Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.12.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Mink,on December 9, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the November 25, 1996, Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - Item #7, 1422-A Cortez Avenue has requested to be at the end of the agenda due to a previously scheduled meeting. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. PRESENTATION OF COMMENDATION TO JERRY COLEMAN Chairman Ellis presented CA Coleman with, a resolution from all the commissioners thanking him for 22 years of service to the commission. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1704 TOLEDO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LI YIN LIANG, PROPERTY OWNER AND. GABRIEL Y. NG, AIA, APPLICANT). Requests: Ask the applicant to put up a frame to show the outline of the proposed second story addition; contact neighbors to see when commissioners could come to look from inside their properties; what contact has the applicant made with neighbors; did they make any revisions to the project before it was proposed to address the neighbors concerns; what kind of changes would they propose to further reduce the impact of the design of this addition on the neighbors. Item set for public hearing on January 13, 1997. -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 601 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3 CON BROSNAN PROPERTY OWNER AND NEIL GABBAY, APPLICANT) Requests: Based on item 13, b in the initial study form (demonstrable negative aesthetic effect) provide more information on the exterior detail of the structure, this is a prominent corner, the building will be very visible, diagrams do not show any relief on the facade; describe differences in construction between this proposed apartment and a residential condominium; how is future conversion to condominium limited. Set for public hearing January 13, 1997. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, EMBASSY SUITES, PROPERTY OWNER AND ARROW SIGN COMPANY. APPLICANTS). There were no questions and the item was set for public hearing January 13, 1996 ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR AN ANTENNA EXCEPTION AT 625 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (J. & R. HERNANDEZ, PROPERTY OWNERS AND ELISA LOWY OF KNAPP & VIOLA APPLICANTS). (57 NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED) Reference staff report, 12.09.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Ramona Hernandez, 625 Burlingame Avenue addressed the commission. She noted that this had been going on a long time and she wished to have the matter resolved; the neighbor who complained lives almost at Rollins, far removed from the corner of Burlingame and Bloomfield where she lives; the immediate neighbors have not complained. Alex Bogdes, 601 Burlingame Avenue, spoke in support. He noted that he was the instigator of the litigation; this situation was originally based on a deception that this is a roof mounted antenna not allowed by the code, do not know if this had been presented properly in the law suite it would have come out differently; this is in ligation and will continue; even in this staff report the engineer that the city hired made a statement that was not true; the present location of the antenna is the best, no other will work without cutting trees or the neighbor's house; trees will need to be maintained forever; the report does not make sense because the antenna has been there three winters through storms, but still say need a structural analysis, just want to add expense; between city and applicant litigation has cost $60,000; no one is bothered by the antenna and no one is complaining; this is the only place on the site that gives decent reception and is the best place to serve the purpose for which the antenna was installed. Applicant was asked if the current antenna could be replaced with a 40" dish, she stated that she has asked and had been told that a 40" dish would not work. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. -2- CUY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 Commissioner Mink opened the discussion noting and moving that the dish could be moved to another location at a lower maximum height of 16-6"; the dish can be seen from Bloomfield and Burlingame Avenues. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Discussion on the motion: it was noted that the smaller 40" dish functions on a different microwave technology and all bands available on a 9.5' diameter dish were not available; recall from previous submittal for dish on this site that there was a lack of potential locations on the site; if dish is located where constant tree pruning is required it may not give the best screen from the public right-of-way; hard to see at its present location in the summer; reducing height 2' seems insignificant, cost of reduction and still need pruning; a different location but not as high could be more visible to neighbors; antenna was installed without a building permit; reason that it came before commission was that there was a complaint; trees at present location will grow and need to be trimmed to retain reception; only one complaint, no one here tonight speaking against, hard to take neighbor point of view; not being present tonight does not mean neighbors will not complain two years from now; need to look at findings if you move it or lower it you can satisfy all these conditions, can't make findings for present location. Commissioners addressed the findings noting staff report says could relocate antenna with a maximum height of 16'-6" and still function well, that height is less intrusive than 25', technical findings in staff report support antenna can be relocated in the rear yard and still receive wanted channels, screening is provided and the cost is not excessive in any of these locations, trees grow like weeds and will need trimming at any of these locations to maintain reception; can comply with CS 18.18 except for size of dish. C. Mink restated the motion to relocate the antenna within the rear yard at a maximum height of 16'-6" by resolution with the following conditions: (1), that the 9.5 foot diameter satellite dish antenna shall be pole mounted in the rear yard 4.5 feet from the rear wall of the house at a maximum height to the top of the dish from adjacent grade of 16'-6" at a location as shown on the Hammett and Edison,Inc diagram titled "Existing and Potential Locations of Satellite TVRO Antenna; (2) that the satellite dish antenna, mountings, pole and foundation shall be removed from the property prior to concluding any future sale or transfer of the property; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's November 12,1996 memo (details shall be provided on the attachment of the antenna to accommodate approximately 1200 pounds of wind load) shall be met along with submittal for a building permit and appropriate inspections for installation by the Building Department of the City of Burlingame; (4) that it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the non -reflective surface of the dish antenna and its pole and mountings; and (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Deal seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1 (C. Galligan dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised noting that the appeal period would end at the close of the Council meeting on December 16, 1996 unless the council canceled that meeting. In the case of cancellation, the appeal period would end January 6, 1997. -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE AT 3027 ARGUELLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (DAVID M. SEID, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). (34 NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED) Reference staff report, 12.09.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal asked if the driveway in the front yard in front of the boat had been removed; staff noted that retention of the driveway was a part of this request. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. David Seid, property owner 3027 Arguello, appeared and had no comments. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Deal moved to approve the variance to park the boat in the side yard with the stated conditions and an amendment to condition 3 the replace the driveway leading up to the area where the boat was parked and replace it with landscaping when the boat is permanently removed from the site. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. The Commissioners discussed the motion noting that the variance should not be tied to selling the boat since he might replace the boat and the new boat should be covered; if a new boat was larger that the existing boat commission should review it; it is not appropriate to have the applicant return for review to the Planning Commission every five years when the neighbors are satisfied and there has been no change with the property or boat; variance should expire if property is sold or transferred. C. Deal restated the motion to approve and added another amendment to condition 3 that the variance should expire when the property was sold or the present boat replaced with a larger boat. The second accepted the additional amendment to condition 3. The motion to approve by resolution included the following conditions: 1) that no vehicle other than a boat on a trailer may be parked in the side setback at the location shown on the site plan date stamped October 231 1996; 2) that the boat shall be parked on an I F X 23' gravel area within the side setback, no closer than 35' to the front property line and 8' from the side property line; 3)that the variance shall expire upon the sale of the property and/or replacement of the present boat with a larger boat, and at the conclusion of the variance the property owner shall remove the driveway area leading to the area in which the boat is stored and return that driveway area to landscaping; 4) that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised noting that the appeal period would end at the close of the Council meeting on December 16, 1996 unless the council canceled that meeting. In the case of cancellation, the appeal period would end January 6, 1997. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 APPLICATION FOR FRONT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES AT 1329 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (MATTHEW M. MALONEY AND YANINA ABECASSIS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT). (65 NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED) DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT NOVEMBER 25,1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.) Reference staff report, 12.09.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission clarified that the existing back up area, if the deck were not in place, is 21'-4" and that if a variance for number of parking spaces were granted would that mean that the applicant could build a new one car garage. Staff confirmed both items. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Matt Maloney, 1357 Columbus and property owner of 1329 Drake, noted that in their resubmittal they had tried to respond to what they had heard; they had done everything asked except tear down the garage; they did their own test placing their big car on the left side and maneuvering their second car into the right; four of the six variances are for existing conditions which have been there since the property was built; the second floor variances are caused because the lot is substandard 45' wide; they are not developers who are doing this to sell, they will live here a long time; if the Commission has objections they would like specific direction. They talked to their immediate neighbors and others who were quite supportive. Yanina Abecassis, also property owner of 1329 Drake, submitted pictures showing the process of parking the cars in the garage; she noted one of the cars was a big truck, still they were able to get two cars into the existing garage; if the property were 50 feet wide they probably would not have 4 of the 6 variances; the front setback, second floor, variance is caused by the declining height envelope which makes it very narrow and limits them from building a nice second floor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Deal commented on the redesign noting that the first floor front setback is existing and cannot see tearing it out to move it back; the side setback encroachment at the first and second floor is next to the 10' easement area so has a greater than normal setback from the adjacent house (the first floor portio of this is existing); the existing garage is substandard in dimension but is in good condition, do not see it being removed in the near future; along with the removal of the support pole for the second floor and the existing deck area within the driveway, the extension to the first floor could be modified so that it is at a 45 degree angle to increase the back-up area from the garage, this would only affect the cabinets in the kitchen not any useable floor area; prefer to give exception for dimension of parking area rather than variance for one covered parking stall with the requirement that if the garage is ever removed they would be required to replace it with a structure which meets all code requirements for covered parking and back-up; problem with the second floor setback encroachment at the front of the house, want to extend 4' into setback where new construction would require a 20 foot setback, first floor already has a front setback encroachment and they are asking for an even greater one for the second floor which extends further forward that the existing first floor. -5- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 C. Deal then moved to approve all the variance requested except the second story front setback encroachment, by resolution, with the addition of two conditions that the 28 inch addition on the first floor at the rear shall be redesigned at a 45 degree angle inorder to increase the back-up area from the garage and that the variance for dimension of the covered parking spaces and back-up area shall be revoked when the garage is rebuilt. The conditions of approval were: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 27, 1996 sheets A.1 through A.3 except that the front elevation of the second story shall meet all setback requirements and the 28 inch addition at the rear of the first floor shall be angled at 45 degrees in order to increase the back-up area from the garage; and (2)that the project shall meet al the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a unanimous voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised noting that the appeal period would end at the close of the Council meeting on December 16, 1996 unless the council canceled that meeting. In the case of cancellation, the appeal period would end January 6, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO DEVELOP MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WHERE THREE LOTS ARE SUBSTANDARD IN AREA AND FOR THE REMOVAL OF PROTECTED TREES AT 2502, 2504 AND 2506 POPPY AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (OTTO J. & VICTORIA H. MILLER AND KURT STEIL, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). (63 NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED) DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT NOVEMBER 12, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.) Reference staff report, 12.09.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Comments on the staff report included that the vent in condition 9 could extend to within 3 feet of the side property line since that is the minimum side setback, yes; given the design of the front of the garage at 2502 with a post on one side, can the commission determine that a variance is not necessary, the city attorney noted that the code required the garage to be setback 23 feet and that is the face of the building therefore commission cannot make a determination. Commissioner Ellis opened the public hearing, and asked the applicants to speak: Kurt Stiles, 33 Woodhill, Redwood City, applicant, presented a rendering of the front elevations of all the houses together, he said that they had heard the Planning Commission's direction and hired a new architect, John Stewart, 1351 Laurel, San Carlos, who talked to the neighbors who seemed to like this design better; they studied alternatives to two car garages on the street and tried a variety of floor plans, they did not work; do not feel that the setback on the garage at 2502 Poppy is an issue, the facade projects 5 feet and that can be reduced to 2 feet and the 23 foot setback can be met; chimneys in this design are 4' from side property line; why is side yard paved, because of narrow space and maintenance problems if planted. John Stewart, architect, addressed the new designs noting in his experience it was best to pave these narrow areas 0 CPTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 between houses, the areas could be planted if the Commission wished; met with neighbors believed met all their concerns except the garages, they suggested that the property owner go for a variance for tandem or for a one car garage, that approach made neither property owner nor staff happy;,moved livingroom to the front to hide garage, put double car garages on two end lots, put split single door garage in middle; driveways are the way the neighborhood wanted them could widen curb cut to 16 feet to improve access; hardscape percentage increased because provided separate walkways to each house, seemed to be more in keeping with the existing; the hardscape shown is typical of any 50 foot wide lot with a double car garage; we can move the column back on 2502 Poppy and meet setback requirements, its a minor change. The following members of the public commented on the project: Stan Clark, 2501 Poppy; Deborah Griffith, 2470 Poppy; Jeff Byrd, 2505 Poppy; Erin Sinclair, 2490 Poppy Drive; Dick Fuller, 2210 Poppy, Kathleen Bento, Redwood City; Phil Daley, 1539 Columbus Avenue; Chip Coleman, 2308 Hale Drive. They noted that they would prefer two lots with one house each, it would reduce the problem created by three two car garages, which is still the main objection; houses dominated by driveway and garage; only house on Poppy which has not sold in a matter of weeks is the one with a two car garage; more concrete than before, not like that; architect met with 4 families in the neighborhood; want to see one house with a single car garage at the front, especially on the middle lot; thank you for efforts a huge improvement; least attractive house with biggest garage next to her, had a big yard next door when, bought house, the garage and mass of the house is a big issue for her; picked. a nice architect; process is working progressed from where began; if develop a couple more multiple lots like this in the neighborhood it will be really different; should have a little less concrete; these houses should be in a tract in the valley, in Burlingame the houses should be individual; these much better than last but still tract homes with additions; nice to see two homes; 3 proposed because you can make more money; look at 2225 Adeline as an example of a new house that fits Burlingame; increase softscape. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner's comments: aware neighbors prefer two houses but as discussed before, three lots is not something the Planning Commission can do anything about; code requires 2 car garages for new homes, inspire of preferences; applicant made an effort with paving, could look at options for independent walkways, have to have driveways; commend developer and designer they have come a long way, show significant variation and adopted details of neighborhood and times; cannot build 1930's house today, not have craftsmanship or even materials; in past have felt comfortable with tandem but code now says no; garages an issue but legitimate attempt to mitigate; given narrowing of lots and impracticability, detached garage at rear of lot not alternative; two car garage not really fit neighborhood but no way around; prefer spanish in middle and tudor on each side; they have off set one garage, reduced the FAR by 750 SF, could have put all the mass of the house at the front, did not; it is expensive to build this way, lots of corners which is expensive; houses will be small with small rooms so will have fewer people in them. Commissioner Deal moved to approve the project as submitted, by resolution, with these conditions added: that the existing trees at the rear of the property at 2504 shall be inspected by an arborist one year after the structure is finaled to be sure that they are still healthy, if not, - the developer shall be required to replace the trees as required by the city ordinance; that the -7- CITY OF BURLING"E PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 Senior Landscape Inspector shall review and approve the landscape plans for the front of each lot with the goal of having the landscape for each lot look different; that the commitments regarding paving in the front yards described in the architects letter of December 2, 1996 shall be incorporated as requirements of this action; and that condition 8 in the Planning Commission staff report regarding requiring a conditional use permit for future changes to the facades shall be dropped. The approved conditions recommended are staff. 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November. 27, 1996, Sheets Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6; 2) that the conditions of the Senior Landscape Inspector's October 23, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the existing trees at the rear of the property at 2504 shall be inspected by an arborist one year after the structure is finaled to be sure that they are still healthy, if not, the developer shall be required to replace the trees as required by the city ordinance; 4) that the Senior Landscape Inspector shall review and approve the landscape plans for the front of each lot with the goal of having the landscape for each lot look different; 5) that the commitments regarding paving in the front yards described in the architects letter of December 2, 1996 shall be incorporated as requirements of this action; 6) that additional information shall be provided as required for each property by the Building Department including grading, structural and construction detail for the retaining walls and fences attached to them; 7) that each of these dwellings with attached garages shall not exceed FAR .32 plus 750 SF and shall be considered new construction so that this FAR shall be the maximum allowed on each site in the future without a variance; 8) that the tree protection requirements stated in arborist Kenneth Mayne's October 31, 1996 letter to Otto Miller shall be required and shall be met; and, if despite these precautions, any of the so conserved trees die during the period of construction or within one year of the completion of construction as determined by issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall furnish and replace on these properties, at his expense, each lost tree with two 36 inch box trees of a species selected by the city's Senior Landscape Inspector and at a location approved by the inspector; 9) that the finished grade of each of the three sites shall show a minimum continuous slope from front to back on each site of six (6) inches to insure all surface drainage is accommodated on each site and directed to the street as approved by the City Engineer; 10) that the cross slope shall be retained on each lot as shown on the approved plans and the maximum fence height (retaining wall plus fence) on property line shall be 7'-6" from lowest adjacent elevation; 11) that there shall be no chimney for the fire place shown in the living room of each dwelling, the vent from the proposed gas fireplace shall not extend more than 12 inches into the side yard of each dwelling unit, and in no case shall the vent be closer than 3 feet to adjacent property line; and 12) that the development on each of the lots shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and approved 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised noting that the appeal period would end at the close of the Council meeting on December 16, 1996 unless the council canceled that meeting. In the case of cancellation, the appeal period would end January 6, 1997. CITY OF BURUNGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, NYSF PARTNERS III, APPLICANT AND KARIM SAIMA, PROPERTY OWNERL(40 NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED) Reference staff report, 12.09.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if this ice cream business was a restaurant, staff noted that it is a food establishment as defined in the zoning code. Chairman Ellis opened the pubic hearing. Roger Kaufman, 34 Roberts Way, Hillsborough, the site already has a food establishment designation this application is to change the menu; it is not their intention to make smoothies, they have a lot of additives and take more preparation area than they have at this location and are not a part of the ice cream business as he will operate it; they do make a drink from sorbet; he wants to serve and sell ice cream and food items typically associated with an ice cream store, this would include coffee, milk shakes, sundaes, and sodas, things you would find at a soda fountain; thought that they might have over stated the foot traffic, especially after 5 pm on week days; commission noted concern that if this business were to move on, the permit establishes the parameters for the next tenant, and would these conditions limit smoothies; the applicant noted that they need some flexibility to stay competitive in the specialty ice cream business. There were no further comments from the audience and the hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: only one of the conditions addresses the food to be served and its rather loose. C. Mink noted that he had reviewed the conditions and facts as presented in the staff report and at the public hearing and moved approval of the request to change the menu by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that these conditions shall supersede all previous conditions approved for the food establishment at 1375 Burlingame Avenue; 2) that the food establishment at this site shall occupy 520 SF at street level in the south west corner of the property adjacent to Parking Lot J with a maximum of 12 seats and 470 SF of the roof deck immediately above the tenant's space on the street level with a maximum seating for 32 people (141 SF of the roof deck is unusable for seating area because of the placement of the air conditioning unit); 3) that no food preparation or food and drink sales shall occur on the roof deck; 4) at the use of the roof deck area will be limited to eight tables and a maximum of 32 people, use of any kind of sun shade which extends above the tables including umbrellas shall require review of the Building, Fire and Planning Departments and any necessary amendment to this permit; 5) that the business shall be open Sunday through Thursday 11:00 am to 10:00 pm and Friday and Saturday 11:00 am to midnight with a maximum of three employees including the proprietor on site at one time; 6) that no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the site and the business shall only sell ice cream and food items typically associated with an ice cream store; 7) that all deliveries shall be made to the site before 9:30 am; 8) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle inside the door to the store In CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 and a second trash receptacle in the sidewalk area along Primrose Road in front of the store at a location approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; the latter trash receptacle shall be the model selected by the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Study and shall be installed no later than January 1997 or within 60 days of occupancy of the site; 9) that the business operator shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and in planters in front of the store along Primrose Road and within 100 feet of the store in each direction including within the portion of Parking Lot J adjacent to the sidewalk along Primrose Road; 10) that, if determined by the city to be necessary, the business operator shall wash/steam clean on a regular basis the sidewalk in front of the premise from Burlingame Avenue south to the southern end of the street frontage of Parking Lot J; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Municipal code and of the 1995 edition of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal and was approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised noting that the appeal period would end at the close of the Council meeting on December 16, 1996 unless the council canceled that meeting. In the case of cancellation, the appeal period would end January 6, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AT 1860 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, (ART MICHAELS, REPRESENTING EL RANCHO INN, APPLICANT AND ART MICHAELS, PROPERTY OWNERL(19 NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED) Reference staff report, 12.09.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Art Michael, 1860 Rollins Road, presented the project noting that the code allows auto storage in the drainage easement, that the proposal is auto storage not long term airport parking because the area is closed to the public, passengers cannot leave or pick up cars there, passengers are not charged for parking their cars there; vehicles traveling from the site to the El Rancho Motel in Millbrae travel on less than .1 mile of city streets; cars are delivered and picked up by the same person, so there are fewer trips; the letter from Kavanaugh, the engineer addressing flooding, notes that the adjacent city pump station has adequate capacity, a new back up generator and no history over the past 20 years of .flooding•, if the area did flood the maximum depth would be 12" to 24" and the water would take 3 to 9 hours to reach that depth, enough time to remove the cars; all the cars could be stored on less than a third of the El Rancho's existing site; cars are stored there now because the El Rancho Motel had an emergency; have met all environmental requirements; want the most acceptable tenant, worked on revisions to M-1 code with staff and committee, feel this is the best tenant. They agree to all the conditions will put in gravel to address mud on Rollins Road. Site will no longer be used as a dump. Cars will come and go only at off-peak hours and 90% of the site is not visible from the street. Commissioner noted that there is a camper sunk in mud to its axles on the site, how can the site be used until May when NPDES allows improvements; will gravel front entrance, with permission will keep mud and debris off street. Commissioner noted he was unclear about the use why was it not long term airport parking. A diagram of the -10- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 area and pictures of the debris they have cleaned from the site at a cost of $40K was presented to the commission. Peter Evenhuis, 145 Magnolia, General Manager, El Rancho Hotel, spoke commenting that the hotel has served for 25 years or more people who live 300 to 500 miles from San Francisco Airport and are flying out for vacations. The average person leaves their car with the hotel 10 days. There are 500 parking spaces on site at the hotel, but need more to support this business. The car would be parked on the site while the guest traveled and brought back when they return. There is no additional cost for the hotel room rented at each end of the trip, the parking is included. These are privately owned cars. Airport parking is so expensive people prefer to pay a little more for their room. The guests use the El Rancho Motel's shuttle to the airport. Art Michael Sr., 34 Faun Court, Hillsborough, also spoke noting he had been a local resident for over 26 years, respects the way the city operates, not want to ruin their investment along with the city. Requested that commission approve as submitted. There were no further comments and the meeting was closed. C. Coffey noted the M-1 task force found car storage to be a permitted use. He then moved approval of this negative declaration and special permits application noting there will be little traffic to the site and there is not a daily charge for the service. There will be zero southbound Rollins traffic. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioners' discussion: this is a valet parking long term airport arrangement, improper in this zone; do pay for the service in, the room rent; participated on the M-1 review committee for 2 years, know that the potential use of this easement was one of the key things decided; this is a similar use to one allowed; know most owners around site; not fit description of long term airport parking, you can't park there, can't drive to the site, not pay on an hourly basis, its more like car rental storage; more beneficial to city than car rental storage no transport trucks loading and unloading, no cars dead headed left on site with keys in them; from traffic this use least impact on Burlingame because no south bound traffic generated; been a dump for years, this will clean up permanently; landscaping exceptions are the result of shaped and location of site and the fire department's requirements that a 20 foot wide access be provided. Long term airport parking is not allowed in the M-1, not an issue if this is a suitable use; applicant referred to users as passengers; shuttling the cars in from out of town is a problem; first need to determine if use is a type permitted in the zone; reason not allow long term airport parking is the traffic problem; should make the determination before acting on the environmental document; what applicant has done for the property is commendable but looks like and acts like airport parking therefore is airport parking. C. Deal moved denial for the reasons stated that this is for all intents and purposes long term airport parking and not allowed. Seconded by C. Mink. Motion was approved on a 5-2 (Cers. Coffey and Key dissenting) roll call vote. No action was taken on the negative declaration since no action was taken on the project. Appeal procedures were advised noting that the appeal period would end at the close of the Council meeting on December 16, 1996 unless the council canceled that meeting. In the case of cancellation, the appeal period would end January 6, 1997. -11- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1873-1881 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, (S. I. AMAROSO PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS AND GARY WOLFE, AMS RELOCATION. INC., APPLICANTS). (13 NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED) Reference staff report, 12.09.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Gary Wolfe, 1873 Rollins Road, presented the project noting that they were not asking to expand the trucking portion of the business, but to add warehouse space, relocating goods from some straight warehouse area in South San Francisco to the expanded space here. No trucks or people work at the South San Francisco site. He acknowledged that there have been problems with activity on Rollins Road, thought after the recent letter from the City Attorney they had been resolved, but the neighbor's letters indicate they have not. Approval of this request will allow them to spread their trucks out on the site, more truck bays for parking them for longer times, especially at the rear of the site; they have a lease on 1873 Rollins through 2006 with option to extend, plan to stay there, been in business since 1948, will comply with conditions. Problems most often come from the 2 to 3 daily out of state trucks who come to the site to get directions,. not a part of their operation, part of the Bekins system, they have less control of those trucks than of their own, these trucks arrive day or night. Commissioner noted visiting trucks increase the number of trucks on property are they included in number; no, but with expansion they can pull to the back of the site and not block Rollins Road; Commissioner also noted application showed increase in number of trucks as well as warehouse space; yes, number of trailers increase and 2 van vehicles added over past 5 years, not being added for this space expansion; business would not work without the increase in vehicles. In opposition: Aaron Fomil, Fomil and Son 1845 Rollins Road, Glenn Sousa, U-Store It, 1855 Rollins, Road, Alex Movino, U-Store It spoke: problem is with parking; park in front of driveways so employees cannot get to work; city painted red zones at driveways but both are ignored; he has storage on his site and tenant in and out, enough parking on site but problems operating distribution business also there; employees arrive at 7:30 am leave at 5:00 pm, the on street parking problem is continuous all day long; talked to foreman and Mr. Wolfe, not get any place; concern if they expand the storage area there will be an increase in the number of trucks at the site and impact the existing situation more; asking for the expansion to get business in line with what they have been doing for five years; got to work at 6 am and there were two people sleeping in their rigs; always problem trucks double up in the middle of Rollins; police done all they can but can't do any more; surprised owner of baseball cages not here, lots of kids there and lots of illegal maneuvers by trucks; problem with garbage, truckers have beer parties and leave trash on site; block driveway every morning and make him wait while drink coffee; feels abused. The applicant responded: there have never been any accidents with trucks on Rollins Road; have good working relationship with most neighbors, batting cage calls and we move trucks right away; these three people are on one site, confident can take care of concerns; there have been -12- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 days and time when the number of trucks cited but never had truck for 3 days or sleep in truck because drivers want to move on. Commissioner noted got a lot of letters of complaint which are rather compelling; question is this the right location for this business or expansion of it; two trucks in five years is not expansion; all neighbors contacted only one came, situation better since summer when real complaints occurred; not aware that they had a problem with property owners in Millbrae; there was a problem caused by construction in Millbrae last week which caused trucks to double park on Rollins; they have recently made some personnel changes, new manager with a better attitude; conditions of permit area clear, need better communication with neighbor and need to do own policing outside; could add to signage that Bekins trucks are to park in back and tell dispatcher to tell drivers to get trucks off street; tell neighbors a particular person to call when they have a problem, police suggested but thought that problem was resolved; have lease to 2006 have to do what makes you happy, will cost $100,000, only interest to get to work. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that there is a problem here and partly with conditions of original approval; applicants attempt is genuine now, but hard to accomplish. He then moved approval by resolution with amendment to the use permit to expand the business with finding based on the report of Mr. Wolfe that it will not be detrimental with the conditions of the staff report as amended: condition 4 may be open to 6:00 pm, if have parking problem with trucks the applicant shall provide active policing of parking outside the building on the site and along the street and shall have all trucks relocated on to the site. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. On the motion: did motion include allowing parking on Rollins Road for staging trucks, feel that this is not appropriate, overnight parking on Rollins should also be prohibited. Commission discussed that the conditions be amended to allow staging on Rollins Road between 7:00 am and 7:30 am. Amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion and the second. The chairman called for the vote on the motion to approve with the following amended and added conditions: 1) that the project shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 31, 1996, Site Plan; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineers' November 1, 1996 memo and the Fire Marshall's November 4, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the trucking operation shall have a maximum of 6 bobtail trucks 14' to 28' long, 4 tractors and 6 trailers 28' to 44' long and 3 small delivery trucks 8' to 12' long; 4) that the office may operate between the hours of 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with a maximum of fourteen full-time and fifteen part-time employees; 5) that staging of the Bekins trucks on Rollins Road shall occur only between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m.; 6) that overnight parking of trucks on Rollins Road is prohibited; 7) that these conditions shall be reviewed after six months to determine that if there are parking problem with trucks, on Rollins Road and adjoining streets, the applicant shall provide active policing of parking outside the building on the site and along the street and shall have all trucks relocated on to the site; and 8) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised noting that the appeal period would end at the close of the Council meeting on -13- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1996 December 16, 1996 unless the council canceled that meeting. In the case of cancellation, the appeal period would end January 6, 1997. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p. m. MIN12.9 Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary SEE