Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.03.25{ CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, March 25, 1985 at 7:32 P.M. nnr.r. r+nr_r Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the March 11, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. PUBLIC FORUM 1. PUBLIC FORUM ON NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR A CITY PROJECT TO IMPROVE A PORTION OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BUILD A LEACHATE BERM AND PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BAY CP Monroe discussed the city's proposed project, the need for these improvements and the city's determination that the most cost effective and permanent solution for stopping the leachate would be a berm out- board of the roadway. Reference staff report, 3/25/85; Notice of Preparation, 1/30/85; Initial Study, 4/2/84 with attachments. Commission discussion/concerns: how will leachate be kept out of the sanitary landfill in the future; where will clay material to be used in the leachate berm come from; will the existing riprap be removed; provide detail on public parking available in the area, at present and in the future at the sanitary landfill site; how many trees will be removed and what will be replaced; how much dirt will be placed over the leachate berm; how will the project be financed, what will cost be by phase; are number of parking spaces on the bayside adequate; will public access area and improved roadway be lit, will there be an increase in glare which could have a significant impact, will the lumens change; are there shellfish in the area and will this project affect them; will the demand for parking at Bayside Park be increased. There were no audience comments and the public forum was closed. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1985 ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A JEWELRY/ART GOODS AND WATCH REPAIR RETAIL OPERATION AT 1195 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BY DONG PING AND JUI-CHICH LIU (APPLICANTS) WITH GARBIS BEZDJIAN (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate a 600 SF retail sales store in the 6,570 SF commercial building now under construction at Laguna and Broadway. Reference staff report, 3/25/85; study meeting minutes, 3/11/85; Monroe letter of action to Garbis Bezdjian, 3/8/84; City Engineer's memo, 2/2/84; Albert Kapkin letter, 3/12/85;.Project Appli- cation & CEQA Assessment received 2/13/85; Project Proposal date stamped 2/13/85; site drawings date stamped 2/13/85; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (3/7/85), City Engineer (2/22/85), Fire Marshal (2/27/85); Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits. CP discussed details of the request, study meeting questions, staff review. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: condition #3 which would require all Building and Fire Codes applicable at the time tenant improvements are made be met; approval of the parking variance for this commercial building did not establish a limit to number of tenants allowed on the site; one Commissioner believed the original plans showed five stores; developer will be required to meet Building Code requirements for restrooms, this tenant may lose some of his space to that requirement; all tenants will be required to have access to a restroom and to the rear of the building; property owner/developer should consider the needs of the entire building now rather than later, this tenant is at a disadvantage since he does not know the final division of the building. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Dong Liu, applicant, was present. The following members of the audience spoke in favor of this application. David Hinckle, 1616 Sanchez Avenue: had opposed other uses for this site but is in support of this use. Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road: works on Broadway and is in favor of more retail there; would urge applicant to lease at least 1,000 SF if possible. Dong Liu commented that 1,000 SF would be too expensive and that the proposed business would not need that much space, they plan only three employees for the next five years. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-85 with the following conditions: (1) that the finished area leased by this tenant shall not exceed 650 SF, that the area shall have direct access to the front (Broadway frontage) of the building and at least a shared access to the rear parking lot serving the building so that those using the on-site lot can get from the parking to the retail area; this retail area shall have access to the public restrooms serving the building; (2) when interior remodeling plans for this area are submitted for a building permit a set shall be filed with the Planning Department showing adequate detail so that it can be established that Condition #1 is met; Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1985 and (3) all Building and Fire Codes applicable at the time tenant improvements are made shall be met. Comment on the motion: think developer should be advised that continued leasing of such small square footages could lead to denial of a use permit in the future. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A DESSERT SHOP/BAKERY AT 1500 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED C-1, BY PHYLLIS AND DENNIS CLIMA (APPLICANTS) WITH MARMORA TERRELL AND NANCY KURKJIAN (PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate a dessert shop/bakery in the Adeline Market shopping complex. Reference Staff Report, 3/25/85; Monroe letter of action to property owners, 2/8/84; copy of Ordinance No. 1266; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 2/15/85; applicant's letters, 2/14 and 2/21/85; site drawings; staff review: City Engineer (2/22/85), Chief Building Inspector (3/7/85), Fire Marshal (2/26/85); study meeting minutes, 3,/11/85; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed 3/15/85; Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: walls of this development are already in place, therefore size and number of shops have already been determined; are restroom facilities to code provided; at what hour will baker arrive in the morning; operation is not located next to the flower shop as shown on the shaded drawing but in the next shop over, both are 414 SF; concern about excessive signage in this center adjacent to a residential neighborhood; concern about possible encroachment of flower pots on public sidewalk; desire to clarify condition #2 so that no wholesale delivery/pickups shall be allowed before 7:00 A.M. weekdays or 10:00 A.M. Sundays. Chm Graham opened the public hearing. Applicants and property owner were present. Nancy Kurkjian, property owner, commented many people in the neighborhood are looking forward to this use; there will be no part time employee, only two full time, Mr. and Mrs. Clima; there will be no delivery trucks, applicants will use their car for wholesale deliveries; believe majority of customers will come to the center on foot, those coming by auto would be in and out customers. Phyllis Clima, applicant, commented on receiving Board of Health approval, the inspector did not see the need for a grease trap if no deep frying were done; they plan to sell donuts but will buy them, applicants will pick them up themselves; she plans to bake in the evening, will arrive at the site 5:30 P.M.; her husband will arrive at the shop 6:30 A.M. to open at 7:00. Concern was expressed about heat in such a small area, applicant replied health inspector's approval was received in spite of that. It was suggested a condition be added to require a special permit amendment if a part time employee were added in the future; a further suggestion was to approve two 'operators only with no additional persons. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1985 Sabrina Schenone, 1035 E1 Camino Real spoke in favor: Adeline Market center has been closed too long, glad to see improvements and a Mom and Dad type shop between Broadway and Burlingame Plaza. There were no comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: concern about delivery trucks blocking the area; staff noted merchants would have to get together to work out any problems. C. Garcia moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-85 with the following conditions: (1) that the condition of the Fire Marshal's memo of February 26, 1985 shall be met; (2) that the business shall be operated from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sunday, that pickup/delivery of wholesale goods produced on the premises shall be limited to three times a week and such pickup/delivery shall be made by automobile; no trucks relating to this business shall be parked on the Adeline Market site; and (3) that all requirements of the City and Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code shall be met during the tenant improvements. Second C. Schwalm. C. Giomi moved to amend the motion to clarify allowed before 7:00 A.M. or after 7:00 P.M.; Amendment to the motion failed on a 2-5 roll Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor and Graham dissenting. 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. advised. Recess 8:40 P.M.; reconvene 8:50 P.M. that no deliveries be second C. Jacobs. call vote, Cers Garcia, Original motion approved Appeal procedures were 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE OF PROPERTY IN SUB -AREA B OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA AT 333 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, BY JOHN KOWALSKI (PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) 5. VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN APARTMENT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 333 LORTON AVENUE, BY JOHN KOWALSKI CP Monroe reviewed this request to add a second floor residential unit to a commercial building and to allow two variances, one from required side yard and the second from required parking lot aisle width. Reference Staff Report, 3/25/85; study meeting minutes, 3/11/85; Towber letter to Kowalski, 3/12/85; Kowalski letter to Towber, 3/15/85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 2/7/85; Kowalski memo, date stamped 2/7/85; staff review: City Engineer (2/22/85), Fire Marshal (2/19/85), Chief Building Inspector (3/7/85); Towber memo to Police Dept., 3/12/85; Police Department reply, date stamped 3/14/85; material from 1984 application as follows: drawing date stamped 7/29/ 83, Kowalski letters, 12/21/83, 7/29/83, 12/23/83, staff memos: City Engineer (11/30/83), Fire Marshal (11/30/83), Chief Building Inspector (11/29/83), City Council minutes, 2/6/84, Planning Commission minutes, 1/9/84; Notice of Hearing mailed 3/15/85; Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits; Planner memo, 3/19/85; and plans date stamped 2/11/85. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1985 CP discussed details of the request, history of this application, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions, code requirements for granting a variance. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commissioner question: where will exit to the outside from the proposed addition be located. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicant was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: foundation check by an engineer will not be required until final plans are submitted; what has happened in the last year that might cause Commission to change its mind and approve the same project it denied in 1984; need to justify any approval of the variances with code required findings. CP read into the record findings necessary to grant a variance (Code Sec. 25.54.020). Applicant found exceptional circumstances in that the second story would have to be built over existing walls and therefore the 5' side yard requirement for residences could not be met; he added that there have been no problems with present parking. Further Commission comment: feel there are alternatives to adding a living unit; applicant could hire a security guard who would be on site until 1:00 P.M.; it would be precedent setting to grant two variances for a residential use in Sub -Area B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Applicant discussed his need for someone living on the premises, attempts at other means of security which have not worked, lack of police protection and described some of his problems. Commission concerns: allowing mixed use which could be precedent setting; lack of findings necessary for variance approval (staff pointed out all applicants are given a copy of the code required findings and that these had also been enumerated in the staff report for this item). During further discussion applicant advised his experience has shown that security guards who do not live on the premises and are hired at lower salaries are not reliable and often do not show up for work; the reason his business has so many problems is its location and type of customer. Further Commission comment: think part of the problem could be management; the later a business is open the more problems there will be. C. Jacobs moved to deny the special permit. Second C. Taylor. Commenting on the motion, C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in this type of business, its clientele, the hours it needs to be open; that it is a permitted use in the C-2 zone; that it would be a hardship upon the applicant to move the building to meet setback requirements. She found it appropriate to grant the variances. Motion to deny the special permit was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi and Graham dissenting. C. Jacobs then moved to deny the two variances. Second C. Leahy; motion approved 4-3 on roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1985 6. SIGN EXCEP'T'ION TO ALLOW SIGNS TO REMAIN AT 1000 BROADWAY WHICH EXCEED CODE LIMITATIONS FOR NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE, ZONED M-1, BY ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this Sign Exception request for changes made to signage at the gas station/car wash on the southwest corner of Rollins Road and Broadway. Reference Staff Report, 3/25/85; Planning Commission minutes, 7/23/73; sign drawing, 3/20/85; Sign Exception application filed 2/5/85; Sign Permit application filed 2/5/85; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (2/22/85), City Engineer (2/22/85), Fire Marshal (2/8/85); plans dated 11/5/84. CP discussed details of the request, history of signage on this site, staff review, applicant's comments on his sign exception application. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion determined: of the two signs designated as Sign 'C', one is located on the secondary frontage (Rollins Road) and is within code limits which would reduce the total square footage for the signs on the primary frontage (Broadway) to 209 SF; a sign exception is needed for 209 SF of signage and number of signs (five). Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. J. D. Greenfelder, representing Atlantic Richfield Company, was present and commented on the renovation of this site; there is no need for signage on Rollins Road; do need the requested signage on Broadway. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Further discussion/determination: applicant has no plans for additional signage on this property; "new car wash pylon sign" shown on the 11/5/ 84 plans is not a part of this application; possibility of lowering shrubbery to help view of traffic from Millbrae when exiting the site; monument sign was placed at its present location to preserve sight lines; concern was expressed about the number of signs requested and that this might set a precedent. C. Schwalm found, from testimony presented, that approval would not constitute a grant of special privilege and that there were special circumstances in the size of this property, its street frontage and location of structures to support the need for identification as proposed in this sign exception. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the sign exception to allow 209 SF of signage and five signs on the primary (Broadway) frontage with the following conditions: (1) the applicant shall obtain building permits for all signs on site which have been erected or altered without obtaining a permit; and (2) all Fire and Building Code requirements shall be met. Second C. Taylor; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. FENCE EXCEPTION - 300 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE 8. VARIANCE TO EXTEND NONCONFORMING USE - 300 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE Requests: does new patio constitute enlargement of the footprint; clarify property line. Items set for hearing April 8, 1985. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1985 9. PARKING VARIANCE - 1209 HOWARD AVENUE Requests: clarify request for office use on second floor; what business could go on this site and still have the nonconforming rights of the previous occupant; history of the use determination for the second floor of 205 Park Road (Bay View Federal building); have any other parking variances been granted on Howard; show adjacent rear land uses and exit on plans; statement from applicant addressing the four findings necessary for variance approval. Item set for hearing April 8, 1985. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reported on her attendance at the recent League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Institute held at Santa Clara. - CP reviewed Council actions at its March 18, 1985 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary