Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.09.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, September 11, 1995 by Chairman Jacobs. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Chairman Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner; Margaret Monroe, City Attorney; Jerry Coleman, City Engineer; Frank Erbacher, Assistant Fire Chief; Bill Reilly MINUTES - Review of the August 14, 1995 Planning Commission meeting minutes was deferred to the September 26, 1995 meeting. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION AND FULL BATH IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 400 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (TERRY EARLYWINE, PROPERTY OWNER AND TERRY EARLYWINE AND DON SNIDER, APPLICANTS). Requests: why would a graphic artist have need for a full bathroom in his office; should "re -granted" read "be granted"; relocating the windows would eliminate a special permit and light could still be provided; 5' wall surrounding the site does not seem to be in character with neighborhood; Item set for September 26, 1995. 2. VARIANCE FOR EGRESS FROM SITE IN A NON -FORWARD DIRECTION AT 15 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4 (ALEX NOVELL, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Requests: why is trim different on rear unit (no wood trim); carport permit date; is fiberglass porch legal, will it be retained; responses to variance findings do not address reasons which Planning Commission can use, need further information; unclear is applicant inferring that this is a nonconforming extra unit; timeframe on when and how space was converted; when was property purchased and what -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 information was given when property was purchased; provide copy of old accessor's report; explain what is legal on site under zoning, square footage, number of units; show width of driveway; open area used for back up for existing parking; garbage/debris needs to be removed in driveway and other areas; plywood in driveway, what is problem, how can it be solved; in same block there are other apartments which solve the problem of 4 units on a lot better, why is one of these approaches not followed; if all questions can be answered the item will be set for September 26, 1995. 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 (SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HOMETEL LTD., PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Requests: language change only; Item set for September 26, 1995. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD GARAGE DEPTH AT 1432 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (MARK AND MAUREEN GRANDCOLAS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND MICHAEL HAIGLER. APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 9.11.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Michael Haigler, 3 Seymour, San Francisco, representing the applicant, asked for approval they would like to be able to proceed before the rain since the roof will be removed to do this work. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted the issue is 6 inches; there is a severe drop in the driveway and he noted it would not be reasonable to put the burden on the property owner to correct this problem that was designed into the original house; he then moved approval this 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 August 3, 1995, Sheets A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4; 2) that"there shall never be a reduction in the existing interior dimensions of the garage (10'-6" X 17'-6"0); 3) that the conditions of the Senior Building Inspector's memo dated August 7, 1995 shall be met prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 4) 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 approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TEN UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1245 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-34 (CON AND ELIZABETH BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNERS AND N N GABBAY, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 9.11.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Seven mitigations to be added to the -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 negative declaration were suggested for consideration. Staff clarified that for a negative declaration the mitigations address reduction to acceptable levels of any adverse impacts. She noted if this is approved as a 10 unit apartment complex, it can't be converted to a condominium project because of current city ordinances. A letter, in opposition and noting the parking problems in the area, from S. Chin, was read into the record. Commission commented if the municipal law were changed, by Council, this property could then be converted to condominiums if they met the requirements. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. N. Gabbay, architect representing the property owner answered questions. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal is working with the property owner on another project and will abstain from a vote on this application. C. Ellis commented this project is in conformance with the general plan; it is consistent with the densities of the area; is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and will not cause any adverse impacts on the general area. He further complimented the applicant on adding rental units in the area. He moved approval of this negative declaration, by resolution, with the mitigations: Commenting on the motion the commissioners noted that in the past when a building is designed at the maximum 35' height limit we have required a floor by floor survey during construction to insure the height is met, commission suggested amending the mitigations to include this requirement. Maker and second agreed and mitigation number 7 was added. It was also noted that the mitigation addressing future conversion was unnecessary since current city law prohibits this and the project as designed does not meet the current condominium criteria. It was suggested the mitigation addressing conversion be dropped. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. The approved mitigations are as follows: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 24, 1995 Sheet A.1, A.2, A.3, and AA and Site Survey date stamped August 4, 1995 Sheet 879-95 by MacLeon Associates; 2. that the conditions of the fire Marshal's August 14, 1995 memo, and the Parks Director's August 15, 1995 memo; 3. that the parking garage and lot shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the apartment developer to provide parking (15 stalls total) at no additional fee, solely for the tenants and their guests and no parking stalls shall be used by any other vehicles than the tenants on site and their guests; 4. 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 nonparking uses; -3- Burlirg,ame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 5. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters 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; 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the city of Burlingame; and 7. that during construction and before inspection of each floor, including any below grade slabs, a survey shall be done to establish the elevation of the floor and determine that the finished height of the building shall not exceed 35'; the City Engineer must accept each survey before the building department shall inspect the work. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICE USE AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD #206, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 (TERRY HORN AND FAMILY, PROPERTY OWNERS AND DIANA CHAMBER -JOHNSON. APPLICANTI. Reference staff report 9.11.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. A letter in opposition from A. Horn was read into the record. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Terry Horn, 409 Primrose, representing the applicant asked the commission to amend condition #2 to allow the applicant more flexibility in scheduling appointments. He suggested a more general approach limiting the use to 28 hours per week. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted it is a small area, the parking variance is much less than one space, and it will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. He then made a motion to approve this application for a special permit and parking variance, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the 140 GSF area designated as Suite #206 shown on the floor plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 1, 1995 shall be used as a health service for a marriage, family, child counselor business; 2) that the marriage, family, child counselor business shall have a maximum of two employees, including the practitioner, have office hours Monday through Thursday, for a maximum of 28 hours each week and will be closed 12:00 Noon to 2:00 p.m., with appointments scheduled no closer than 10 to 15 minutes apart; 3) that this use permit and parking variance shall apply only to this 140 GSF office area and shall not be transferred within the structure without amendment to this use permit and that this use permit and parking variance shall expire should this site be rented for 6 months or more to any other use; 4) that any change to the number of employees, size of Suite #206 or the area occupied by this business, including leasing additional office area, any change in the hours or days of operation shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 5) that any tenant improvements and use of the 140 GSF 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 passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes PLANNER REPORTS September 11, 1995 CP reviewed the City Council regular meetings of August 21 and September 5, 1995. The Commission took a 15 minute break at 8:35 P.M. adjourned to Conference Room A where they reconvened at 8:50 P.M. DISCUSS WITH M-1 REVIEW COMMITTEE PROPOSED CHANGES TO M-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS, CONFERENCE ROOM A. Present for the discussion along with the full commission, were: Mike Coffey, Curt Schultz, Dick Lavenstein and Herman Christensen. In addition there were several members of the public present. After introductions initiated by the Chairman of the Planning Commission, the City Planner briefly reviewed the expertise of the committee members, their role in developing the ordinance revision, and the purpose of getting together so the Commission could have the opportunity to get the committee's input on any questions they might have about the proposed changes to the M-1 district regulations. The Commissioners began by asking about the present vacancy rate in the M-1 zone, levels of revenue generation to the city from the M-1 zone, and changes in demand for industrial areas. The committee members pointed out that there was a very low vacancy rate among properties in the M-1 zone because current economics resulted in very little movement among businesses at this time. It was noted that 40 % plus of the city's sales tax revenue comes from the M-1 area. Demand today is for bigger, taller warehouses than any presently in the city or for just -in -time delivery which relies on large regional locations with smaller decentralized distribution points with more office. As a result, the traditional future for Burlingame's M-1 district may be limited. Committee saw the future to be driven by activities generated by proximity to the airport. The Commission identified three issues from their initial review of the proposed changes which they wanted to discuss with the committee: size of deli's/lunch rooms; allowing 75% of a warehouse to convert to office; and allowing retail sales areas up to 15,000 SF with a conditional use permit. There was considerable discussion about why the maximum size of a deli was increased from 850 SF to 1500 SF. Committee members pointed out the size was taken from the O -M zone standards, they did propose a limitation on hours of operations to keep the businesses limited to local employees, and 1500 SF is the most common size of a module in a tilt -up warehouse. Such modules are usually not divided between tenants. They also pointed out deli's are not a popular tenant with landlords because the smells affect the other tenants. Commissioners noted that 1500 SF was big enough for a destination restaurant and we have had problems in the past with deli's smaller than that becoming destination locations and bad neighbors in the M-1 zone. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 The discussion moved on to the amount of office which should be allowed in a warehouse building. The proposed regulations suggest an increase from 20% to 75%. It was noted that few sites have enough additional space to provide parking on site and increase to 75 % office. Others noted that if you went as far as 75% you might as well go to 100%, the difference in traffic conflicts, volumes, etc. were academic. A shift to office might also reduce the sales tax revenues from the area. Committee members pointed out that the concept was that retail sales activity would be limited to activities which support the construction industry and would be too small to compete as "big boxes" i.e. CostCo/Price Club, but would serve the local population and construction industry such as tile or fixture shops. Committee members noted that in their action they had felt that such a narrowly defined retail use was consistent with current city policy but a broader definition would not be. Commissioners expressed concern about how one limits retail uses to this narrow range of businesses, impacts of customer traffic affecting other permitted uses with lots of truck traffic, incompatible auto/truck traffic, competition with established commercial areas which would dilute their demand and change the commercial character as well as the sense of place of the city. It was noted that the rents in the industrial area were substantially less than in the established commercial areas, thus retail businesses would be encouraged to go there. At least one committee member felt that these decisions should be guided by what would serve the people of Burlingame; and that they should be able to get as many as possible retail services close to home. This would be to the economic advantage of the city as well. A committee member pointed out that one of the things which stimulated the creation of the M-1 committee was the desire to have equity in regulation between the new O -M district and the existing M-1 district. There is a real desire to have similar standards to facilitate the use and leasing of buildings in the M-1 area. They want to make Burlingame more pro-business; with fewer and simpler regulations. And they want to reduce the inequity between the two sides of the freeway. A Commissioner noted that the activities on the east side of the freeway (O -M zone) are removed from direct interaction with the residents and have a different character. Their impact is limited more to the area immediately around them. The extent of the change presently occurring in the industrial area was pointed out by the substantially increased number of requests to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission for green zones, vehicle height limits for parking and sight line obstruction complaints coming from the M-1 zone. It was noted by a commissioner that it appears that the old concept of a light industrial area -warehouse, distribution, manufacturing - no longer exists. What is truly there now is a transition zone. The purpose of planning should be to provide some direction for change and not allow an omnibus commercial zone just to evolve. A member of the Committee pointed out it appears that we have an older warehouse area. There are some choices facing us. We can stimulate uses which encourage investment in the area by making the regulations very open and flexible. Or we can be somewhat less rigid in our uses and force the existing older (less efficient buildings) to stay but allow them to be converted to other more modern economically efficient uses. Or we can keep regulations the way they are and the area will get older and older and less ffm Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 suited to current business needs as driven by technology. The committee was looking for a balance which would stimulate uses and would encourage investment in the area to up grade it in appearance and value. The Commissioners directed staff to place the revision of the M-1 district regulations on their next agenda for continued study. They hoped that the committee members would continue to attend and share their expertise and experience. They suggested that if Committee members had additional comments on the responses prepared by staff to the Commission's questions they should let staff know so this information could be included in the next staff packet to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. MIN9.11 -7- Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary