Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.01.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Vice Chairman Schwalm on Monday, January 26, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: Commissioner Giomi Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the January 12, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #3 (Special Permit, 2220 Summit Drive) was continued to the meeting of February 9, 1987. Item #8 (three Variances and a Special Permit, 1025 Rollins Road) continued to the meeting of March 9, 1987 at the request of the applicant. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TWO VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING TO ALLOW A 620 SF SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 132 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/26/87, with attachments. C. S.Graham advised she would abstain from participation in this item because of a conflict of interest. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, study meeting questions and applicants' letter in response. Letter in opposition from Mike Polchowski, 125 Channing Road was noted. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained the access to the stairs. Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. Jeffrey McFadden, applicant, commented: the property is rented at the moment; his parents plan to move to this house after renovation and after selling their present home; compliance with the required setback and moving the garage, back would be expensive and prohibitive to his parents; adding at ground level would cost more than going up and they wished to preserve the large backyard; he stated he is not a builder; he is co-owner (90%) of this property at present, if parents are unable to sell their house and move in here he will probably put it on the market again; those living in the house would be his parents and possibly himself part time, he needs a consulting office at home closer to San Francisco; he was not aware of code requirements when he bought the house or that 50' frontage was the norm; other homes in the neighborhood have a similar second story. Commissioner comment: some additions in the neighborhood were made prior to the present code. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1987 Bob Stein, general contractor, spoke in favor: people buying property are not generally aware of a city's codes, this house needs quite a bit of clean-up, rooms and square footage are small, applicant would like to be comfortable in the house by adding to it, the next door neighbor has a second story home which would not meet today's code, the second story could be set back but it would be very costly; regarding on -street parking, he felt this would always be a problem in this area, with only three people living in the`house he did not believe there would be an impact on the parking situation. There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: have no problem with this proposal, the building was constructed prior to present codes, it would be expensive to change it to meet code and would be a hardship upon the applicant to require he rebuild the garage, there are always problems when renovating an old home and applicant had no reason to be aware of all code requirements, to set in the second story would detract from the appearance of the house; do have a problem with this request, there are alternatives to the proposal, generally when Commission grants a variance there are no alternatives, there is room in the back for the addition and the garage could be moved, this property would be going from a two bedroom house with family room to four bedrooms with family room, most houses on that block on the same side of the street have two bedrooms, have a concern about four bedrooms in a neighborhood where parking is a problem now; concern about the uncertainty of the parents moving into this house, generally when variances are granted the people have bought it and are ready to move in or are already in, there are alternatives for the addition if not for the garage, it is a deep lot. Further comment: the addition on the second floor is not in the front of the house, it is set back, it will improve the appearance of the house and preserve yard space; normally Commission allows such a variance when someone is trying to meet the housing needs of a growing family, in approving this proposal Commission would be encouraging bad planning practice, parking in the front setback area, this could set a precedent, applicant could relocate the garage and put a second car behind the front setback; proposal will improve the property and its appearance, only one complaint has been received; there is not much the applicant can do regarding setback and garage, this type of variance has been allowed in other parts of the city, the alternatives would be a hardship on him because of cost. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the two variances with the two conditions listed in the staff report. He found there were exceptional circumstances in the house as built, the setback is there now, it would be very expensive to move it and a hardship on the applicant, a further hardship would be the cost to move the garage; the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the owner; it will not affect other property owners, the number of cars on the street is not directly related to the number of bedrooms; and it will not affect the zoning plan of the city. Second C. Garcia. Motion failed on a 3-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Leahy dissenting, C. S.Graham abstaining, C. Giomi absent. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1987 There was some further discussion regarding providing more on-site parking. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the two variances with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 8, 1986; (2) that as built the addition shall conform to all codes of the City of Burlingame except for those specific items granted variance by action of the Planning Commission; and (3) that a second door be cut in the rear of the existing garage and at least one more paved parking space be provided at the rear of the garage. Second C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: this sounds like a proposal heard recently for a garage with a token attachment to a house, this would be constructing a drive-through to provide parking; it is poor planning practice to encourage parking in the front setback, this is an improvement to the previous motion; tandem parking has not worked in Burlingame, this applicant may wish to preserve the backyard but a future owner might find the concrete slab appropriate for a patio, and it may or may not help the problem of parking. Motion failed on a 3-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Leahy dissenting, C. S.Graham abstaining, C. Giomi absent. There were no further motions. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PLANNING APPROVALS FOR A 321 ROOM HOTEL AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 1/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request for a one year extension to the special permit approval granted February 18, 1986. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: would like to add a condition which states no charge for valet parking; will permits from other agencies also be extended; possibility of limiting valet parking to a certain percentage of the parking and to a certain area on site. Allan Tebbetts, attorney representing the applicant, Windmark Corporation, was present and commented on their need for time to work out the public access. Concerning valet parking, he stated if it is a reasonable condition they would have to abide by it and they do need approval of the time extension this evening. Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed the valet parking issue: would be in favor of a condition restricting the number of parking stalls which could be used for valet parking and also stating no charge for valet parking, otherwise would have a problem with granting this extension; have a concern about using required covered parking for valet parking. CP referred to the parking plans for this project and noted the logical place for valet parking would be at grade. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 26, 1987 C. Jacobs moved to grant a one year extension with the condition listed in the staff report and an additional condition limiting valet parking to no more than 20% maximum. Second C. Leahy. C. Graham moved to amend the second condition relating to valet parking to require it be placed in uncovered areas only. Second C. Leahy; amendment to the motion approved on a 5-1 roll.call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Motion as amended included the following conditions: (1) that the special permit for height for a 321 room hotel project at 620 Airport Boulevard be extended to February 18, 1988 with all the terms and conditions of the city's original action of February 18, 1986 as expressed in City Council Resolution No. 24-86; and (2) that no more than 20% maximum of total parking, located in the uncovered area, be allowed for valet parking. Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT - CHILDREN'S THEATER TRAINING PROGRAM - 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE Item continued to the meeting of February 9, 1987. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE 1985 MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB -AREA A Reference staff report, 1/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's comments on Sign Exception form, code requirements for approval of a sign exception, study meeting questions. She noted applicant has requested all 4 -Board signs be prohibited. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: will these signs blend with the signs previously approved for the rear of 1426-1462 Burlingame Avenue; does this application include the neon sign which is inside the window (staff commented any sign 3' from the window is not covered by the sign code, this application is fairly specific about the square footage on the window); are there other signs in the downtown area which are hanging on fences as is proposed in this application (staff advised there are parking lot signs stating 'private parking' hanging on fences which regulate parking and include the names of the businesses). C. H.Graham moved to grant the sign exception and amendment to the 1985 master signage program with the following conditions: (1) that the master signage program approved on January 8, 1985 as conditioned remain in effect with the exception that the window signs be allowed to be relocated from the top to the middle area of the windows as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 11, 1986, and that no A -Board signs be placed outside of these stores; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 26, 1987 and (2) that the master signage program be amended to include five signs and 100.3 SF of signage on the secondary or rear frontage of the building facing the parking lot as described in.the sign permit application dated December 4, 1986 and at the locations shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 11, 1986 with the addition of a sign less than 2 SF on the main rear entrance door giving the address of the building, 1420 Burlingame Avenue. Second C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: staff will enforce if the neon sign is found to be illegal. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND AN ORIENTAL RUG AND ANTIQUE SHOP AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 1/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, incomplete master signage program for this site, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: will increased square footage allow increased signage; does signage for this business conform to code at present; is applicant aware if he puts up more signage it will require an amendment to his' present permit. Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. Iraj Shayesteh, applicant, was present. He advised he was aware of sign code regulations; he had no problem with the two conditions suggested by staff. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff comment: traffic volume this store generates, it is the only one in the building which advertises on local radio stations; staff has received no complaints about this. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that this use permit shall not become effective and no building permit for tenant improvements shall be issued until the Building Department has notified the Planning Department that a certificate of occupancy on the building shell including all requirements of the Building Department, proper addressing and labeling of front and rear entrances to each business according to the requirements of the Engineering Department has been issued; and (2) that the business in the 2,462 SF portion of this building shall operate between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and have two employees on site during business hours. Second C. S.Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1987 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A GROCERY STORE/SPECIALTY FOOD STORE AT 346 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUB -AREA B Reference staff report, 1/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, county health inspector's comments, planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions and applicant's response. CP noted revised aerial photograph; letter from adjoining property owner, Don Sabatini (January 26, 1987) expressing concern about the kitchen facilities and possible fire hazard; and letter from Harry A. Hanson, Jr., attorney and executor of property owner's estate (January 26, 1987). Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: Fire Department inspection of the kitchen facilities; concern about basement fire hazard. Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. Parham Noori-Esfandiari, applicant, was present. He stated the basement is sprinklered, it has two exits, it is a cement building; a new water heater will be put in and connected by a plumber; the basement will not be used, there is some building equipment there. Applicant advised he was aware of the suggested conditions and willing to meet all of them; some food would be prepared on site in the kitchen, then stored on shelves or in the refrigerator. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CP pointed out that this building is nonconforming, it provides no parking; if this use is approved, after six months the site may not go back to an office use because there is no parking. It was noted that Attorney Hanson's letter states restroom facilities will be available to the employees of the grocery store on an interim basis; if applicant loses the use of the restrooms he would lose his use permit also. C. Jacobs 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 Chief Building Inspector's December 22, 1986 memo, the San Mateo County Health Inspector's December 30, 1986 memo and the City Engineer's December 29, 1986 memo shall be met; (2) that the area for retail sales from this site shall be limited to 180 SF, and the storage area limited to 500 SF, the basement area shall be used only to house and provide access to equipment necessary for the operation of the building; (3) that this business shall operate between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M. seven days a week with one full time and one part time employee; (4) that any change in the size of floor area used or type of activity on this premise or the type of goods sold, including a beer and wine or liquor license, shall require amendment to this use permit; (5) that access to the bathrooms according to the Uniform Building Code and Health Codes shall be required; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for conformance with its conditions in six months time (July 1987) and each year thereafter. Second. C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 26, 1987 7. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FORMER AUCTION STUDIO TO BE USED FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE AT 1209 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB -AREA B Reference staff report, 1/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of this building, staff review, Planning staff comments on the issues of exiting and parking, applicant's letter and justificationfor the variance, applicant's letter amending the application to include the adjacent lot at 1221 Howard Avenue, code requirements for variance approval, study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. Richard Stratton, attorney representing the applicants, stated staff's suggested conditions have been reviewed and are acceptable to the applicants; he believed adding the lot at 1221 Howard to provide 10 parking spaces resolved a number of problems with the application. Attorney/Commission discussion: applicants purchased the property over two years ago, they have attempted to find tenants with a business in the nature of the prior use but have found commercial retail and small office uses are the needs in this area, applicants accept the condition that restaurant use not be allowed; highest and best use is an objective term, have applicants considered retail on the ground floor which would require with the 10 spaces provided only a two space variance; attorney replied the applicants' objective was to use both floors; with retail on the first floor and storage on the second only a seven space parking variance would be required with the merged lots; attorney responded the owners feel that economically they need to use the second floor beyond a storage use, interested potential tenants do not include businesses similar to the previous use; to restore the prior use would amount to a variance of 18 spaces, they are now only asking for a 10 space variance. Commission comment: two floors of retail would not have the same impact as offices, offices are a concern since they require long term parking; allowing offices makes this a highly intensive use. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Albert Kapkin, 110 Park Road (a condominium located close to this project). He noted the parking situation in the area between 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. is a big problem, with the second floor being used for offices there could be 20-30 more cars in the vicinity which is already congested; visitors to his condominium during the day cannot find parking space (project does have four guest parking spaces). There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: it is difficult to support a finding of hardship, applicants bought the property under existing conditions and present code restrictions, the price was based on restrictions at that time, would like to find a way to allow them to use the building. Could more than 10 parking spaces be put on the lot next door; CE and Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1987 CA advised 10 spaces was the maximum; regarding turnaround space, CP believed with three maneuvers a car could exit forward. Addressing hardship based on price, attorney commented the applicants were not told all the city restrictions by the sellers, they did have discussions with city staff; using the lot next door will help solve two problems, removing an eyesore and providing additional parking. A Commissioner asked how applicants could intensify use on this site, asking for an 18 space parking variance, and not find it detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood; attorney replied there are not many alternatives, taking the building back to the previous use would amount to an 18 space parking variance; for over two years it has not been used and has not added to the welfare of the city. It was suggested applicants consider retail use with storage on the second floor; attorney advised that has been looked at; there is a hardship upon the owners, they feel this proposal, using their lot next door for parking, is an appropriate solution. Addressing Commission concern about setting a precedent, attorney cited the parking variance granted the old bowling alley site, he felt applicant's request was modest compared to that, they are providing parking to offset intensification of use. It was noted the bowling alley site had been purchased prior to the code change, this.building was purchased after the code change and applicants were informed of restrictions by staff. Commission and staff discussed various options for allocating space in this building and reducing the variance request, parking requirements for several options, details of the variance granted the bowling alley site, possibility of renovating this structure into a gallery type retail building such as the old Levy Bros. The real estate agent discussed type of tenants they had contacted; a variety of retail uses had been interested but not bulk retail, there would seem to be no problem in putting retail on the first floor, there is no interest for retail on the second floor; there was some interest for office on the second floor which is the logical use given the marketplace in downtown Burlingame at present and certainly more acceptable than a vacant building. Further comment: would like to avoid another bowling alley situation, Commission would be inconsistent to let this building sit empty, applicants are willing to relieve the parking situation using the other lot, it seems logical to allow them to proceed, with no restaurant; Howard Avenue needs activity to be upgraded. Stating she did not believe Howard is going downhill, C. Jacobs moved to deny the variance because of its impact and intensification of use. Motion died for lack of a second. C. H.Graham moved to grant a variance for ground floor retail, a 12 space parking variance, and to allow offices on the second floor to the extent parking was provided on site. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: feel it is logical to grant first floor retail in Sub -Area B but am not in favor of granting a variance for office space; concern Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 26, 1987 about policing vacant space on the second floor, it would be too easy to put in an illegal office; illegal construction in downtown Burlingame would be easily spotted; would like to see this building put to good use, downtown merchants have not expressed concern. Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham, Jacobs and Schwalm dissenting, C. Giomi absent. C. S.Graham moved to grant an 18 space parking variance. She found there is a hardship in that the building cannot be used without a variance and allowing an additional six spaces (over the previous motion) would not be that significant. Second C. Schwalm; motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, H.Graham, Jacobs and Leahy dissenting, C. Giomi absent. C. H. Graham moved to grant a 12 space parking variance for retail uses only on the ground floor, a two space parking variance for storage space on the second floor related to the retail uses on the first floor and to allow office on the second floor to match the parking provided on 1221 Howard Avenue after it is merged with 1209 Howard Avenue, and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Parking Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's December 2, 1986 memo, the City Engineer's December 4, 1986 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's December 8 and December 29, 1986 memos shall be met; (2) that the project shall consist of 4,730 SF of retail on the first floor and 3,000 SF of office use on the second floor to match the parking provided on 1221 Howard Avenue after it is merged with 1209 Howard Avenue and 1,850 SF of storage area on the second floor for exclusive use of the uses on the site, to make up the difference between the office space for which parking is provided and the 4,850 SF of leasable area on the second floor; (3) that at -grade parking designed to current city code dimensions with appropriate curb cut, backup aisle and landscaping approved by the City Engineer and Parks Department prior to installation with the area to be maintained by the property owner shall be provided prior to any remodeling of the site; (4) that the lots at 1209 and 1221 Howard Avenue shall be merged before a building permit shall be issued to commence remodeling or renovation of the structure at 1209 Howard; (5) that the city shall have the right of vehicle access from Howard Avenue over the property now called 1221 Howard Avenue to the city parking lot; (6) that the retail and office uses allowed on the site shall be limited to those allowed in the C-1 zone, Sub -Area B, as periodically amended except that restaurant use shall not be allowed because of the parking and traffic impact on this congested area; (7) that it shall be the property owner's responsibility to enforce the use of floor area and the failure to do so shall result in review and possible revocation of the parking variance and that the 10 parking spaces on 1221 Howard must be provided whether or not the office space is placed on the second floor; (8) that the property owner shall develop a master signage program for the entire building approved by the city and implement it through various lease agreements; (9) that this staff report and its documentation shall be included as a part of the Planning Commission action on this variance; and (10) that this 14 space variance shall not extend to the expansion of the existing building or to reconstruction of a new building on either parcel or the merged parcels. Second C. Leahy. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1987 Comment on the motion: am attempting to do for a Sub -Area B owner what a Sub -Area A owner has; this seems a fair compromise. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Schwalm dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. THREE VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT - 1025 ROLLINS ROAD Continued to the meeting of March 9,.1987 at the request of the applicant, Michael R. Harvey. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the audience. Recess 10:07 P.M.; reconvene 10:17 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 9. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS - DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 2845 RIVERA DRIVE Requests: how much of the construction is in place; is this in addition to the existing garage; is applicant a contractor; what type of storage is intended; why so much storage; will there be a fence around the pool. Item set for hearing February 9, 1987. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT - ROOFTOP DISH ANTENNA - 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE Requests: is this for a proposed tenant; can more than one tenant use it at the same time; is it possible to enclose the installation, screen from view. Item set for hearing February 9, 1987. 11. SIGN EXCEPTION - 150 ANZA BOULEVARD Requests: why do they need/want these signs; comparison with other hotel signage. Item set for hearing February 9, 1987. PLANNER REPORTS - C. Shelley Graham reviewed Council actions at its January 19, 1987 regular meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Preliminary information - League of California Cities 1987 Planning Commissioners Institute, Sacramento, March 11-13, 1987 ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary