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