Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.02.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, February 27, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner S. Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the February 14, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1915 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: why is the lot unusual, ask contractor to justify the request for a fence exception; is Michael Moran the contractor; is grade the same on both sides of the fence; has there been any communication with the property owners as to their preference about the fence. Item set for public hearing March 13, 1989. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT - GIFT SHOP - 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Requests: what do applicants propose for signage; is the entire site in conformance with the master signage program, where is the signage problem. Item set for public hearing March 13, 1989. 3. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS - GROCERY STORE AND DELICATESSEN - 891 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Requests: prior use of this site; why hasn't applicant considered putting up a fence since he abuts residential uses; what triggered the parking requirement, since this is in C-2 why is the proposed use nonconforming in parking; clarify statement in applicants letter "owner plans to provide parking space for the ner structure"; if there are two employees and two trucks where will they park, where will customers park; will employees always be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 27, 1989 within walking distance of the store; will alcohol sales be limited to beer and wine; does applicant plan to move sheds in the rear yard. Item set for public hearing March 13, 1989. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION AMENDMENT - 1100 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Requests: is this request because applicant wants to make the pole sign bigger; what height is proposed for the pole sign; what sign will be reduced; why asking for an amendment now to the sign exception approved by the Planning Commission in April, 1988. Item set for public hearing March 13, 1989. 5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIALPERMIT FOR RENTAL CAR STORAGE AT 840 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: will there be a fence around the entire site, at what height; on the diagram clarify location of new fence and old fence. Item set for public hearing March 13, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 294 SF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS AN ART STUDIO AT 1750 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Lee Wenger, applicant, was present. He advised they plan to use the accessory structure for an art studio only and have no intention of renting it, they had no additional comments and found the staff report to be very complete. Commission advised applicant of maximum fence height allowed by code if the fence is replaced and code provisions to request a fence exception. In discussing the alternative of putting the addition over the garage, applicant advised the garage shares a common wall with the living room, there is no door from the garage to the living room, they access their garage from the patio. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison did not find this proposal incompatible, with the situation in the rear, and found there is a need for this use. It would not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity, the proposed use is in accord with the general plan. C. Harrison moved for approval of the two special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 27, 1989 Engineer's January 23, 1989 and the Chief Building Inspector's January 26, 1989 memos shall be met; (2) that this structure shall be used as an art studio only and shall not be used for holding classes, for exhibitions or for living purposes; (3) that this structure shall be constructed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 17, 1989; and (4) that this permit shall be in force for 10 years at which time it shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. VARIANCES TO PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE AT 825 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, previous submittals, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, applicant's later letter. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing with Condition #1 revised from that in the staff report. Staff confirmed Commission requested code enforcement on the hot tub and second unit on this property at its October 11, 1988 meeting. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Applicant, Peter Scopazzi, was present. He advised he would like to keep the garage as far forward as possible and retain garden area. It was noted Commission must make findings to grant these variances and this is not a substandard lot, it is 50' x 1201. Applicant commented since he has 20' more length than others why not let him have that area for a garden, if it were 100' his garage would be where he is proposing to put it now. Addressing the second dwelling unit, applicant stated it has been removed, the hot tub has been removed also, this was being done in January. Commission asked what the exceptional circumstances of this particular lot are other than the fact that applicant wants to have a garden, what findings can be made to support variance approval when it is possible to construct a 20' x 20' garage to code requirements. Wilma Lazier, 823 Linden Avenue, spoke in support of the project. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: most garage eaves on that street go over property line. C. Giomi stated she could find no special reasons to grant these variances, the lot is 120' deep, there is plenty of room to construct a garage to code, she did not believe Commission could Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 27, 1989 grant a variance for the specific reason the applicant wants a garden, if the garage were moved back an additional 5'-4" it could be completely contained in the rear 30% of the lot and would not need a variance to side yard setback. C. Giomi moved to deny the variance request. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: can understand applicant's desire for more garden space but that is no reason for granting a variance. Motion to deny passed on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1361 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: garage door appears to be 8' high, deck is included in lot coverage figure, second floor is set back approximately 25' from the front of the house. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Patrick Barrett, applicant, was present. His comments: he has three sons and a daughter and needs more space; he is able to park his van and a truck in the existing garage, has been living in this house since 1975. Application was originally submitted in August, 1988, it took some time to clarify information, until January, 1989. Staff commented on the interpretations of a third story which needed clarification among various codes, and confirmed the new hillside view ordinance does not apply to this area. James Devine who helped applicant prepare the plans addressed Commission: original plans did not show proper grade and caused an issue in definition of third story, he was more used to working with building codes, not zoning codes, four different floor levels made for complications. A Commissioner noted there is no deck shown on the site plan; staff advised the 35% lot coverage figure does include the deck which staff added to the calculation. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: R-1 building height maximum is 30' from average top of curb, this project appears to be within the 30' limit; have a concern about the number of bedrooms, all homes on that street are small, six bedrooms will generate more cars. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 27, 1989 With the statement he understood Commission has no right to decide number of bedrooms, it is impossible to put a two car garage in the back of this lot, C. H.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, he needs more than two bedrooms, it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, and the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity, even with six bedrooms the roof line will be set back and make the building look smaller. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the two conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: cannot support the motion, number of bedrooms cannot be limited but Commission is being asked to approve a parking variance, see no way to provide more parking, do not think a six bedroom house should be approved on this street given the parking impact with a church across the street; R-3 code requires 1.5 spaces for two bedrooms and it has not been policy to give variances, interesting to do this in R-1; will support the motion, rather than thinking of the number of bedrooms added would tend to think of the very definite need in this case, there is no place to put additional parking even if only one bedroom were added, support C. Graham's findings; will not support the motion, do not fully agree with the findings, it is an ambitious project for this lot, will negatively impact the neighbors, too big for the site; think ordinances are set up to favor R-1, residents of the city; R-3 and R-4 property owners are not necessarily citizens/residents of the city; findings to support a variance must be made in any zone; the more bedrooms, the more the impact. Motion to approve failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi and Jacobs voting no, C. S.Graham absent. According to the rules of the Commission it takes four votes to pass a motion, any less constitutes a denial. Appeal procedures were advised. Further discussion: there is a ground floor family room in the back, three bedrooms on the first floor. The Chair allowed Mr. Devine to continue: he commented it was never Mr. Barrett's intention to add three more bedrooms; when designing with the neighbors in mind he tried to blend it in to the existing structure and keep it low, he ended up with this area which could be three bedrooms, he would be happy to reduce the number of bedrooms, applicant asked for two bedrooms and one bath; applicant needed two more bedrooms for a total of five. C. Giomi moved to deny this application without prejudice with the statement her concern is number of bedrooms and bulk of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 27, 1989 structure, she would like less square footage and fewer bedrooms. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion to Mr. Devine: you will keep existing width, length and maximum height, is there any way to make it smaller. Mr. Devine advised he tried to keep the neighbors in mind, within the bulk of the building he was only able to rearrange interior walls, he talked to neighbors on both sides of the street, they liked these plans; the only way he could reduce the size would be to rearrange interior walls. Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, Cer H.Graham dissenting, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. RECESS 8:55 P.M.; RECONVENE 9: 06 P.M. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, letter in opposition signed by 29 merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: there is a street floral vendor who has operated on Broadway from the back of a stationwagon for the past 20 years, is this legal; Floating Fantasies has moved from this site to join a florist up the street on Broadway; can Commission deny a special permit on the basis of the number of a given type of business in an area, CA saw no factual basis for denying unless somebody didn't want competition; a Commissioner thought a special permit was required for businesses in this building because Commission wanted a diversity of establishments, wanted to look at parking and wanted to look at what was going in there, part of the consideration was to not have duplication of businesses on this site; Commission has previously turned down a pizza parlor in the area because of their proliferation in that same zoning district; it is unusual for business people to sign such a petition, it is not Commission's role to decide the type of business going in this building other than for parking considerations. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Vladimir Sommer, applicant, was present. His comments: when he applied to lease this space he was directed to the Planning Commission, advised he needed a use permit and that parking was the concern, when he made his application in December there was only one flower shop on Broadway, there are now two shops; there were misunderstandings between the property owner and the leasing agent so it took awhile to get the property owner's consent. The second flower shop provides only cut Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 27, 1989 flowers, the street vendor has short early morning hours, Burlingame Avenue has at least six flower shops. There is only one full service flower shop on Broadway; he did not believe two full service flower shops would be proliferation, competition never hurt anybody, most of his customers are established since he has been in this business in Burlingame for five years. A resident of 1120 Vancouver Avenue spoke in support: he personally shops at Mr. Sommer's store and finds the flowers and prices very good. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement he was in business on Burlingame Avenue for over 20 years, competition upgrades a business in the same line, he would not want to limit competition, C. H.Graham moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's December 19, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the flower shop shall operate seven days a week between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. with a maximum of three employees on the premises with no more than one delivery vehicle which shall consist of a van or station wagon which will also be one of the employee's personal vehicle; and (3) that this tenant shall comply with the master signage program approved for this property and any subsequent amendments of this program and shall not place any A -board signs or other objects in the walkway in front of the shop or anywhere in the public right- of-way. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL HOBBY SHOP AT 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D Reference staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, preparation of the negative declaration, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, on-site parking provided. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: 53 parking spaces are required for this use, two handicapped spaces are part of the 53. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David James Arata, applicant, was present. He discussed parking provided and responded to Commission questions about the racetrack: cars are radio controlled models, this 22,000 SF building will give plenty of room, there are fixed seats for 30 people, occupancy load of the racetrack area is limited to 49 people, they plan to have one of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 27, 1989 the largest hobby shops in the Bay Area, biggest he has seen is 12,000 SF so they thought they would have the space for the racetrack in the back, it will be an offroad dirt track, people can time themselves but with a limit of 49 people, they do not want to attract thousands of people, this is a retail shop, not an amusement area, they will not have organized races, the test track is for practice and to test cars before purchase. If use of the test track becomes constant they may want to charge a fee, probably $4.00 per 1/2 hour, it could become a game situation, logging times, with a set pattern track. There is a wall which divides the track from the retail area, object is not to sell track time but to make money by retail sales. If the track becomes very popular they will get another building and put a track in it. Forty-nine people is the total allowed in the track area, Fire Department has required designated seating for 30, in this way the occupancy can be controlled. Commission thought it would be an attractive entertainment facility, applicant said it would be up to him to limit the total watchers to 49. The track will be an inducement to get people into the store to buy the products. Applicant stated they would not sell beer or wine. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: there was a hobby shop on Burlingame Avenue 15-20 years ago, with shop upstairs and model car track downstairs, they had to charge for track time because there was so much interest and they needed to limit the number of people in the basement; it is a pastime enjoyed by adults as well as children. C. Giomi found the conditions suggested in the staff report would reasonably satisfy city concerns, especially one year review or upon complaint; she was comfortable in letting the applicant give this business a try. C. Giomi moved to recommend the negative declaration to City Council for approval with the finding there would be no significant (negative) impacts from this use. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: does this use compromise the integrity of auto row zoning since the site is located at the center of auto row; auto row has shifted some; don't see this as a permanent use, auto use will replace it; such a use could only go here or at the Plaza, they are the two places in the city which have parking; the other end of Sub Area D by the train station has a wide variety of uses. Motion to recommend the negative declaration to Council was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 27, 1989 C. Giomi found the proposed use will not be detrimental to existing uses in the area nor to surrounding properties, there will be no undue traffic impact, this is a less intensive use, it is in accordance with the general plan since it could be considered an interim commercial use within the auto row area, not necessarily a change for the entire area; it meets its parking requirements, there will be no negative environmental impact. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the site shall be remodeled as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 26, 1989; (2) that the condition of the Fire Marshal's February 6, 1989 memo shall be met and the project shall be designed to meet all building code and fire code requirements; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 30, 1989 memo shall be met which shall include the marking of 53 parking spaces to be used by the hobby shop as well as providing signage reviewed by city staff to direct customers to the parking area; (4) that all the employees of the hobby shop shall be allowed to park on the property and nine parking spaces shall be clearly marked for employees only; (5) that this business shall operate seven days a week 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. with a maximum of nine employees on the site and a maximum of 60 customers between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. and an additional 60 customers between 5:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M.; (6) that the working scale racetrack shall be used for practices and the testing of cars being purchased, with a maximum of eight people using the track at any one time; this race track shall not be used for organized races without prior amendment of this permit; (7) that the applicant shall obtain a building permit within a year of this permit being issued, otherwise this permit will become void; (8) that this use shall be reviewed in one year's time (March, 1990) and yearly thereafter or upon receipt of complaints; and (9) that food and drink sales shall be limited to vending machines. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHURCH SERVICES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AT 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, parking requirements and parking provided, staff review, initial study of environmental impacts and negative declaration preparation, applicant's letter, study meeting questions and applicant's letter in response. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 27, 1989 Discussion: impact of roadway improvements at the California/Broadway corner, driveway access to this property will not be affected; life safety and fire safety requirements/regulations; parking requirement for a church use is one space per six fixed seats. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Rev. Richard Fernandez, applicant, was present. He commented on the issue of the CBI's requirement to close off the proscenium above the stage area with sheetrock ceiling, if no ceiling then entire building would have to be sprinklered; and responded to Commission questions: he has seen the Fire Marshal's memo and will adhere to all rules and regulations; he is asking for 54 seats since that is allowed by code, however he anticipates only 30 people per service. Commissioner comment: have known Rev. Fernandez for about 15 years, he has been taking care of this building, know him to be very upfront. Applicant advised church membership is about 100 people, some live in Texas, locally there are 25-35 members in San Mateo; they did meet in San Mateo but lost that building and there is no current meeting location. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: have a problem with the negative declaration, am not convinced church services on Saturday and Sunday will not impact traffic and parking in the area; CP advised of a parking study done a couple years ago which indicated people shopping on Broadway on weekends did not often park in the commuter parking lot across the street from the church, this lot would be convenient for church members. C. Harrison had no problem with the negative declaration and moved to recommend the negative declaration to City Council for approval with the finding there would be no significant (negative) impacts from this proposed use. He incorporated the findings in the staff report by reference. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. S.Graham absent. C. H.Graham found the church use is primarily on weekends, Saturday and Sunday, there are no commuters using the lot across the street on those days, it is a very minor use for such a large building, probably the only use which would qualify for this building, it will not impact retail trade or parking in the area. C. H. Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's January 26, 1989 memo and the Deputy Fire Marshal's February 7, 1989 memo shall be met; (2) that church services shall be spaced not less than 60 minutes apart; ( 3 ) that the church use Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 February 27, 1989 shall be limited to two services each on Saturday and Sunday at 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. for a maximum of 54 people (and 54 seats) per service and the site shall be used Monday -Friday from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. for related church activities for a maximum of 10 people per meeting; (4) that the on-site parking shall be marked for the exclusive use of the church and other businesses on site and shall never be leased or sold separately from the building; (5) that the other two leased areas on the site shall continue in retail use and not be intensified to other more parking intensive uses; and (6) that separate application shall be made for signage for the church use. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO PLACE A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA ON THE ROOF OF THE RAMADA INN. 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 2/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, applicant's letter addressing locations suggested by Commission, placement within BCDC jurisdiction. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Robert Bendorf, Signal Sery Corp., applicant, was present. His comments: most of the questions raised by Commission have been answered by letter, he has had a considerable amount of experience designing and installing antenna and with requirements for high wind load, it could be mounted farther back, this location was chosen for better screening and better reception, this is not a good site for ground mounting, screening could be painted any color Commission desired, he requested a recommendation on the type of screening preferred and commented it could appear as a big box. Commission suggested something aesthetically pleasing; applicant stated he thought all antenna were aesthetically pleasing, and they do contribute to a hotel's business; screening could be extended to the elevator equipment room although it is lower than the top of the antenna. A representative of Ramada was present in the audience. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: would like to see screening on three sides. C. Giomi found that the proposed location of the dish appears to be the best and least offensive, it would eliminate going to BCDC and perhaps interfering with existing parking and landscaping, the conditions of approval are restrictive and to the best interests of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 February 27, 1989 the city. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the understanding the antenna will be screened on three sides and with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's January 26, 1989 memo and the City Engineer's January 30, 1989 memo shall be met; (2) that the receive only satellite dish antenna shall be placed on the roof at the location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 20, 1989; (3) that the recAr and sides of the antenna shall be screened by a wall or fence placed on the roof and rising to a height equal to the top edge of the dish once it is in place; (4) that the satellite dish antenna shall have a light colored nonreflective surface which shall be maintained by the property owner or the property owner shall be responsible for removal of the antenna from the roof; and (5) that the type of screening and its color shall be worked out with the Planning Department prior to installation of the dish antenna. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CITY PLANNER REPORT - CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its February 22, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary