, why the difference; the elevation of the building does not show sign C or F, would like to see elevation with these signs filled in, even if fictitious name; also, would like them to commit to a font size for these signs; If all information is complete, item set for November 13, 1995. ACTION ITEMS 3. REHEARING FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR PILLAR HEIGHT AND TO ALLOW A 30' GATE IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 2836 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (ROLANDO PASQUALE, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). WITHDRAWN 4. VARIANCES FOR THREE STORIES AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (GARY SAYED, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10.23.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Ellis asked clarification about whether 8'/2" X 11" elevation in staff report was a part of the proposed project; —P explained the elevation is to show the appearance of the house with the garage located out the front. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Marty Zwick, 10 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco explained the project to the commission. The house had burned. They met with neighbors and elicited their opinions on the carport/garage/basement ideas. He felt he read the code properly, although the tower does not meet the definition of a window enclosure because it has 3 windows he feels it meets the intent. The tower could be removed if the commission preferred. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal discussed the definition of basement and when a lower story is included in measuring floor area ratio. He noted that while the proposed "basement" shown meets the definitional requirements of the UBC, it does not meet, in his opinion, the definition of basement in the zoning code since existing grade had been altered in order to bury the walls so that zoning requirements would be met. In the case of establishing FAR, zoning definitions take precedence over UBC. He felt the zoning requirements for FAR had been exceeded in this project and a variance is required. Since an FAR variance has not been noticed, he moved that the item be continued to determine the exact FAR variance and notice the additional variance request. C. Ellis seconded the motion for the purposes of discussion. Discussion: issue is hardship on property to justify any variance, this lot is oversized for the area both wider and longer; there is a slope on the site but not enough to create a 1,500 SF basement, substantial dirt must be moved to do that, could put a half story at rear within slope on lot; too much building for site. C. Deal noted that he :ls that given the discussion the project can be denied because there are insufficient findings for the 3 story variance, therefore he will withdraw his motion. The second agreed. -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 23, 1995 C. Deal then moved to deny the project for excessive height finding, as noted before, no exceptional circumstances exist on the site to justify the height exception and the structure could be designed within the development envelope. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Commission voted to approve the motion 5-1-1 (C. Jacobs dissenting and C. Mink abstaining) roll call vote. Applicant was informed of his right to an appeal before the close of the council meeting on November 6, 1995. 5. EXCEPTION FOR A 50'-0" FLAG POLE AT 1760 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 (1760 ROLLINS ROAD PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER AND SEE'S CANDIES, INC., APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10.23.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There was a discussion of the height of other very tall poles. The two cited at Radisson and Anza Airport parking predate current city regulations. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Roger Stern, 410 Allerton, So. San Francisco was present to answer questions. The other cement visible was poured for light standards. There were no other comments and the blic hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted the findings and conditions indicating this pole is consistent with flag poles and pole signs in this location and there are no public health or safety issues. He then moved approval of this sign exception application for the pole and flags with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 22, 1995 Site Plan (11" X 17") and Elevations of flag Pole (11" X 17") with two flags not to exceed 8' X 12'; 2) that the wind and seismic loads with foundation details for the flag pole shall be reviewed and approved by the building Department before a building permit is issued; and 3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF STALLS FOR A DANCE/GYMNASTICS/MUSIC ACADEMY FOR CHILDREN AT 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 (W.J. BRITTON AND CO., PROPERTY OWNER AND RICHARD AND AMANDA BLUE, APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 10.23.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Amanda Blue, 2521 Hayward Drive, was present to explain her application. She agreed it would be possible to delete the California Drive entrance to discourage drop off and 1 up on California Drive. There were no public comments in support of this application. Harold Coffee, 25 -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 23, 1995 Amber Drive, San Francisco, Rebecca Emerick, 624 Hillsborough Boulevard, Hillsborough, Fred Barron, 715 California Drive, Carl Martin, 725 San Mateo Avenue, Martin Dioli, 1210 Oak Grove, and Ari Lido, neighborhood small business owner, all spoke in opposition to the application. They voiced complaints about the fact that the new curb cut would eliminate 3 on street parking spaces to replace them with 4 on site, so a bigger parking variance was actually being requested; where would 20 cars park in the area; there is no way to guarantee that cars will park in area across street; often cars double park on San Mateo Avenue even in front of the garages for his apartments, especially people using the laundromat; parents will not leave children, they will double park and take them in; many of the small businesses in the area have received small parking variances, these accumulate and cause a problem; recently a Japanese restaurant was denied a 3 space parking variance because of the cumulative parking problem; laundromat peak usage is 9:00 a. m. to 6:00 p.m.; double parked cars on San Mateo Drive block fire and ambulance access; site too small to provide parking on site, recommend city should buy for open space or additional parking; loss of on -street parking does not count for project since does count on street parking adjacent to site as part of required parking; parking lot across street at Oak Grove and California must be public so, if installed, not guarantee available for this user. This project would create a hardship for the 11 adjacent tenants because of the parking problem now in the area with 20 in classes would have 40 come and go each hour; big impact to have 20 kids up to 8 years old an hour, every hour 5 to 7 days a week; he lives on San Mateo with 2 kids and he does not want to cross California, why will parents; best use is a parking lot; quarter of a mile away is fire station, engines use Oak Grove to get to El Camino, additional safety hazard for people crossing California at this location; have small appliance repair business nearby, customers complain now that they cannot find parking. ,)mmissioners comment: project good idea, in wrong location for parking; observations of people living in area are good evaluation of parking problem; gave a variance in 1989 for bulk merchandising where on site parking was sufficient but back up was a problem. that was okay but not feel parking mitigation (across California and Oak Grove) will work, people will not cross two legs of this busy intersection with children; people will double park on San Mateo or California or Oak Grove, cars will all come at beginning and end of class. C. Deal noted the parking problems and the proposed mitigations which simply do not work in this case, because of the traffic problems in this area and with the other reasons stated, he moved to deny this application. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUS PERMITS FOR A WOMEN'S FITNESS CENTER AT 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B-1 (DAY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER AND RANDALL DELUE, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10.23.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Randy and Amy DeLue, 817 Fairfield Road, presented their application +.he commission. He discussed the parking problem, on the noise issue he explained that double paned windows, Ce CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 23, 1995 sound panels or air conditioning are cost prohibitive; he will therefore monitor the noise and using a meter to keep instructors below the 5 dBA requirement. They asked that the facility be allowed to remain open 11:00 a. m to 2:00 p.m. even though there will not be classes, so members could use the weight room. He would also like to increase the number of direct employees from 2 to 3, 1 full time and 2 part time, plus a maximum of 5 independent contractor personal trainers and 1 independent contractor aerobics instructor on site at one time. He noted that it is unusual to have more than 2 personal trainers on site at one time. The additional part time employee is to increase the day care portion of the business. The .business changes from day to day and he would like to have the flexibility to stay current. The two off site classes have been eliminated. There was discussion regarding the need for both a male and female disabled accessible restrooms. The provision of facilities for the disabled accessible is based on a set of laws for the workers on site. Public testimony came from: Joe McDonald, Royal Athletic Club, 1718 Rollins Road; Robyn Gold, 1450 Lincoln Avenue, #20; Melinda Lehman, 300 Harvard Drive, San Mateo; Chris Masitani, 1333 Cabrillo; Robyn Perry, 1556 Cottage Grove, San Mateo; Carolyn Salcido, 2637 Martinez Drive, San Mateo; Mary Ellen Johnson, 711 Broomfield Road, Hillsborough; Joann Norris, 64 Chester Way, San Mateo; Barbara Frank, 45 McCurry Drive, Hillsborough; Cheryl Enright, 2935 Summit Drive and California Candy Company, 274 Lorton; Tina Andrini, 501 Avilla Road, San Mateo; Susan Adams, 107 Faye Drive; Helen Oswald, 113 Victoria Drive; Roslyn Ferraro, 1230 Parrott Drive, San Mateo; and Linda Spiegleman, Foster City. All spoke in support of this application: in its operation this club is an example to the other 3 in town, treats customers well and by serving females only fills a special niche; each tape used by an instructor is recorded at a different volume so now she is aware of need to be more careful to adjust as a result the noise problem has improved; like club, have become oriented to Burlingame and support other businesses in area; applicant wants maximum class size of 50 but rarely achieve this, the reality is the biggest class is 30 to 35 people; work on Burlingame Avenue, don't hear noise until at club; parking problem is not created by Donnelly Square but by additional businesses and restaurants in the area; have a fine child care facility for members; since became a member do a lot more shopping in Burlingame; want to come to the facility at her convenience so not want limits on business, in yoga class rarely more than 6 people; 900 women love this club, how can they work with you to continue its existence the way it is; club unlike many has no safety issues, is supportive and responsive, classes regulate themselves; parking problem in area recent, city needs to work with businesses and stop giving variances; city should support the small businessman; need male instructors among best; peoples lives change they need flexibility to attend when can; noise complaints between 4:00 p.m. and closing came principally from one woman; parking was a bigger problem when Il Forniao opened than it is now; applicant asked if disabled accessible bathroom issue could be settled separately. CA noted in his opinion the independent contractors were employed on the site, so the total exceeded 4 and an additional disabled accessible bathroom was necessary and the requirement of the UBC must be met. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: The issue of 2 disabled accessible bathrooms was present in the original permit and it stated at that time that no males could be on site unless additional bathroom facilities were provided. The requirement is not a new one. There are 5 male instructors employed on the site at this time. The Chief Building Official and City Attorney will resolve the issue of the additional disabled accessible bathroom not the Planning Commission. The previous action limited class size to 12 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and not at all outside that time, now applicant is asking for no classes between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and no limit, not represent a change for parking; same is true for 15 minute intervals between sessions which was limited to peak parking zes 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; City not want to promise and take away, but applicant needs to meet his promises -5- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 23, 1995 too, no bathroom if no male employees, he has male employees, no problem with people using weight room between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p. m. Two concerns; number of people in weight room when classes in session and continued parking problem evidenced by 1985, 1986 and 1992 conditions on this permit. C. Deal then moved approval of this project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the original conditional use permit (7/85) and the use permit amendment conditions (4/86 and 1/92) shall be replaced with the conditions of this special permit amendment; 2) that the mezzanine area (approximately 400 SF) shall be used only for office area related to the on-site use; 3) that an additional disabled accessible bathroom, if required by the UBC as amended by the City of Burlingame shall be provided within 60 days (December 23, 1995); 4) that the exit corridor leading to Lorton Avenue shall be lit at all times and that no items shall be stored in the exit corridor in order to meet the conditions of the Fire Prevention Officer's April 3, 1986 memo; 5). that the hours of operation shall be 5:45 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (no classes between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., club may remain open for weight `training) and 7:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday for various fitness classes (including but not limited to aerobic, stretching, toning and conditioning, yoga, dance) and for weight and cardiovascular training (such as free weights, Nautilus equipment, stair machines, exercise bicycles and treadmills) and no part of the site shall be leased out to another or similar business or provider of these or any other activity; 6) that no amplified music shall be used on the site before 6:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. daily and no activity and/or noise on the site shall raise noise level at property line by more than 5 dBA over ambient noise level (as adjusted for the time of day); 7) that this use permit shall be amended if there is any increase in the levels of activities which include: the hours listed in condition 5 above; maximum of 950 club members; a maximum of one professional aerobics instructor, five personal trainers and full time and two part time support staff for a maximum of three direct employees and three independent contract employees on site at any one time; and a maximum of 7012 SF of gross floor area; 8) that this use permit shall be amended if there shall be any services other than personal training, fitness evaluation, weight room orientation, weight loss program, child care for club members and a retail boutique for items related to the exercise use on site; 9) that there shall be no more than 49 classes per week with no required interval between classes so long as no classes are offered between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and class size shall be limited to a maximum of 35 participants; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 11) that this use permit shall be subject to review for compliance with these conditions in one year (November 1996) and/or at any time upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 (SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HOMETEL LTD., PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). (CONTINUED FROM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING). Reference staff report, 10.23.95, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department and Public Works department comments. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Chuck Rigg, representing the applicant, was present. There were no er comments and the public hearing was closed. 0 CfTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 23, 1995 C. Ellis noted the state is ready to sign, he then moved recommendation of the application to City Council for action. Motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. 9. REVIEW/APPROVAL OF 1996 SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. The 1995 schedule for Planning Commission meetings was accepted as presented. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1995. - DISCUSS DRAFT M-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS; PURPOSE STATEMENT X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. MINLUES10.23 -7- Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary