Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.06.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, June 24, 1985 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F, Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the June 10, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTSIDE STAIR WHICH WILL EXTEND INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AT 116 CENTRAL AVENUE Reference staff report, 6/24/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to build an exterior staircase for access to a second floor room over the garage. She discussed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, study meeting questions, alternative locations for access to the second floor office, side yard measurement. Planning staff recommended denial of the variance. If approved three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. The applicant, Katrina Lantos - Swett, was present. She discussed their submittal of plans for remodeling in the fall. of 1984 and their decision to delete the outside stairs which would intrude into the side yard, thus avoiding delay for variance processing. In these plans access to the new room over the garage was provided through a second floor bathroom. She commented if they had been made aware of the problems inherent in this particular type of variance and of the city's concern about future conversion to a second living unit they might have redesigned the plans in 1984; the stair could be put in the back but would still have independent access and would be harder for the city to police; their proposal would be a minor intrusion into the side yard, it would be unfortunate to deny an application because of a broader issue (possible conversion to living unit); there are precedents for granting this variance, specifically a variance granted a near neighbor for a room over a garage which included independent access and a separate bathroom. She commented Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1985 on a variance granted to them to allow a porch to intrude into the front setback, she felt the justification for that variance was less valid than justification for this side yard intrusion and asked that past precedent be Commission's primary consideration, not the underlying policy issue of possible conversion by subsequent homeowners. Joe Gosende, 1491 Benito Avenue spoke in favor: he stated he was recently denied a building permit for the same reason, a room for storage above a parking area which it was felt could be used for living area. Norman Kavanaugh, representing Irene Palamountain of 112 Central Avenue spoke in opposition: he stated this variance, if approved, would affect only one property, Mrs. Palamountain's; the proposed stairway would be right outside her dining room; the plans show the new room over the garage to be an office, how much pedestrian traffic would be going by the neighbor's window? He discussed the findings necessary for granting a variance: the present situation is something that the applicants have built themselves into, exceptional circumstances do not exist and the variance is not necessary for the preservation or enjoyment of their property; it definitely would be a detriment to the neighbors and their quiet enjoyment of their property; Commission knows whether this would be in accord with the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During Commission discussion applicant advised the room over the garage is a study for her architect husband; the stair is needed because the only ingress to the study is through the bathroom; their primary concern is safety, someone could be locked in without means of exit. She stated alternatives had been suggested by staff; access through the master bedroom would result in the same situation; an interior stair would be very expensive and distort the architectural integrity of the house. Commission comment: the issue of possible conversion to a second unit is one Commission has been concerned about for many years; have heard no testimony this evening nor is there anything in the application itself to support a finding of exceptional circumstances; applicant has stated there were alternatives suggested by staff and then commented she was not aware of the difficulty in getting a variance. During this discussion the applicant addressed findings: with the only egress through the bathroom, safety is an exceptional circumstance, undue property loss would result if the variance is not granted, resale value of the home would be diminished; the property owners' enjoyment of their property would be diminished; expensive alterations would not be feasible; is an unusually shaped lot more exceptional than this minor encroachment the reasons for which are compelling. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 24, 1985 Further Commission comment: this stair will impact the adjacent neighbor; the problem with access is an architectural flaw built in by the applicants. On the grounds that there are no exceptional circumstances C. Leahy moved to deny the variance. Second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: the fact that the applicants built themselves into the present situation and that it will be more expensive to correct are not grounds for variance approval; believe applicants should invest the money in an alternative to this proposal. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A 1,012 SF ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 708 BAYSWATER AVENUE Reference staff report, 6/24/85 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item: details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, Planning staff comments and concerns. Planning staff recommended against this application. If approved, three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public heaing. Richard McGeary, architect representing the applicant, spoke in support of locating the proposed one car garage at the side of the house rather than in the rear, one of the reasons the applicant bought the house was because of the rear yard for family use. Addressing the matter of required parking, he felt the quality of life for this family with a play area for the children in the rear yard was more important than providing two covered parking spaces to code. He noted they will provide one covered space at the side, no covered parking is provided currently. The applicants are attempting to create adequate bedrooms for their family of five children, otherwise the family may be forced to move. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: can find nothing unusual about this standard sized lot nor that there is a hardship for the family (have raised three children on a standard lot with a two car garage in the backyard); there is an alternative to this proposal, a two car garage could be built on the property; a two car garage would be more expensive but saving money is not grounds for granting a variance, it would be a good investment for this property. C. Giomi moved to deny the variance application. Second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: the neighborhood on -street parking problem is worse than in the downtown areas, am reluctant to grant a parking variance when code requirements can be met on the property. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1985 3. REVIEW OF REVISED GARAGE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED 15 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 30 LORTON AVENUE (REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM CITY COUNCIL Reference staff report, 6/24/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this item: City Council's action at its June 3, 1985 meeting and referral back to the Planning Commission; revised plan for the garage; staff comment; applicant's letter. City Council directed that the Commission reconsider the proposed alternatives for parking, driveway and guest parking access and further directed that a security gate be included. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission discussion: ventilation requirements will be met with the final plans; an intercom at the curb would require an encroachment permit from the Council. Sterling Albert, representing the developer, commented that an intercom on the wall of the garage would be safer than at the curb. Staff explained this matter will not go back to Council unless it is called up by them, Commission should make a decision on location of the intercom. CE's preference would be a location on site. Further comment: need for a location that is operational on the building which would only block this property, not the street; street visibility for cars backing out of the project. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this condominium permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of April 15, 1985, the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 28, 1985 and the Fire Marshal's memo of January 23, 1985 be met; (2) that two parking stalls in the underground garage be designated visitor/guest parking and not assigned to specific units; (3) that the Parks Department approve all landscaping and irrigation plans prior to issuance of a final building permit; (4) that future property owners be made aware that since landscaping is overlaying the garage slab there could be potential water problems within the garage; (5) that the final plans be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 2, 1985 and amended June 7, 1985 and modified as needed to meet all requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes; and (6) that an intercom station be placed on the property to be used by visitors in cars and connected to each unit which shall have a remote garage gate control. This unit shall be kept operational at all times. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING SERVICE IN THE C-1 DISTRICT AND WHICH IS LOCATED AT 1199 BROADWAY Reference staff report, 6/24/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to locate a dry cleaning service with on-site processing in the new commercial building at the northeast corner of Laguna and Broadway. She discussed details of the application, staff review, applicant's letter, letters in opposition received from other dry cleaners located on Broadway, staff concern about landscaping for the building, cumulative parking needs for all businesses on this site to date, areas still vacant. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1985 It was determined the proposed location for this business is on the Laguna/Broadway corner of the building. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Bob Petrick, Belmont, representing the franchisee and franchiser, spoke in support: the only objections seem to have come from competitors; this is a good location for such a business; it will be strictly a retail service, no wholesaling; the proposed operator has a business in San Mateo which has been highly successful. Jerry Manzanares, operator of the proposed business, stated that merchants in the area with whom he has spoken have been supportive of this building and this business; it appears three of the present dry cleaning businesses are only agencies, he will have on-site processing. The following audience members spoke in favor. Kahndi Ami, Foster City: this business will offer high quality cleaning, the location is convenient for many of their present customers at the San Mateo location; she did not believe this operation would take business away from others, there are several dry cleaners near them in San Mateo and they are all still in business; regarding parking impact, their employees live in Burlingame and some will bicycle to work. Victor Catanzaro, owner of three parcels south of the subject site: he owns and operates an apartment house in the area and has not found a parking problem; the proposed operator has a clean, well run business in San Mateo; with only three employees on site this is not an intense use. The following spoke in opposition: Mary Zencirci, 1141 Paloma Avenue, owner .of a dry cleaning establishment on Broadway: intent for use of this new building was retail, not service, variance was granted based on this interpretation; to reach the site customers must go around the block, therefore traffic will be impacted in the residential area as well as the flow of traffic on Broadway; urge denial of the application, Broadway cannot afford another cleaners. A San Francisco resident who works in a cleaners on Broadway supported Mrs. Zencirci's remarks. Dorothy Chu whose family owns a dry cleaning business on Broadway: there is too much competition now; this proposal will take business away, they will be more modern; another dry cleaners is unnecessary in the area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: previous application for a pizza restaurant was turned down, the concern being that the parking variance was granted for retail businesses; does the code consider dry cleaning processing retail? Staff comments: dry cleaning is typically considered a service, the code was amended recently to allow dry cleaning processing in the C-1 district with a special permit, there is no distinction in the code between service and retail; believe the concern about the pizza restaurant was volume of traffic and parking in the area. Further Commission comment: think this building should focus on retail; Commission has long been concerned about parking/traffic problems on Broadway, to address this concern the 1199 building was conditioned to require a special permit for all tenants so that Commission could determine their impact on the area; merchants on Broadway have Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 24, 1985 supported more retail which could develop more foot traffic; dry cleaning is a dropoff/pickup type of business and would impact traffic on Broadway. Based on an initial understanding that the parking variance was granted to encourage retail use of this building, C. Giomi moved to deny the special permit. Second C. Taylor. Commissioner comment on the motion: when the parking variance was granted a special permit was required for each tenant so that Commission could evaluate the parking impact of each prospective tenant; do not think this application will create a greater parking problem than any other retail; agree that this is a retail use. Another Commissioner commented that this operation would create a lot of in and out traffic, it would be a poor business for this corner. Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:17 P.M.; reconvene 9:27 P.M. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - RETAIL CLOTHING STORE - 1199 BROADWAY Public hearing continued to the meeting of July 8, 1985. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRY CLEANING OPERATION WITH ON-SITE PROCESSING AT 1887 EL CAMINO REAL Reference staff report, 6/24/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item: details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Bob Petrick, representing the applicant, Jerry Kolodzik, stated they can comply with the requirement to relocate the bathrooms. A Commissioner noted this application for dry cleaning processing as well as a previous one (Item #4 this evening) are located in the C-1 zone, a special permit is required for this use in C-1. Mr. Petrick stated the mezzanine area is the bank's and will remain so. Staff advised an elevator of some type to meet handicapped requirements would be required if the applicant did not relocate the bathrooms from the second floor. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Further comment: previously the entire site was used by the bank; there will be no parking impact at this location, the Plaza has adequate parking. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the bathrooms be relocated or access improved to provide handicapped access as required in the Uniform Building Code Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1985 and that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of May 28, 1985 (revised June 10, 1985) shall be met; (2) that the dry cleaning establishment be located in a 2,400 SF area of this building and be open from 7:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Saturday, closed on Sundays, that the number of employees on site full time shall not exceed seven; (3) that no wholesaling of dry cleaning processing shall be done on this site; and (4) that this use permit shall be reviewed in 18 months time (January 1987). Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: this is a far different application than the previous one heard this evening for a dry cleaning establishment with far different circumstances, each application is considered on its own impact. The applicant was advised that if there are any changes to the conditions of this permit (number of employees, hours of operation) the applicant must return to the Commission for an amendment of the special permit. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW WAREHOUSE, MINOR REPAIR AND RETAIL SALES OF COLLECTOR AUTOMOBILES AT 1369 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE 8. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CHANGE OF USE OF THE BUILDING AT 1369 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE WITHOUT PROVIDING THE ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIRED Reference staff report, 6/24/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item: details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, parking requirement for the building. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Tony Leopardo, applicant, discussed his proposed business: this building was constructed in 1952 and has been used for retail sales and service of automotive washing equipment for 15 years; the second floor has always been in office use for the business on the site; he explained that collector cars are specially built automobiles of limited quantity with a value far above that of the ordinary automobile, the Edsel would be an example of such a car; he has dealt with collector cars for the last four to five years and does not deal in basic transportation. Mr. Leopardo discussed -,L+=site narking and SllgaPgi-P(i if- mi rrh+- ho �.1•�n� - --�•• - �-- � •-- = � - _ .,_:. — MINUTES - The minutes of the/June 24, 1985/ meeting were unanimously approved with the f=o 6wirig explanation: City Attorney indicated in discussion on the variance for collector -- automobiles at 1369 North Carolan Avenue (Item #8) that a parking variance could be tied to a specific conditional use permit. exceptional circucnstances to support granting the variance. It was suggested the office space on the second floor could be eliminated and converted to storage, thus coming closer to meeting parking requirements. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1985 Staff concerns were not as strong regarding this parking variance since the building, including the office area, has been in a similar use for a long time. Further comment: the site is not landscaped; applicant stated available on-site parking would more than meet his needs, he would never have 12 customers at one time; collector automobiles will all be stored inside the warehouse; the applicant plans to lease the office on the second floor but has no tenant yet; the loft area.shown on the plans is merely a small structure for extra parts storage reached by a stairway. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this 30 year old building which would be difficult to remodel, that the proposed use will result in parking inside the building, that the variance would not be detrimental since collector automobiles will be stored inside the warehouse and that it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. She also noted that this variance shall be tied directly to the collector car use and shall terminate with that use. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the parking variance with the conditions listed below. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's May 28, 1985 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's June 3, 1985 memo, the City Engineer's June 3, 1985 memo and the Building Inspector's concerns about openings on the northwesterly wall shall be met; (2) that the use on this site shall be limited to the storage and retail sales of collector automobiles, retail sales of auto parts for collector and classic cars and minor automobile repairs as defined and limited by the Fire Department, the second floor office area may be leased to a separate tenant for office use; (3) that all cars stored or repaired on the site shall be stored and worked on inside the building, and that the parking areas at the rear of the building and in the front of the building shall not be used for storage, repairs or retail sales; (4) that only the office area on the second floor shall be leased to a separate busines; (5) that seven parking spaces in front shall be laid out to limit site access to two curb cuts and the rear area shall be striped to provide customer and employee parking and this area shall be accessible during business hours; (6) that the auto storage/sales/minor repair business shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday and by appointment on Sunday; and (7) that this use permit shall be reviewed in 18 months time (January, 1987). Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A COURIER OPERATION IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1881 ROLLINS ROAD Reference staff report, 6/24/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request by Bay Area Parcel Service: details of the application, staff review, applicant's letter, parking provisions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: all Fire Code requirements will be met; concern about increased traffic on a relatively dangerous street; signage; on-site Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 June 24, 1985 parking for all businesses, suggest spaces be specifically marked; employee parking in the evening for the courier service when vans are parked inside. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Cora Lim, representing Bay Area Parcel Service, advised employees live in San Francisco and carpool from there to the site; the deli has its own parking spaces, the courier service has its own. Commission discussion: from a site inspection the parking seems feasible for this use; concern about peak hour trip ends, seems an intense use for this location; think major trip generation will be off the Millbrae Avenue overpass rather than Broadway, in the opposite direction of peak hour traffic flow. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's May 30, 1985 memo, the City Engineer's May 28, 1985 memo and the Fire Marshal's May 21, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that this courier operation shall be limited to business hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday with four employees on site and evening on-site employees of eight people from 5:30 P.M. to 12:00 midnight, Monday through Friday, with a fleet of vans not to exceed 16; (3) that the truck loading and turnaround area on the south side of the ramp be striped to accommodate six cars; no automobiles from this business shall be parked on the north side of the driveway or in front of the loading dock; (4) that employees hired to drive vans will park inside the warehouse while they are using the vans to make deliveries; and (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed in one year's time (July 1986) and shall be subject to revocation if the above conditions are not met. In comment on the motion the applicant was advised any increase in this business (i.e., employees, hours, number of vans) would require the applicant return to Commission for amendment of the special permit. Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONDUCT GYMNASTIC CLASSES FOR CHILDREN IN A PORTION OF AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AT 1510 ROLLINS ROAD Reference staff report, 6/24/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item: details of the proposal, staff review, applicant's letters, Planning staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Comment: this would be an intense use of the site; area to be occupied is a part of a large warehouse, applicant will partition it off; current uses, with the proposed use, will meet parking requirements; there is vacant, underused land on the site where parking could be expanded. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1985 Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Kon Mironov, the applicant, discussed his proposal: most of the children will come from the local area (probably 70%); would estimate 60% from Broadway/Rollins and 40% from Millbrae; there would be no traffic from this business during morning peak hours (do not open until 9:00 A.M.), most of the traffic would be after 6:00 P.M.; there would be no big trucks. He has an operation on a busy commercial street in San Francisco and has had no parking problems. He felt there is a demand for this type of operation in the community. Dave Black, leasing agent for the property owner, spoke in favor: there are 121 parking spaces; owners feel this would be a compatible tenant; most children would be dropped off in the driveway or at the curb. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: do plans include lighting for evening use in the winter; use is not suitable for the industrial area; ingress/egress; this use will adversely impact the critical Broadway/Rollins intersection and the area itself; it is too intensive a use at this location. Based on a finding that this is not an appropriate use for the area and will impact the Broadway/Rollins Road intersection, C. Jacobs moved to deny the special permit. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION - VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PIANO CLASSROOM/STUDIO - 824 EDGEHILL DR. Reference staff report, 6/24/85, with attachments. C. Jacobs moved to approve a one year extension (to July 3, 1986) of this variance and special permit. Second C. Taylor; motion approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Graham absent. ITEMS FOR STUDY 12. SPECIAL PERMIT - DRY CLEANERS - 1508 ADELINE DRIVE Item set for hearing July 8, 1985. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Planner's memo, review of 2/8/82 special permit for an industrial medical clinic at 1657 Rollins Road. - Director of Public Works memo, 6/12/85, subject: change of use of Rollins Road and Bayshore Highway industrial areas. - 6/10/85 letter from SPRINT employees (referred to TSP Commission). City Planner reviewed Council actions at its June 17, 1985 meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary