Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.01.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, January 22, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Larry Lautenschlager, Zoning Technician; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Tom Heaton, Fire Marshal The Chair welcomed newly appointed Commissioner Jerry Deal who is replacing Bud Harrison and took his seat this evening and Michael Galligan who will replace Nannette Giomi in April. MINUTES - The minutes of the January 8, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item #7, page 7, fourth paragraph should read, "C. Mink stated he was on the Commission when the Montessori school on El Camino Real was approved, it " AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF STORIES TO ADD THREE BEDROOMS AND TWO BATHS TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 2404 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/22/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, findings required to grant a variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff clarified Fire Department exiting requirements and side yard setbacks. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. John Hermannsson, architect representing the property owners, was present. He stated the variance is not requested in order to build a second story but rather to build a second story addition which was architecturally compatible to those already in the neighborhood, it would be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 22, 1990 difficult to construct a second story addition that is pulled forward and meets the letter of the law. A Commissioner noted this lot is unusual in that it is on a slope; architect advised it is a slight slope, from front to back there is only a 2" elevation difference. Donald Coolidge, applicant, commented on the variance, it is to allow the addition at the back of the house, not to keep them from adding a second story; it will be less intrusive to the neighborhood, more in keeping with the Mediterranean style with tile roof stepped back on the structure; there will be less visual impact. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: would like to find exceptional circumstances for this variance request, could an exceptional circumstance be that this house has livable area below the first floor; feel that the permit allowed 16 years ago for a habitable room below the first floor does constitute exceptional circumstances today, the owner would not be able to continue the architectural design of the neighborhood if this variance were not allowed. C. Kelly found there were exceptional circumstances as just stated, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owners, granting of the variance will not be detrimental to other properties and the use of this property will be compatible with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. C. Kelly moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 8, 1990 except that no portion of the second/third floor addition shall extend beyond the declining height envelope; and (2) a second exit designed to meet all the requirements of the Uniform Fire and Building Codes shall be provided from the portion of the new addition which is three stories to the exterior of the structure. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: if the addition were put toward the front of the house it would be more bulky, granting this variance will actually be for the betterment of the neighborhood because it will be less obtrusive. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. TWO VARIANCES TO SIDE YARD SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 462 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/22/90, with attachments. ZT Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, applicant's letter, findings required for variance approval. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 22, 1990 the existing accessory structure was included in lot coverage calculations, the declining height variance is for 38 SF. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Kenneth Ibarra, architect representing the property owners, was present. In his comments he retracted the wording in the application which said there were no exceptional circumstances, there are exceptional circumstances; the property owner counted the 23 houses on his block and found there were 15 two story homes and eight one story homes, all have side setbacks of 3' or 4' including the two story houses; this property would be an exception if they were not allowed the declining height variance and a second story; to match the adjacent plate line they would have to accept a 6' to 6.5' ceiling height or would need a 2' offset from the first floor. Regarding the 3' side setback of the garage, the adjacent residence has a 3' setback and is also two stories, the property owners would like to expand their garage. A Commissioner pointed out that usually exceptional refers to the fact that the subject property is the only one, architect is saying everyone else has what they are asking for so why not grant their request. Architect responded the majority of homes are two story homes and the exceptional circumstance is that the ordinance is, in effect, trying to prevent them from doing the same; they knew that they had a problem with declining height but because of the adjacent second story house they thought it would be acceptable, the lower ceiling of the garage next door caused the problem for their addition since -they need two habitable height floors; building inside the declining height envelope would affect the design, to offset the second story 2' would cut down on the size of the rooms; the neighbor's house is split level and the side adjacent to the applicant's house is a second story living area over a garage. Tom Tachis, applicant, submitted letters from the following neighbors in support of the application: 451, 454, 455, 458, 459, 463, 466 and 470 Marin Drive; 459, 463 and 470 Cumberland Road. He had showed them the plans and discussed the proposal with them, they had no objections. Mr. Tachis stated that because of the design of the house next door which has a low ceilinged basement floor they are not able to match the plate line. The Chair noted letter in opposition from Betty Johnson, 465 Bloomfield Road. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Kelly found there were exceptional circumstances in the fact that the house next door is different from other houses in the neighborhood, it has a lower plate line, the design of the proposed addition is within the architectural design of the neighborhood,, it will not be detrimental to other properties and the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing properties in the general vicinity; the 3' Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 22, 1990 setback is a continuation of the existing setback and would not be a problem. C. Kelly moved for approval of the two variances with the two conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Mink who found exceptional circumstances for the side setback variance in the fact that if the side wall were moved in to meet code requirements a legal garage door could not be provided. Commissioner comment: most of the houses in the neighborhood have second stories and are split level, their plate heights are never going to be allowed to increase because of the 2-1/2 story limitation in the code unless they were to do something to increase the height of.the ceiling at the second floor; the declining height envelope has a purpose and that is to reduce bulk of the homes in particular areas, what the applicant is asking for will increase bulk over what others in the area would be allowed under the ordinance; cannot find exceptional circumstances for declining height, can vote for the setback for the garage. C. Kelly and C. Mink split their motion and moved to approve the side setback variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project's side setback shall be built as indicated on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 5, 1990; however, the second floor addition must meet all requirements for the declining height envelope; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Motion to approve the declining height envelope variance failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Giomi, Graham and Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TWO VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK AND THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO USE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR LIVING PURPOSES AT 919 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 1/22/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, findings required to grant a variance and a special permit. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP clarified questions about the length of driveway and size of garage and the fact that the accessory structure ordinance does not allow windows within 10' of property line. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Richard Harlick, applicant, was present. He commented that there is one hour construction as required by the Chief Building Inspector, that wall has one hour construction with no openings; regarding removal of the interior partitions, this would be a problem with a bearing wall and with removal of the partitions resulting in one large room with toilet and sink there would be no privacy for these facilities. Applicant Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 22, 1990 responded to Commission questions: regarding removing the stair, he said this stair leads to the kitchen and laundry room, the kitchen is at the rear corner; there was no information about the second unit on the disclosure statement when he purchased the property, to his knowledge the previous owner bought the property as is; he had asked an architect friend about the accessory structure and was told that at that time they were commonly built as accessory structures independent of garages for parking purposes; he did not know when he bought the property that a permit had been taken out in 1938 for a garage, there was no realtor involved in this transaction; he has three daughters, 13, 15 and 15 years of age, from a previous marriage who come to visit and would use the accessory structure. A Commissioner suggested it might be a good idea since there was a large backyard to add a bedroom to this nice house; applicant stated he did not have the resources to do so at this time. Speaking in opposition, Liz Hannan, 1400 Edgehill Drive: her front door is on Edgehill but garage opens at the end of Capuchino, she was concerned about a future sale of this property, parking on the street is extremely dense, most people leave one or two vehicles on the street; if this garage were allowed to be remodeled for living area, it would be too convenient for a future owner to use it for a second living unit; this has happened before, there is a duplex behind her where people have lived in a garage. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have a real problem approving anything for a residential neighborhood which doesn't have some type of parking, this is a very impacted area, would suggest moving the side door to the rear, taking out the steps to widen the driveway, using the accessory structure for parking and storage and adding a bedroom to the house; concur with these statements, this is not a substandard lot, it is over 5,900 SF, it does have an odd shape but there are other options for the applicant, this structure was obviously a garage at one time, fence could be removed and structure returned to garage/storage use. C. Giomi moved for denial of the two variances and three special permits. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: concern for the parking, there is a compact and full size car in this driveway now, only room for two cars because of the stairs up to the house; today many families have three cars, in this case especially with visiting children there will be more parking on street, the next family to own the property could have three or four cars. Motion for denial was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 22, 1990 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TARE -OUT FOOD SERVICE AT 1207 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, 1/22/90, with attachments. ZT Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants letter, study meeting questions, staff parking survey, findings required for approval of the special permit. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Mink commended staff for being sensitive to the questions asked at study which are covered in the report -and in the suggested conditions. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Delroy Miller, applicant, was present and asked to be allowed to continue this service at this location. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Miller advised his juice bar will serve organic juices, freshly squeezed; there will be no hamburgers served; this business has been in operation at this site since November 6, 1989. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement that since this is a permitted use Commission can certainly grant the permit, C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. In discussion on the motion there was clarification of Condition #3 that the two employees would include the owner and Commission stressed that the permit would need to be amended if any changes were made to the approved conditions. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 7, 1989; (2) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (3) that this business shall be limited to the use of 390 SF of retail space with no customer seating, and operate Monday through Saturday from 10:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. with no more than two employees including the owner on site; ( 4 ) that any change to the method or hours of operation, number of employees or the volume of business shall require an amendment to this use permit; (5) that a trash receptacle shall be provided and maintained on site for use by customers, and the business owner shall be responsible for picking up litter on the sidewalk between the store location and Broadway; and (6) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in six months (July, 1990) or upon complaint, and every year thereafter. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 22, 1990 5. PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT A SECOND FLOOR TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE AT 311 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 1/22/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, history of use of this building, applicants letter, study meeting questions, findings required for variance approval. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion/comment: proposed use is for a retail art gallery and storage, if approved any retail use could occur on the site as long as the occupant load is no more than 10 people; there is no in lieu parking fee provision in code now so there is no way for applicant to contribute in a financial way to providing off-site parking; no matter what happens on the first floor of the building any use on the second floor must provide on-site parking under code; staff enumerated parking requirements for retail, office, storage and residential. Further comment: square footage on the second floor is 1,400 SF, this includes storage and retail area; if the second floor were used for residential it might not be impacting the area during the daytime; staff was not aware of any private parking lots in the city. The lightwell space which is open from the second to the first floor has been taken out of the second floor square footage calculations; applicant proposes to run two businesses and the lightwells will remain; see a problem if in the future someone should fill in the opening, the second floor would immediately be over its occupant load; also concerned about fire issues, there is a lot of debris area called storage. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. John Falconer, architect representing the applicant, was present. He advised the owner intends to occupy both the upstairs and the downstairs in a single business, she will have gallery space on both floors connected by the present staircase, the lightwell space will never be closed up, owner has already written a letter to the Fire Marshal stating she is aware of the occupancy load requirement. She intends to close the outside door to the stair which comes down to the street, there is a door which is inside on the landing into the ground floor retail area that has been closed and will be opened up to allow circulation between retail areas; there will be only one outside entrance into the first floor. The lease on the first floor space has two years to run. After the downstairs tenant leaves there will be no need to have two entrances off the street. Commission/architect discussion: there are three buildings with livable space on the second floor in that block, concerned about parking problems in downtown Burlingame, what are the exceptional circumstances other than the structure has a second story and is built lot line to lot line. Architect replied there are adjacent Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 22, 1990 properties with retail on the first floor and residential on the second floor, since they do not have residential use any more they will go to retail, they thought it would be an unreasonable hardship on the owner and economically infeasible for her to provide any kind of parking for future use, there will be a new parking structure close by in the near future. It was noted on the architect's plans that the doors and entrance would have to meet all Fire Department requirements. Ronnie Goldfield, applicant, stated she bought this building November 7, 1989, the second floor was vacant then and had been for some time, she had not been aware at that time of the need for a parking variance, the property was sold in probate, Wells Fargo Bank handled the sale. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: have a problem with this precedent setting proposal, if approved any property owner will assume he could let a second story go vacant for awhile and then get a variance, cannot find any exceptional circumstances that don't exist on every other property in the area, would not want to go to storage use but that would be the least parking restrictive; have mixed emotions about this, do not want to see parking in the area more impacted by more retail space but it is dead space without some sort of a variance, fewer and fewer people want to live on second floors of a retail area, this would be less of an impact than the original office use; would like to support the request, would not want to take away the owner's property rights, to reuse as residential would require a lot of effort, think the retail use would be good for the neighborhood; an art gallery is a low traffic business, patrons come in and stay extended periods of time but not a lot of people at one time except for receptions for artists. Further comment: do not think Commission would be taking away property right of the owner by denying the request, there is no guarantee this will remain a gallery type of business, think Commission should go to the least parking impacting use which is residential, applicant will have to improve the property for any future use; don't want to be run out of town but have heard constantly how impacted parking in downtown Burlingame is, Sub Area A was created :about 1978 or a little later, approval of this use would open a Pandora's box, see no problem with residential units in downtown Burlingame, many cities have residential uses downtown. With the statement that if the owner were to go back to two units of residential 3-1/2 parking spaces would be required, the gallery use requires less, three spaces, thus with residential or the proposed gallery the variance would be for three spaces anyway,, C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances, if Commission does not do something with this space, and there will be others, there will be a lot of dead space around town. C. Graham moved for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 22, 1990 approval of the parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as proposed on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 5, 1989; (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; (3) that a second exit shall not be required as long as the occupant load is not 10 or greater as determined by the Fire Marshal; and ( 4 ) that the owner shall write a letter to the Fire Marshal stating an understanding of the occupant load for the second floor area and second exit requirements. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: am aware of the three parking spaces required for residential, we talk about residential parking use complementing retail but what Commission would be approving is retail and it can be any kind of retail. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:02 P.M.; reconvene 9:15 P.M. 6. PARKING VARIANCE, THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND A MODIFICATION OF SITE SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AT 1501 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 1/22/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the application including history of rezoning of this site and the adjacent property on Adeline, zoning amendment requested in 1989 to extend operating hours which was denied. She discussed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comments and City Attorneys determinations, applicant's letter, findings necessary for approval of variances and special permits, study meeting questions. Letters of concern/in opposition were received from the following: Marmora Terrell, 4455 Park Bristol Place, San Jose, CA (owner of Adeline Shopping Center); Fred and Mary Baldra, 1145 Cambridge Road; Thomas and Julia Prager, 1454 Balboa Avenue. Conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing, six conditions for the variance, three conditions for the special permits. Commission/staff discussion: access onto Adeline from this site, CE felt two way access was needed; utilities should be provided underground and this requirement added to the CE's conditions; Condition #5 requires all 15 parking spaces on site be available to the public during hours of operation, where will employees park; with an apartment building across the street, concerned about the hours of delivery to the deli; regarding the driveway on E1 Camino Real, they will be doing work within the state right-of-way and will need an encroachment permit; dimensions of the wastewater recovery system and trash receptacle, particularly how high it will be, staff noted applicant may be able to answer this question; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 January 22, 1990 there will be some type of wells for toxic control but CP did not know how high or how large. Regarding parking space #8 next to the trash area, is it counted even though doors from the trash area open up into that space, staff advised it has not been counted in the parking but such an opening into a parking space is allowed if it is not required parking; one of the conditions limits seating in the deli to 15. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Steve Cohn, applicant, addressed Commission: he discussed architectural detail of the proposed building in order to give it a residential feeling; the property has some easements which are a problem to site design, these include the front 20' on El Camino which is located within Caltrans property and Caltrans has the right to widen E1 Camino using this strip; there is a triangular area off E1 Camino on which a neighbor has an access easement and where no structure could be located; CE wanted 35' setback at the corner to protect view lines so no structure could be located there; these conditions have affected placement of the structure. They have designed the building to keep noise from the apartments across the street and no glass windows facing Adeline. Regarding the trash area and water purification system, trash will be within a fenced area and will not be visible from the street, trash bin will be 31-41 high, the fence not much higher. Regarding the water purification system, Chevron is responsible for all cleanup, the system will be needed for three to five years, after the site is fully purified it will be removed. Mr. Cohn discussed the request for a parking variance, use permits and zoning change for the hours of operation: the building has been designed for ground floor retail and second floor office with a total square footage of 2,800 SF, CE had asked for an 18, driveway onto Adeline, in doing this they lost a required parking space, now have eight compacts in the front setback and a total of 15 spaces, the eight compact spaces cannot be counted in the required parking because they are in the 20' setback on E1 Camino, it is the uses going into the building which result in the need for a parking variance. In speaking with Caltrans he was told widening of E1 Camino was not on their agenda up to the year 2000, this would be very difficult due to large trees and underground parking garages on E1 Camino; _a representative of the CE's office told them it would be difficult to widen El Camino in this area. From these comments they concluded it was doubtful the eight spaces on E1 Camino would ever be lost. Thus they are providing 15 spaces total, 10 are required. Regarding employee parking, the video store has two employees, one will park on site and the other take public transportation; the deli also has two employees, one will park on site and one take public transportation; there will be two people in the real estate office, he and his brother plan to move there, they do not have Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 January 22, 1990 many visitors, do development work primarily. He stated there are five extra spaces which will take care of employee parking. They have a franchise deli interested in the site which sells meats and sandwiches and does not have a liquor license. They would like to modify the zoning district requirements for operating hours to 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., any future tenant would need to apply for a use permit and the city could control hours under the permit. He did not think it was fair to restrict certain types of businesses because of problems existing with a similar business in the adjacent development on Adeline, their parking lot will face El Camino and not be as much of a problem. The "L" shape of the building will buffer some of the noise that might occur in the evening. Regarding the need for longer hours, the real estate office has staff meetings after 6:00 P.M. once or twice a month, the deli would like to have a sandwich/soup bar after 7:00 P.M., most video stores stay open later, it is almost essential for them to be open 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Cohn advised he has spoken to other possible tenants, most need 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. hours, Sunday hours could start at 10:00 A.M.; the required widening of the driveway did not reduce the square footage of the building. A Commissioner had a problem with differences in the numbers in various sections of the application, applicant stated they asked prospective tenants their hours of operation, number of customers, etc. and they estimated 130-190 customers a day; staff had estimated 190 customers for Chevron when it was using the site, it was applicant's belief traffic congestion from their development would be less than it was with Chevron. Further Commission comment: if six employees park on site where will customers park; will the real estate office have no more than two employees, no secretary or other office help, it will have a use permit for real estate office use; do not think 25 customers a day for the video store is a realistic number; if current occupants of the real estate office were to move out any real estate company could use this space, Commission must protect the future; is applicant aware he will need to submit a permit for any signage and that its orientation will be affected by the presence of residential- uses in the area; there is no exterior lighting shown on the plans, applicant said they usually put lighting on the building and on a pole facing into the parking lot. A Commissioner wanted to be sure Commission had a chance to see any lighting plans and approve them, since the site is essentially surrounded by residential uses a condition was suggested that outside lighting be installed in such a way that it does not go off the site. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Zita Escobosa, 1516 Adeline Drive: Ray Park is in this area, she has a red curb zone by her house, there is no parking on Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 January 22, 1990 Adeline, with more people there will be more parking problems, many elderly people live in the area who were not able to come to this meeting to express their opposition, it is a residential area, the residents don't want this development in their neighborhood, don't want a video store or another deli, don't want people there at 9:00 o'clock at night, they want to keep it residential; they thought when these sites were rezoned in 1984 they would not have to deal with the issue of hours of operation again but in 1989 an extension of hours was requested, the residents again opposed the proposal and it was denied; there is a big parking problem now. Virginia Hedrodt, 1508 Balboa Avenue: she lives directly behind the site, up to now it hasn't been too bad, there is noise, she was concerned about more noise and lights since her bedroom faces the site, cannot park in front of her house now, a visitor has to park a block away. Jim Jackson, representing the owners of the Adeline Market: this market has been in the family for 55 years, he wished to express their concerns; the proposal is an extremely intensive use of a small piece of property, will be harmful to the neighborhood and his clients' property, in 1984 Chevron said they would be pumping gas on this site until the year 2000, if Caltrans plans for road widening go the same way there may be an earlier parking problem there; if there are two employees for each business there is no room for patrons to park now; as the real estate office becomes more successful and the deli becomes well known there will be additional employees; the Adeline Market would like the same hours of operation applicant is requesting if this is approved, there is no reason a new operation should have longer hours; concern about the second story, by placing the building where it is it will block off light from the public street to the Adeline Market parking lot, if two stories are allowed they would like lighting that would spill over into their parking lot for security reasons; object to the trash receptacle on El Camino, would like it relocated to some place on Adeline; they were required to close their driveway access from E1 Camino to the Adeline Market so people could not cut through their site to avoid the signal, the same potential problem is there with regard to this particular proposal, he would suggest eliminating the E1 Camino curb cut and using Adeline for ingress/egress.; he saw no basis for a finding of exceptional circumstances to support the variance request and asked that this application be denied. Ann Wallach, 1524 Balboa Way: she lives around the corner; three businesses may not seem like a lot but there are six existing businesses, this will be a 50% increase and will impact parking; traffic on Balboa is tremendous now as is foot traffic; when cars are parked on both sides of the street two cars can't pass each other, and with this development parking will get worse; regarding aesthetics, video store window displays are not attractive. Eunice Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 January 22, 1990 Costa, 1517 Adeline Drive: she was opposed to the change in hours, keep them as they are now. Margaret Lake, 1148 Oxford Road: this is a neighborhood shopping center, not another Broadway or Burlingame Avenue; the residents want to keep it that way; regarding parking, the present insurance company employees/customers park on Highway Road, both blocks are generally fully parked, what do we do, issue parking permits for the residents?; headlights of cars at night from where Adeline meets E1 Camino hit four houses on Highway Road, might even hit her house on Oxford from this site, constant headlights until 9:00 P.M. would be a problem; regarding safety, there is a bus stop on each side of El Camino and two schools with children who have to cross the street after getting off these buses, the crossing guard has said it is getting increasingly difficult to get the children across the street safely; think Chevron should have considered that this is a neighborhood shopping center when selling the property; keep it as approved in 1984. Julius Aires, 1520 Balboa Avenue: opposed to a two story building, need one story only, development should be consistent with what is there now; opposed to an office building, it would not be part of the neighborhood; he was concerned about parking, this site will be developed eventually but should be something consistent with the Adeline Market complex. Kenneth Brown, 1505 Balboa Avenue: parking on Balboa is impacted now, he has had problems parking in front of his home; he moved here from San Francisco for a lower density neighborhood; the area does not need more cars, there are four video stores on Broadway, another in the Plaza, there is an existing deli, is there a need for another so close? Mrs. Demillo, 1512 Balboa Avenue: there are noise and parking problems now, she can hear a telephone conversation from the complex in her rear yard. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: am very familiar with this neighborhood and cannot support the application, the proposal destroys the concept of the corner store, a very commercial complex would result, that's not what this neighborhood was intended to be, the Adeline Market and existing facilities have been there for years, most moved in with that concept in mind, the gas station was not the same as people drawn from another part of town to these retail shops, there is a parking problem now, it is very impacted on Balboa and impacted more on Saturdays in the spring because of Bobby Sox at Ray Park, Commission can't take away the park or the Adeline Market but it does have control over this site, think, it would be better to have a small one story building which would work well with the adjacent complex. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 January 22, 1990 Speaking to the residents, the owners do have the right to apply for a variance, Commission can deny, have problems with the site, the use is more intense than the site can handle, parking will be a problem, it appears it will be more intensive than shown in the application, variance finding (d) refers to aesthetics in the general vicinity, cannot make that finding with the building plans, see a commercial type of construction which does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood; in 1984 and before when Commission discussed these properties it was looking at the neighborhood aspect, the hours of operation reflect that feeling, have not changed my mind, regarding the parking variance the only exceptional circumstance is that the applicant wants to overbuild. C. Graham moved to deny the amendment to the zoning district requirements, the parking variance and the three special permits by resolution for the reasons previously stated. She found the proposed development was too intense for the site, the proposed hours as well as the development itself are not compatible with the neighborhood. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: cannot support the proposed hours, concerned about traffic flow, this is a difficult corner, entrance off El Camino is bad, entrance onto Adeline is too close to El Camino. Motion for denial was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. ROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe discussed the 1989 Drainage Study by Wilsey & Ham and the proposed ordinance establishing standards for future development and division of properties along creeks in Burlingame. She reviewed the interim ordinance, the updated drainage study, development of a draft ordinance, highlights of the ordinance, proposed variance procedure, subdivision provisions. She illustrated her remarks with an evaluation of two parcels using the overhead projector. Staff will take this matter to City Council at its study meeting on February 7, 1990. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 17, 1990 regular meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Page 15 January 22, 1990 City Attorney January 18, 1990 letter to Anthony E. Spare, Hillsborough Montessori Children's House re: special permit, 1 Lorton Avenue - Announcement of Subregional Seminars, Housing: The Leadership Issue for the 90's ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary