Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.09.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, September 22, 1986 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, schwalm, S. Graham Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher ACKNOWLEGEMENTS - Chairman Giomi acknowleged the presence of the new Planning Commissioner, Shelley Graham. Also acknowleged in audience were Councilman Don Lembi and former Commissioner Joe Harvey. MINUTES - The minutes of the September 8, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item #6, page 6: Motion approved on voice vote, "one dissenting vote". AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. Item #2, Special Permit - 1362 No. Carolan Avenue, has been withdrawn. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TWO VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A BEDROOM, BATH AND FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT 1636 MONTE COVINO WAY WHICH EXCEEDS 40% LOT COVERAGE AND PROVIDES ONLY ONE CODE -STANDARD PARKING SPACE ON SITE Reference staff report, 9/22/86, with attachments, CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, findings required for variance approval. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Jacobs asked CP Monroe if there had been some changes to the plans. There was a lot survey made by the applicant which resulted in some dimensional changes which the applicant would explain in the public hearing. Chairman Giomi opened the public hearing. John Keane, architect, was present. He explained that the project started as a family room only but since the applicant's father will now be living with them they need another bedroom requiring a larger addition. This led to the lot Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1986 coverage problem. The garage is now being used to park two cars so it meets the actual code requirement. The new lot survey requires the width of the addition to be slightly reduced so the lot coverage will also be slightly reduced to approximately 80 SF in excess of 40%. Enlarging the garage to 20' wide would cost up to $20,000 due to costs for a new roof, a new footing and new wall. The existing trellis from the garage to property line will be removed and a 5' side yard maintained. He distributed photos and a copy of the lot survey to the Planning Commissioners. Mr. William Ayoob, applicant, also spoke in favor of the request. To go up over the garage would be difficult for both his father who is legally blind and for his wife who has back problems and would have to use the stairs to care for him. Other floor plans were explored but this proposal is the best arrangement. There were no comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Widening the existing garage would be excessively expensive; this parking situation is normal in Ray Park; two cars can be parked in the present garage; the excess lot coverage is minimal. H. Graham moved to approve the addition by resolution including the conditions in the staff report and including amended plans. Condition #2 is amended: add "except that the width at the front of the addition is 11'-11 1/2" instead of 12'-0". Second C. Schwalm. Discussion on motion: other homes in Ray Park have not been able to expand the existing garage but this one can; reconstruction of garage would involve a lot of work and present garage can park two cars; proposal is for minimal expansion; no exceptional circumstances to the property have been stated; possibility of granting more lot coverage in order to allow enlarging of garage which would eliminate one variance. C. Garcia moved to amend the motion to allow another 1% lot coverage in order to require expansion of the garage. Second C. :Leahy. Since great cost is already required to make the addition, the garage should be corrected -do it right; at least this garage is being used unlike many in town; it is not beyond the scope of the Commission to grant the variance. C. Garcia moved to amend the motion to allow another 1% lot coverage in order to require expansion of the garage. Second C. Leahy. Motion failed on 3-4 vote, Commissioners H. Graham, S. Graham, Schwalm and Giomi dissenting. The original motion then passed on a 4-3 vote, Commissioners Garcia, Jacobs and Leahy dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO .ALLOW AUTO DETAILING FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT 1362 NORTH CAROLAN This Application was withdrawn by the applicant. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1986 3. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING BUILDING AT' 1320-50 HOWARD AVENUE WHICH HAS BEEN VACANT LONGER THAN SIX MONTHS TO BE USED FOR RESTAURANT RETAIL AND OFFICE USES WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ON SITE PARKING Reference staff report, 9/22/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, findings for a variance, study questions, city attorney's memo discussing the parking district. If granted, five conditions were suggested. CA Coleman clarified that if the Planning Commission grants a variance for a certain number of parking spaces and the applicant happens to lease the building for a lesser amount they are still entitled to the full variance number of spaces in the future. Discussion on staff report: the intent of the code regarding non -conforming buildings was to attempt to catch up on the parking deficit for at least buildings in disuse and when they came back into use, to treat them like new buildings: if the building had been vacant even reuse with less intensive uses than original use would require parking variance. The public hearing ws opened. Amitai Schwartz, attorney for the applicant was present. He discussed the uniqueness of this property which was a classic for a variance; the historical and legal background for the building; after purchase, not viable economically; various damages occurred which insurance didn't cover; 1981, changes made to parking ordinance; some use made of building (upstairs offices) until 1984; no parking can be provided since building covers entire lot; can't take down a portion of the building to provide parking; their understanding of BAPD regulations was that payments to district bought parking rights in downtown; not asking for the full 94/113 spaces (Mr. Schwart's calculations) which building was originally entitled to under present parking standards given its previous mix of uses; lot dimensions do not allow parking to be developed on lot, building is deep and in order to get retail customers into building to support retail, restaurant space needed at rear; mixed use was way to use whole building to make useable to everyone; compared to other buildings parking situation isn't unique: 7 or 36 surrounding properties provide parking on site; unlikely that restaurant will attract a lot of extra cars at lunch time, it will be used by office workers in the area; parking study shows a lot of night time parking so if building didn't have night time users wouldn't be able to take advantage of available night time parking; regarding the CE parking study, this calculations showed the building entitled to 79 spaces at the first floor and they are asking only for 68 spaces based on his methods of calculation. Commissioner questions to applicant: was an engineering study done to determine whether or not the building could be cut back to provide some parking on site; would the savings & loan next door be willing to work out an access arrangement; when the Burlingame Commercial Area was reviewed in 1981 and the code changed the City didn't hear from the applicant; has the applicant explored rebuilding the building in order to provide some parking on site; could restaurant use be limited to Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1986 evening hours; clarification that applicant was including office use in request; building could have been kept in some use in order to avoid this situation; clarification of page two of attorney's memo regarding maintenance of bowling alley and restaurant -whether maintenance was or was not done; reason for discontinuing the use of the alley; has applicant considered remodeling and getting new tenants; applicant's profession as general contractor clarified; majority of names on petition are on Burlingame Avenue. Applicant's responses to Commission questions: property owner, Roger Miles, responded that because of shape of the lot with less than 100' frontage you would end up with no building if 20' stalls and required ingrees/egrees requirements were met; former discussions with adjacent property owner show no interest in ahared parking access. Mr. Miles said that he never received a notice about the 1981 hearings on the zoning; property was occupied until 1984; found out about parking problem through prospective tenant and real estate agent and met with city staff to discuss; building was not entirely empty when he found out about the parking problem; series of damages occurred which left building without tenants and costly to repair; insurance companies would not pay for repairs to building; came to city and was told nothing could be done about the parking problem; hired local attorney to talk to city who was told that there was nothing he could do, that city ws adamant; hired another attorney who wrote letters and received same response; was told he would have to have enants lined up before he could file for variance; found out about parking requirements sometime in the 801s; many operations are surviving without parking in this area; they couldn't limit restaurant to evening use only; office use is definitely included in proposal; building would have: been kept in some use if owner had known about parking problem; after purchase, building was maintained solely for private use, not public; reason for discontinuing use was that there were legal problems; at first taking time to resolve, the bowling alley was not economically vaiable and left with no liquor license for the bar so it was used on a special party basis only; bowling alley was closed after the rain damage of 1979; attempted to lease out building in the meantime with no success; still in litigation with insurance company; the building is concrete and steel and clear -span construction over the alley and therefore would be structurally difficult to remodel the building to provide parking on site. Other persons speaking in favor of the application: Jean Cockroft -- the building is not good for any use as it is now; there must be some way to make it usable or else declare it a public nuisance and remove it. Persons speaking against the application: Dwight Moore representing the United Methodist Church on Primrose and Howard ---their parking lot on that corner is always used by patrons of the adjacent deli regardless of the day, even when church -goers need to use the parking; another restaurant would make the situation worse. There were no other persons to speak for or against the application and the public hearing was closed. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1986 Commission discussion: proposed condition eliminating restaurant use was based on review of parking study and impacts of various uses and is the City Planner's recommendation of uses which would have the least parking impact at peak hours; restaurant formerly in, bowling alley was rather a sandwich/sundae operation about 1500 SF; if the proposal doesn't intensify the use of the property then there! doesn't seem to be a problem with a comparable use; the parking problem will always be there; principle behind the non -conforming ordinance! is to make those buildings conform, in time; perhaps ordinance shouldbe reviewed by the Council; proposed uses are very different from original uses on site and is going from an evening use of 94 spaces to daytime use of 84; would like to see some parking provided some way; local people all want something to be done with the building; merchants would rather have parking impact rather than leave the building in its, present condition; there are exceptional circumstances since the building covers the entire lot; any use of this building will require a variance; Commission has the right to alter the proposed mix of uses; the conditions required by the Commission are not subject to the applicant's approval. C. Jacobs moved to approve this variance by resolution with the five conditions in the staff report based on the facts that as developed this is an unusual property, these are the best combination of uses based on the impacts, that the property needs to be upgraded, that it isn't unusual to have 100% lot coverage, that the applicant has the right to use the property within limits, that parking is impacted in the whole downtown already and the building was there before the 1981 requirements were established. Second C. Schwalm. Discussion: will agree although use is intensified because this proposal is for daytime use rather than nighttime use; no restaurant use is to be allowed; parking problem downtown will never be solved completely. Motion approved unanimously by roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THREE UNITS AT 1119 CH.ULA VISTA AVENUE (LOT 8, BLOCK 2, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION) CE Erbacher reviewed this proposal which recommended. that the map be forwarded to the City Council for approval. C. Graham moved to forward this map to the City Council with recommendation for approval. Second C. Jacobs; motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Meeting recessed for a 10 minute break at 9:25. 5. MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1368 VANCOUVER AVENUE WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SIDE; YARD REQUIREMENTS There were no Commissioner questions; this item was not called up for review. CP Monroe will notify the applicant that the application has been reviewed and approved by the City. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes STUDY ITEMS Page 6 September 22, 1986 6. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE SIGNAGE AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE THAN IS PERMITTED BY THE SIGN CODE CP Monroe reviewed this request. Commission requested the following information: a comparison chart showing other signage in the auto row area; staff to confirm code limits for the number of signs on the frontage and the total number of signs requested. Item set for public hearing on Tuesday, October 14. PLANNER REPORTS - 1800 EL CAMINO REAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION The negative declaration prepared for the three-story office project at 1800 E1 Camino Real was discussed; significant effects called out in the EIR have been mitigated by the current design. - 1070 BROADWAY -REQUEST FOR PERMIT EXTENSION Request by Mike Harvey for one-year permit extension for project at 1070 Broadway will be on next agenda. - HOOVER SCHOOL SITE SALE The School District has notified the city that the Hoover School site is up for sale. - CP Monroe reviewed Council Action at its September 15, 1986 regular meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Giomi asked the Planning Commission to think about initiating a rotation of commissioners to cover the City Council meetings and then having that Commissioner report back to the Commission at their next meeting. CP Monroe said she will make a list of the remaining Council meetings for this year. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:53 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary