Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.02.26MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 26, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Tuesday, February 26, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher and Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the January 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting and the February 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed @ February 2; 1996 and February 15, 1996. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SETBACK, EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK AND UNCOVERED PARKING VARIANCES, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 2 ANITA ROAD, ZONED, R-3, (MARK CURTIS, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT. Requests: expand on what is exceptional about this property; how far is garage from side setback (3.5'); could garage be moved back since 3' side setback allowed; why was it placed where it is now shown? Item set for public hearing March 11, 1996. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 ACTION ITEMS 2. PUBLIC HEARING M-1 ZONING REGULATION CHANGES CP outlined the process for changes to the M-1 ordinance and asked that the letter, dated February 21, 1996, from the M-1 committee be entered into the record. Chin. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Richard Lavenstein, 1499 Old Bayshore Highway addressed the commission on behalf of the M-1 committee and asked that their memo listing the reasons supporting M-1 committee positions regarding changes to M-1 district regulations be corrected as follows: P. 1, 25.44.020 PERMITTED USES: 4. d) The two auto rental businesses now in the district afe-eempatible do not appear to be incompatible with other uses. 8. c) Planning Department Survey of 1992 shows enly already 14 % of land use in "office buildings". P• 3, 25.44.055 COVERAGE AND SETBACKS 3. and 4 Change from Easton to Mills Creek. Easton would be inconsistent with the legal status of several modern buildings constructed on/or closer to side property lines north of Easton Creek, and would make them non -conforming properties. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. At their March 11, 1996 meeting the Planning Commission will discuss the proposed ordinance and make recommendations for changes to be presented to the City council at the joint Planning commission city council' meeting in April. There will then be a public hearing before City Council and the public will again have the opportunity to be heard before the Council acts on the ordinance. 3. APPLICATION FOR AN EXISTING SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1325 VANCOUVER, ZONED R-1, (KNOWLTON AND GLORIA KING, PROPERTY OWNER AND JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal stated for the record, he has a business relationship with the applicant and will therefore abstain from the discussion and vote. -2- C171' OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26; 1996 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Gloria King, 1325 Vancouver Avenue and Alan Olan, 1228 Paloma Avenue, addressed the commission. Ms. King's parents have owned the property for 50 years. They do not want to change the footprint of the house and will put the stairs at the rear so the front will stay the same. It was noted that the second story is set back to meet side setback requirements; it is the existing first floor which requires an exception because the size of the addition qualifies this project as new construction. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissiondiscussion: the proposed addition fits within current code requirements; addition will not affect concerned neighbor since driveway is between him and addition and the first floor setbacks at the house will not change; on the otherside the house is new. The existing first floor setback for this house was in place when it was build and the side setbacks of the existing house have not changed; setting back the first floor would make the first floor bedrooms too small for comfortable use; this proposal seems to have the least impact on the neighbors. C. Galligan noted this application encourages intelligent construction, will be of benefit to the neighborhood and gives due consideration to the preexisting nature of the structure, he moved approval, 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 January 25, 1996, Sheets 11 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; and 2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the city. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis, noting the additional parking, and was approved on a 6-1 (C. Deal abstaining) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-O=OR THE SALE OF HOT DOGS AND FRESH JUICES AT 1150 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C1 SUBAREA A, (GURDIAL JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER AND NOR PEN LOAN COMPANY, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff reviewed that a food establishment needs tables and chairs on site to qualify for regulation. Proposed use is take-out food only. Chin. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Daniel Conrad, Attorney for the applicant and Clive J. Marder, 1150 Burlingame Avenue were present and explained the application. Said they were aware of the trash issues in the -area and'already have someone who cleans the area to the west; already have Starbuck's and Noah's in area, no real additional impact; will put trash cans wherever city wants. It was noted that there is no access to the rear or place to store trash; hot dogs would be wrapped in cellophane or whatever the Health Department requires. They stated they were willing to have the conditions modified to reflect that there would never be tables or -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 chairs inside or outside the business. There would be no cooking only the addition of a steamer and all installations would be in accordance with the Department of Public Health. They would also sell fresh fruit juice but no real change since sell bottled juice now; they will prepare other additional foods like sausages. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed the possibility of modifying the conditions to more clearly, state that tables and chairs would never be allowed in the business or an encroachment permit outside the business. There was concern expressed that the customers would impinge on the seating at Starbuck's and Noah's. C. Deal noted this is only a small step from a restaurant, will cause more foot traffic would impact parking, will cause people to have to walk with food and deposit trash elsewhere or stand on street outside shop to eat; and would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He then moved denial of this application. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and was denied on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT .1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED, M-1, (ANTHONY AND ANNIE TSOU, PROPERTY OWNERS AND GREG CAPLAN, SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION, INC. AND N. N. GABBAY, AIA. APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, the previous actions on this property and reviewed code, criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. Caplan,1525 Adrian Road, the applicant and Neil Gabbay, 19 South B Street, V, San Mateo, his architect explained this third request. He noted two types of business occur, the national headquarters for the company and freight warehousing and forwarding; business does not have many visitors, on site parking for employees so could have high percentage of compact, prefer alternative with 33 on site parking spaces, 60 % compact. ADA requirements were not previously met, however, they will meet ADA requirements with this request. The applicant explained they need to separate 2 sets of employees. It was noted that large trucks appear to block parking on Adrian Road side, noted this happens sometimes on Fridays, employee cars are blocked for a period of time; also noted a dumpster was located in back up area to parking space 22 and needs to be relocated. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: issues appear to be removal of existing tree on David Road, use of PUE for required parking and removal of office area above 20% when the site is sold or leased C'� - - CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 to another tenant; parking seems to be more than adequate as previously done, 28 spaces, tree is beneficial to street therefore should not be removed and office can be removed. C. Ellis noted approval of this application based on the fact that site visits indicated that there was no parking problem on site, in fact parking area on David Road was half full in light of this he noted that the tree in space 30 should be retained and the parking variance granted for 29 instead of 30 spaces. With the conditions as amended which will replace all previous conditions. He then moved approval of 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 January 11, 1996 Sheet A.1, Site Plan with a total of 29 parking stalls (23 standard stalls, 4 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls) and Sheet A.2, Ground Floor Plan with a maximum of 6,400 SF of office area (29%) and Space #26 shall remain as a landscaped area (tree); 2) that the conditions of the Parks Directors' January 25, 1996 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors' February 14, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with a maximum of seventeen (17) employees including the proprietor on site at any one time, if the number of employees on site at any one time should exceed 17 or the property should be sold or leased to another tenant then the parking variance shall become void; 4) that the city shall be notified within 30 days of a change in occupancy (number of people on site exceed 17), property sale, or lease of premise to a new tenant so that the status of the parking variance can be reviewed, the removal of all office space exceeding twenty (20) percent has been accomplished and to verify that the on site parking meets the requirements of the uses within the building; 5) that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. CE Erbacher commented the use of the public easement will be examined at the time of the building permit process. 6. AN APPEAL OF CITY PLANNER'S NOTICE TO REMOVE A ROOF SIGN AT 860 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M, (NICHOLAS CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICAn. Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the issues including that the structure was destroyed by fire, the property owner notified at the time reconstruction of the shell was proposed that the roof sign, now prohibited, would need to be removed; that the request was to retain the existing roof sign (plywood set in metal box, no illumination, braced on to roof). Conditions if the sign was removed or retained were suggested for consideration. -5- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Nick Crisafi, property owner, 1241 Whitethorne Way, explained that the bracing of the sign was installed without permit to prevent wind damage. The sign had survived the fire. He asked that the sign be approved, he would be willing to use the upper third for a "Welcome to Burlingame" message. It's It is leasing the building with the provision that they have exclusive use of the signage. Commissioners asked if Its It"s was going to also keep their large freeway oriented sign across the street; the applicant noted yes; There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comment: roof sign may have been installed 40 years ago but it is prohibited now, the building was destroyed, the new building should comply with all codes; in this light how could allowing the roof sign not be a grant of special privilege; property ownerhassuffered a lot of financial loss, the,sign has been there all along its not lit and low key; this is the type of sign which caused us to adopt our sign code because they were not wanted; feel that demolition of this building is the issue here, not on amortization of an existing freeway oriented sign; Its it's already has a big sign nearby this might confuse people. C. Deal moved denial of this application noting this sign would be detrimental to the neighborhood and would be a granting of special privilege, by resolution, with the following conditions as stated in the staff report; 1) the Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2) that an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for as soon as the sign is removed; and 3) that no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable correction are completed. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and was denied on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. AN APPLICATION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE AND A FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE TWO (2) EXISTING PARCELS INTO ONE (1) PARCEL - A PORTION OF SMALLCOMB INDUSTRIAL'PARK SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF ACREAGE LOTS AT 778 BURLWAY AND 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4, (DKBERT ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER AND ROBERT C. HUTTON ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CE Erbacher summarized the request by Alamo Rent-A-Car; noted that this lot combination was required as apart of a previous planning commission action. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. George Corey, was present to represent the applicant. He explained that they had been working with the City for a year and a -half to see if Burlway Road could be abandoned, now Alamo needs to negotiate a loan so they have to have a parcel FBI CITY OF BUBLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 map. They will continue to work with the city regarding the abandonment of the Burlway right- of-way. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend the map to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Key and carried a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council regular meeting of February 21, 1996. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. NnNDT02.26 -7- Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary