HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.04.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 1985
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, April 8, 1985 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs,
Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe;
City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 25, 1985 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
C. Schwalm nominated C. Garcia as Chairman; C. Jacobs moved the
nominations be closed. Bill Garcia elected Chairman unanimously.
C. Jacobs nominated C. Giomi as Vice Chairman, and moved the
nominations be closed. Nannette Giomi elected Vice Chairman
unanimously. C. Garcia nominated C. Leahy as Secretary; C. Jacobs
moved the nominations be closed. Bob Leahy elected Secretary
unanimously. In passing the gavel to C. Garcia, C. Graham voiced his
appreciation of Commission's cooperation during the last two years.
CONSENT ITEM
1. MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A FAMILY ROOM/BEDROOM ADDITION WITHOUT
PROVIDING A SECOND, CODE STANDARD PARKING SPACE BEHIND THE FRONT
SE'T'BACK, AT 1443 LAGUNA AVENUE, BY LEN CURTI
CP Monroe commented on this request to add a third bedroom without
providing a second parking space behind the front setback; all other
zoning standards for the district will be met. Reference staff report,
4/8/85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 3/22/85; public
notice mailed all property owners within 75' of the site on March 28,
1985; Len Curti letter received 3/22/85; drawing date stamped 3/22/85;
aerial photograph; 4/2/85 "no comments" memo from the City Engineer.
CP and Commission discussed the provisions of Ordinance 1286 adopted
September 17, 1984 providing authority to the City Planner to approve
minor modifications. C. Graham moved for approval of the consent
calendar. Second C. Schwalm, motion approved unanimously on voice
vote.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1985
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PATIO ENCLOSURE IN THE FRONT SETBACK
TO EXCEED 5'-0" IN HEIGHT (6' PROPOSED), AT 300 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,
ZONED R-1, BY GROVER AND DONA CLEVELAND
3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE NONCONFORMING USE AT 300 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE
TO BE EXTENDED IN AREA BY THE ENGLARGEMENT OF A REQUIRED EXIT
STAIRWAY, ZONED R-1, BY GROVER AND DONA CLEVELAND
CP Monroe reviewed this request for a 6' wall in the front setback and
expansion of the footprint of a nonconforming structure. Reference
staff report, 4/8/85; study meeting minutes, 3/25/85; Project Applica-
tion & CEQA Assessment received 2/19/85; applicants' letter date
stamped 3/4/85; photograph (view into existing stairwell at rear of
apartment) received 3/4/85; drawings, main floor, second floor, third
floor, received 3/4/85; staff review: Fire Marshal (3/15/85), Chief
Building Inspector (3/7/85), City Engineer (3/7/85); aerial photograph;
Notice of Hearing mailed 3/29/85; applicants' letter, 3/30/85; letter
in support from L. W. Brown, 309 Occidental Avenue, 3/31/85. CP
discussed details of the requests, staff review, applicants' letter,
study meeting questions, staff comment. For the fence exception one
condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing; for
the variance three conditions were suggested.
Discussion: determination of property lines; maximum height allowed for
fence/wall structures in the front setback.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing on the fence exception.
Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Cleveland, were present. Mr. Cleveland
discussed his first impression that the property line was at the inner
edge of the sidewalk, not 2' further in; his measurements from the
curve of the sidewalk for locating the framework for the wall;
framework is in place, foundation has not been poured; he felt a 6'
wall would give more privacy and would have little difference in
appearance. It was determined fence height is measured from grade.
Commission asked about applicant's discussions with Building and
Planning Departments. Applicant commented that if he had understood
the property line was 2' inside the inner edge of the sidewalk his
plans for the patio would have remained similar to meet their desires
for landscaping and for use of the patio; he had talked to his
neighbors and had received no objection. A building permit had been
issued for the wall; after receiving a red tag on another part of his
planned improvements he discovered the property line was not the inner
edge of the sidewalk. He commented there were other 6' fences in the
neighborhood in the front setback; if given a choice he would leave the
wall at 5' rather than move it back.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1985
C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in this oversized
lot, that there would be no adverse visual impact on the neighborhood,
that no traffic hazard would be created and that there may have been
some misunderstanding when the building permit was issued for a 6'
fence at the present location. C. Giomi moved to grant the fence
exception with the following condition: (1) that the wall structure be
limited to a maximum of 6' from adjacent grade to the top of the
highest most point on the wall/fence. Second C. Graham. In comment on
the motion concern was expressed about considering these two items
(fence exception and variance) independently. CA advised there is good
case law to support separation of the items. The fence exception was
approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing on the variance. Mr. Cleveland
discussed his desire to make the back entry more pleasant and
available, to improve to.code standards the last half flight of stairs
from the first floor to ground level and the half flight from ground
level to the basement, these stairs are too narrow and too steep; he
would like to install a laundry in the basement. Staff's requirement
that the entire stair from the third floor to the basement be rebuilt
was noted; applicant proposed improving the two bottom half flights as
well as meeting Fire Department requirement to add landings. There
were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Responding to Commission question, Fire Marshal advised that the Fire
Department is concerned about the narrow, winding stairs. Staff
advised UBC requires a 36" width. Commission expressed concern about
the narrow width of the stairway and its winding pattern as well as
lack of measurements and detail of the stairs on the plans. CP related
the chronology of staff discussions and staff/ applicant contacts with
regard to the stairs. One Commissioner commented applicant's proposal
would be an improvement to this old building.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance with staff's suggested
conditions and amendment of Condition #2 to require the width of the
stairs be 36" and the stairs installed to all code requirements. With
this amendment C. Jacobs found that the proposal would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and would comply
with zoning code if the stairs installed from the top were built to
current code requirements. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the
conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo, March 15, 1985, the Chief
Building Inspector's memo, March 7, 1985 and the City Engineer's memo,
March 7, 1985 be met; (2) that the stair as built from the third floor
to the basement have treads with a maximum rise of 7-1/2" and a maximum
run of 9-1/2" with code standard landings and an open area no less than
3' x 3' in front of each door, that no portion of the stair will be
narrower than 36" and will be built to all current code requirements,
and that all banisters on the stair as required by the Chief Building
Inspector wrap and return to maximize the safe use of the area; and (3)
that if a stair cannot be constructed to meet the standards of
Condition #2 as approved by the Chief Building Inspector, this variance
is null and void and no area of the basement can be used for human
occupancy. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1985
Recess 8:35 P.M.; reconvene 8:45 P.M.
4. PARKING VARIANCE - 1209 HOWARD AVENUE - BY INDIA CLUB, INC.
Application withdrawn. Reference April 1, 1985 letter from D. R.
Patel,.President, India Club, Inc.
5. USE DETERMINATION FOR REDISTRIBUTION OF STORAGE AREA TO ALLOW
RETAIL USE ON ALL THREE FLOORS WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
PARKING, PROPERTY AT 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY JACK KEMP,
ARCHITECT FOR CONTINENTAL SAVINGS OF AMERICA (PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe reviewed this request by the new owners of the Levy Bros.
building. Reference staff report, 4/8/85; Project Application & CEQA
Assessment received 3/13/85; site drawings and retail use analyses;
architect's letter, March 13, 1985; Fire Marshal letter to architect,
February 13, 1985; memo to file from City Planner, December 4, 1984;
architect's letter to City Clerk, March 13, 1985; City Council minutes,
March 18, 1985; Monroe letter to Kemp, March 19, 1985; Notice of
Hearing mailed March 29, 1985. CP discussed details of the request,
history of the site, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's
letters.
Discussion: proposal will not increase square footage of retail sales
area; retail merchandising shops are proposed; are square footage
calculations included in packet material correct; the creation of
Sub -Area A fixed the useage by square footage in the building to two
floors of retail use and one floor of storage.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Ronnie Rogers, Continental
Savings of America (applicant) discussed their plans for an atrium and
redistribution of spaces within the building; there would be no
increase in retail space; they feel the proposal is within the sphere
of zoning ordinance provisions. He noted that David Carr, attorney, was
present. Jack Kemp, architect, discussed the project with the aid of
drawings which showed the equivalent of the second floor storage square
footage distributed throughout the building in common open areas and
designated storage areas on two floors. He stated the problem was to
convert a single tenant building into multi -tenant use, to keep the
existing building a key site on Burlingame Avenue, to open up the whole
building and to provide maximum flexibility for potential tenants.
They anticipate 8-10 tenants.
Their solution was to create a central atrium connecting the three
floors, provide a common interior streetscape enhanced by plantings,
satisfy all current zoning standards, meet handicap requirements,
upgrade fire safety and sprinkle the entire building. There will be a
reduction of approximately 6,200 SF in net rentable area compared to a
second floor storage area square footage of about 6,100 SF. This
reduction of Levy Bros.' useable space will create a modern, quality
area for tenants with mall space open to the skylights and a balcony
along the second floor. A second means of egress to the rear has been
added on the lower level. Mr. Kemp pointed out on the drawings the
additional 754 SF of designated storage area on the lower level and on
the upper level which complete the match of common open area/storage to
existing storage area. The footprint of the building will not change;
separation between the shops will be to UBC/UFC requirements.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1985
Staff noted each tenant improvement will need to receive a building
permit. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission comment: would have liked a comparison of expected number of
employees and parking versus Levy Bros.; concern about nonconforming
parking. Staff noted that the city parking requirements assume an
average number of employees per area and that they do not vary if the
area is occupied by one business or 10.
C. Jacobs commended the applicant on this attractive proposal, both the
city and the applicant will gain. She then moved for approval of this
request to allow common area and storage space related to retail uses
on the site to be distributed throughout the three floors of the
structure so long as the leasable retail area within the structure does
not exceed the equivalent of the basement and first floor (19,805 SF)
at the time the last use was on the site (see Retail Use Analysis,
February 26, 1985, revised March 13, 1985). Second C. Giomi; motion
approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 30 LORTON AVENUE
7. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Requests: specific information on parking stall #l; data on rooftop
landscaping. Items set for hearing April 22, 1985.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT - TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS - 330 PRIMROSE ROAD
Requests: visual impact on Donnelly, Primrose and Burlingame Avenue;
location of power source and air conditioning. Item set for hearing
April 22, 1985.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- March 27, 1985 letter from Michael D. Rabbino, M.D., regarding lack
of staggered light system on E1 Camino Real.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its April 1, 1985 regular meeting
and April 3, 1985 study meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary
AGENDA
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. MINUTES March 11, 1985
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. PUBLIC FORUM
1. Public Forum to discuss the proposed leachate berm which is
part of the planned Airport Boulevard improvement project.
VI. ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. Special Permit to allow a jewelry and watch repair/retail
operation and art goods retail operation at 1195 Broadway in
a 600 SF portion of the partially completed commercial
building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Laguna (APN
026-192-220), zoned C-1, by Dong Ping and Jui-Chich Liu
(applicants) with Garbis Bezdjian (property owner).
3. Special Permit for a dessert shop/bakery at 1500 Adeline
Drive (APN 026-011-030), zoned C-1, by Phyllis and Dennis
Clima (applicants) with Marmora Terrell and Nancy Kurkjian
(property owners).
4. Special Permit to allow residential use of property in
Sub -Area B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area at
333 Lorton Avenue (APN 029-151-110), zoned C-2, by John
Kowalski (property owner and applicant).
5. Two Variances to allow an apartment addition to an existing
structure at 333 Lorton Avenue in Sub -Area B of the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (APN 029-151-110), zoned
C-2, by John Kowalski (property owner and applicant):
A. Variance from required 5'-0" side yard (0' proposed).
B. Variance from required 24' parking lot aisle width
(21' proposed).
6. Sign Exception to allow signs to remain at 1000 Broadway
which exceed the code limitations for number and amount of
signs (APN 026-131-170), zoned M-1, by Atlantic Richfield
Company (applicant and property owner).
Burlingame Planning Commission Agenda Page 2
VII. ITEMS FOR STUDY
7. Fence Exception to allow a patio enclosure at 300 Occidental
Avenue to exceed 5'-0" in height which is the maximum
allowed for fence -type structures in the required front
setback area (APN 028-285-150), zoned R-1, by Grover and
Dona Cleveland (property owners and applicants).
8. Variance to allow the nonconforming use at 300 Occidental
Avenue to be extended in area (Code Sec. 25.50.020) by the
enlargement of a required exit stairway (APN 028-285-150),
zoned R-1, by Grover and Dona Cleveland (property owners and
applicants).
9. Parking Variance to allow a former auction studio to be used
for restaurant, retail, office and storage uses (which is an
intensifying of existing land uses) without providing
additional on-site parking (APN 029-224-040), zoned C-1, by
India Club, Inc. (applicant and property owner).
VIII. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting, March 18, 1985.
IX. ADJOURNMENT