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