Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.03.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 27, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Galligan on March 27, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Jacobs, Kelly, Key, and Galligan Absent: Commissioners Ellis and Mink Staff Present: City Planner; Margaret Monroe, City Attorney; Jerry Coleman, City Engineer; Frank Erbacher, Fire Marshal; Keith Marshall and Fire Captain; Steve Langridge MINUTES - The minutes of the March 13, 1995 Planning Commission were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. The applicants were advised that 5 of 7 Commission members were present. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes to pass a motion on action items. The Chair asked if any of tonight's applicants would like to delay their action until a full commission is seated. No applicants asked for a continuance. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCES AT 1219 BROADWAY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (RONALD C. ROUSSEY, PROPERTY OWNERS AND DAVID ARMANINO, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If approved five conditions were suggested. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. James Sorenson, 812 Newhall Road, representing II Piccolo discussed the application, explained that the maximum number of employees, at one time, he noted in five years would be 3 not 2 and asked that condition #3 be amended. He also clarified, despite the fact -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 that the size of the food establishment required only one restroom and it was for employees, the restauranteur could make the restroom available to customers when necessary. Tom Gilman, DFS Architects presented a color rendering and discussed the problems of ramping the disabled access in such a narrow space. Mr. Gilman asked the Commission for an interpretation of the building code requirements to waive the disabled access ramp requirements. CP Monroe explained that the issue would have to be worked out with the Chief Building Inspector at a later date. David Armanino, the owner of the caff6, explained there would be no more than 3 employees on site at any time. Carolyn Root, 1407 Montero Avenue, spoke in favor of the application. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted the parking survey, the change from 9'-6" to 20' width, clarification of the bathroom accommodation and felt this business and use are an asset to the Broadway area, she then moved approval of the this application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 24, 1995 Site Plan and General Floor Plan; 2) that the conditions of the Associate Civil Engineers' memo dated February 24, 1995 and the Chief Building Official's memo dated February 27, 1995 shall be met; 3) that the caff6 shall be open 5:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and 5:00 A.M. to 10:30 P.M. Friday and Saturday with a maximum of 3 employees at any one time; 4) that the caff6 shall provide and maintain trash receptacles at the front door and the side door leading to the alley; 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. Motions was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 5-0-2 (Cms. Ellis and Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1826 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 (P. J. BRALLIER, PROPERTY OWNERS AND SCHOOL APPAREL, INC., APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If approved six conditions were suggested. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. John Levenberg, representing the applicant, evaluated the application. The Burlingame site will be administrative use only, all manufacturing is accomplished in Star City, Arkansas. The maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 26. If mail order use were to begin at this site the city would receive sales tax on those sales generated in California. Staff clarified this use permit sets the standard for use of 84% office on this site, it goes with the land, if the use changes then another use permit or variance may be required depending upon the new use. Commission asked if the building were sold would there be a disclosure requirement on this commercial property. Staff noted the disclosure requirement is only for residential sales at this time. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted this is a small family held company, which is not going to grow at this location and since the users will be stable this is a reasonable request. This project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, she then moved approval of the this application, by resolution, with the following amended -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 2, 1995 Sheet 1, Site Plan and Floor Plans; 2) that the conditions set forth in the Fire Marshal's memo dated February 21, 1995, the Chief Building Official's memo dated February 13, 1995 and the Associate Engineer's memo dated February 21, 1995 shall be met; 3) that 2.6% (456 SF) on-site landscaping as approved by the Park director shall be provided on this property, installed and shall be irrigated and maintained by the property owner; 4) that there shall not be more than 26 employees working at this site at any one time; 5) that any future changes in use on this site including addition of a retail catalogue business activity must receive an amendment to this special permit; 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. Motions was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining and Cms. Ellis and Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1688 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED O -M (LEASEBACK INVESTMENTS, INC., PROPERTY OWNERS AND JOHN KOLBISEN, LE PETITE BALEEN, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If approved seven conditions were suggested. A letter received that day in support of this application was acknowledged. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. John Kolbisen, 718 Johnson Street, Half Moon Bay, the applicant asked and answered questions of the commission. There are no criteria in our standard parking requirements in the zoning ordinance for parking for swim schools. When that occurs, the appropriate parking requirement is determined by the City Planner. Mr. Kolbisen did not agree with the two methods used by the City Planner, i.e., a) parking standards used commonly by other jurisdictions for this type of use and b) demand based on the participation schedule and employee numbers given by this applicant. By both methods used 23 parking spaces were required for the pool and support areas. To that number staff added the parking requirement for the retail/office area and storage areas as shown on the plans. A parking requirement of 28 spaces was established. Mr. Kolbisen feels 20 spaces are more than adequate and realistic especially if he staggers class starts on the quarter hour. He did not want to have a space between classes because of the expense of paying instructors when they were not teaching. to . He was concerned that to make the investment in the pool, then later require him to leave time between classes would be a "tenuous investment". There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. CA commented for the record, approval of this special permit application would, in fact, be a de facto variance for office use since there are 28 parking spaces on site now available for this use and enough parking for the other uses on the site. C. Jacobs noted this project should meet the 28 required parking spaces and only 20 are available and this would then be detrimental to the neighborhood, she then moved to deny this application. Motions was seconded by C. Deal and failed on a 3-2-2 (Cms. Kelly and Galligan dissenting and Cms. Ellis and Mink absent) roll call vote. -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Commissioners discussed that the use was an appropriate one for the location and would serve the community; one solution to the parking problem would be to space the classes further apart; now with staggered spacing, number of employees, and stated class size there would be 31 people on site each hour and a need for 20 parking spaces; commission could review in two years, if number had changed or parking was a problem classes could be spaced further apart to reduce the overlap parking problem; the applicant could get more spaces from the landlord in the future too; do not think people will have as high a rate of carpooling in this urban area as they do going from here to Half Moon Bay, the projections should be different; separating classes is the solution and it will affect his bottomline. C. Galligan noted that support of this project with 20 spaces for present enrollment projected would be practical, if, at a later date, and on review, more spaces were necessary they could approach the landlord and arrange for more spaces to be made available to them; he then moved to approve the special permit for the reasons stated with the conditions in the staff report and with the additional condition that employees, and students on site at one time shall be limited to 31 students and instructors in classes at one time and 20 parking spaces shall be provided on site, and any change in number would require review by the Planning Commission, by resolution; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 1, 1995, Sheet Al Site Plan and Project Data, and Sheet A2 Floor Plan and Front Elevation, and Existing Parking and Building Layout (81/2" X 11"); 2) that the swim school shall operate 8:00 A. M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Saturday and Sunday, with a maximum of six employees including the proprietor only five of whom will teach classes, on site, at any one time; 3) that no swim competitions, meets, or shows shall be held at this site Monday through Friday; 4) that no licensed day care operation (a part of or independent from the swim school), shall operate from this site; 5) that all roll up door access to units B, C and D shall remain and not be blocked by parking stalls; 6) that this use permit shall be amended if any aspect of the business changes including but not limited to location of support activities such as office area, retail area, day care area or addition of a snack bar; hours of operation; scheduling and size of classes; number of employees and/or instructors; and total area leased; and 7) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motions was seconded by C. Kelly and failed on a 2-3-2 (Cms. Deal, Jacobs and Key dissenting and Cms. Ellis and Mink absent) roll call vote. C. Kelly noted this project needs redesign and in an effort to allow the applicant the opportunity to show how more parking spaces could be facilitated, moved to deny without prejudice. Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 5-0-2 (Cms. Ellis and Mink absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commission noted to the applicant that he needs more than 20 parking spaces to facilitate his future growth; in his revised proposal he needs to show how the parking can grow with the success of his business. They noted that a denial without prejudice allows the applicant to return to the commission with a revised proposal. 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 4. ANTENNA EXCEPTION FOR A TOWER AT 1730 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED O -M (MR. AND MRS. STEVE BARKOFF. PROPERTY OWNER AND DALE MEYER, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 3/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If approved seven conditions were suggested. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 840 Hinckle, the architect and applicant, presented the project to the commission explaining the height of the tower is necessary to reduce signal interference from the roof frame. The size *8' X 8") is determined by the elevator inside used to get the antenna to be tested to the top. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted this project will not interfere with sight lines, meets the business needs and the ability to do the testing, and is a reasonable request, he then moved approval of the this application, by resolution, siting the findings and with the following conditions; 1) that the wooden platform, tower and antenna shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 27, 1995, sheets A-1 through A-6; 2) that the installation of the stairwell, platforms and tower requires separate application to the Building Department, with submittal of plans as required for a building permit and that the two stairwell enclosures shall not be relocated on the roof; 3) that before a building permit is issued, engineering design and a corridor to achieve proper exiting from the mezzanine shall be addressed to meet the requirements of the Chief Building Official's memos (2/13, 3/6 & 3/20) and the Fire Marshal's memo (2/13/95, 3/6/95); 4) that the height of the antenna shall not exceed 67.5' from grade, nor rise more than 38.5' above the top of the roof, and that the platforms and tower shall be painted with a light color nonreflective paint as approved by the Planning Department and that the nonreflective paint shall be permanently maintained by the applicant; 5) that as installed, the stairwell, platform and antenna tower shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, including connections from the antenna inside the building to any equipment; 6) that the platforms, tower and antenna shall be removed at the time this tenant (Swedcom) vacates this premise and if the new tenant wishes to install any antenna they shall comply with all the code requirements in effect at that time; and 7) that any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit. Motions was seconded by C. Kelly. On the motion the commissioners noted that the proposed antenna did not meet all the criteria in the ordinance, it would be visible, although probably not from residential areas; frequency would not be a health hazard or affect businesses in area; it was noted if this is allowed anything should be allowed; commercial antenna should stand on their own merits; base is a large structural box (stair well enclosure) and tower is 8' square, over all very large; keep tower small and have mechanism to raise and lower antenna. The chair called for a voice vote; he then called for a role call vote, the motion failed on a 2-3-2 (Cms. Deal, Jacobs and Key dissenting and Cms. Ellis and Mink absent). Appeal procedures were advised. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes PLANNER REPORTS March 27, 1995 - City Planner and City Attorney reviewed a request for an ambiguity hearing regarding truck rental at 390 Lang Road. The definition of auto rental was discussed noting it clearly included all vehicles, trucks as well. The Planning Commission determined the code is fine "as is", and there was no recommendation to City Council. Planning Commission directed the CA contact the Dealer Development Manager who wrote the letter. - City Planner reviewed the City Council regular meeting of March 20, 1995 - Zoning Corrections and Clarifications - Further Discussion Commission discussed Items #1 and #6 of the Commissioners proposals for changes to the zoning and sign ordinance. The Commission defined the issues of their concern and asked staff to clarify those sections and draft sections of the code for further discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. MINUTFS3.27 Se. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Jacobs, Secretary