HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.02.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 1992
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, February 10, 1992 at 7:30
P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs,
Kelly, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly,
Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the January 27, 3.992 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda was approved with. Action Item 14 to
be heard prior to Item 13.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION
AT 2101 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: statement from the applicant addressing exceptional
circumstances for the lot coverage variance; what: are the unusual
circumstances on this property; what does . the R-3 notation on the plans
refer to; clarify which side of the property requires the side setback
variance. Item set for public hearing February 24, 1992.
2. PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING BATH IN A
DETACHED GARAGE AT 1321 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: what is unusual about the property to support the parking
variance request; history on lot coverage, how was 46.8% arrived at;
when was the bath in the garage added, by whom, did a licensed
contractor do the work; number of people living in the house; where are
the two bathrooms referred to by the applicant; when was the last state
review of this home, was the bath in the garage when the state review
occurred, was it mentioned; what is applicant's proposed use of the
bathroom facility in the garage, where are staff members staying now,
why weren't they there in the past. Item set for public hearing
February 24, 1992.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
February 10, 1992
al •; oZ
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL CLINIC AT 1541 BAYSHORE
Reference staff report, 2/10/92, with attachments.'- CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required
findings, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Staff and Commission discussed requirements/regulations for
installation of an X-ray machine, location of the 17 extra parking
j spaces.
i
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Steve Mutto, applicant, was
present. He said the extra parking spaces are on an adjacent site,
these spaces do not meet dimensional requirements. Responding to
questions, applicant advised they will not market to the general
public, are mainly interested in serving clients in the industrial
area; they market to hotels, restaurants and businesses in this area,
have a listing in the telephone book, get most of their business by
referrals; a hotel or restaurant will not recommend a specific clinic
but would name three clinics for a hotel guest: to choose from; the
clinic markets to hotel/ restaurant management, not to employees; its
service includes preemployment and routine physicals, drug testing,
minor bumps and bruises.
A Commissioner noted findings must be made that -the proposed use is in
accordance with the general plan and the zoning code, he could not find
a compelling reason to have this kind of service at this location, the
patients are ambulatory and can travel easily without danger, this is
not a permitted use in the area but requires a special permit; there
must be some rationale other than dollars to support the application,
there are zones nearby where medical service is a permitted use, nearer
the hospital seems a more appropriate location; Commission cannot
consider the financial aspects of an application in making findings.
During further discussion applicant advised they are trying to
centralize their location for convenience to those to whom they will be
marketing their services; RediCare located on Rollins Road provides the
same type of service at higher prices, it, is approximately the same
size with a physician on duty. Mr. Mutto stated they would offer a
much higher level of physical therapy with Sports Therapy located next
door, they will have a physician on duty at all hours, cannot hire a
physician at hourly rates, the physician must •be involved in the
business according to state law.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs found this is a wave of the future, this type of business
provides a way for industry to take care of its own rather than going
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
February 10, 1992
to a hospital, there is sufficient parking, the service will fill a
need; the M-1 district is in transition, today there is less warehouse
activity. She then moved for approval of the special permit by
resolution 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 3, 1992 (8-1/2" x 11") Floor Pldh and (8-1/2" x
1411) Plot Plan; (2) that the medical clinic parking spaces shall be
marked and directional signage for the medical clinic shall be
provided; (3) that the emergency medical clinic shall operate Monday
through Friday 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. with a maximum of three
employees; (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform
Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (5) that this
permit and on-site parking shall be reviewed for compliance in one year
(February, 1993) and/or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C.
Graham•.
Comments in favor of the motion: another wave of the! future is putting
services closer to the people who use them, this will be good for the
industrial area and reduce congestion; this is an ancillary use, they
must comply with all health and safety requirements for installation of
the X-ray machine.
Motion was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Mink voting no. Appeal
procedures were advised.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT
1249A BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
Reference. staff report, 2/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required
findings, study meeting questions. The following communications were
noted: 47 letters in opposition signed by Broadway merchants and
February 7, 1992 letter in opposition from Joana C. Glud, 1130 Paloma
Avenue with a business at 1134 Broadway. Eight conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Responding to a question, staff advised improvement costs are
determined at the time a building permit application is made. Chm.
Kelly opened the public hearing.
Richard L. Pierce, attorney representing the applicant, Steven Webb and
his architect, Frederick Strathdee, was present. He advised they would
comply with all the suggested conditions of approval; this proposal
will comply with all the required findings; the applicant was the
general contractor for similar coffee shops in Sian Mateo and San
Carlos, this experience led him to want to operate: one himself, the
other cities have been very pleased with the addition of these coffee
shops; the proposed site has been vacant over a year, the property
owner feels the proposed establishment will upgrade that portion of
Broadway. Regarding the need for a parking variance, there are three
public lots, P, Q and R, available nearby providing a total of 72
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
February 10, 1992
spaces in addition to available on -street parking, they do not believe
this business will add to traffic problems, it is a unique
establishment and will enhance the Broadway area.
Frederick Strathdee, architect, stated the applicant was fortunate to
find a location on Broadway, this business will help- in creating an
upturn for business in the area; the facility will be handicap
accessible, many iq the area are not; it will provide a quality product
and service. Architect distributed pictures of the coffee shop
facilities in San Mateo and San Carlos. Applicant advised the planters
along Paloma are existing and do not encroach into the sidewalk area;
he hopes to get a clientele among other shoppers on Broadway, patrons
in the other two cities are very often people on their way to work,
picking up something to go; it is not a franchise; he hopes to have
walk-in trade, people stopping by for a snack or simple lunch,
something to go along with a cup of coffee. They dict a personal survey
and considered what is unique, it would be the only food establishment
in the area which opens before 11:00 A.M. that has handicap facilities;
they plan.to reserve handicap seating in the rear.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition: the incoming president of the Broadway Merchants
Association (Broadway Stationers, 1174 Broadway); a resident at 956
Laguna Avenue, (previously had a retail store on Broadway, moved to
Burlingame Avenue); one of the owners, I1 Piccolo Caffe (1219
Broadway); Ross Bruce, AVR Realty (resident, 5100 Almer); Peter
Campanile, Tower Deli (1184 Broadway). Their concerns: this shop will
be much larger with more seats than the ice cream shop it is replacing,
size of this establishment seems excessive for the area;
parking/traffic impacts, Broadway is also basically a freeway entrance;
one of the existing restaurants on Paloma has two :busloads of people
coming to Broadway every afternoon; the spaces in city lots are
generally filled up at present, applicant is proposing 10 employees,
where will they park, customers of the Broadway area shops cannot find
parking now; there are too many eating establishments in the area now
and there is no need for another coffee shop; there is already one that
has a successful growing business with a loyal clientele and the same
menu choices applicant is proposing, started this business for a long
term investment; want to improve the business mix on Broadway with more
retail shops, it is still a service oriented street, allowing a new
food establishment will not help mix of business.
Speaking in rebuttal, applicant's attorney noted Broadway has too many
vacancies now, this business will be a magnet to draw people to the
area, this site has been vacant for a year, no other retail use has
proposed to be a tenant; not all of the applicant's 10 to 12 employees
will be on the site at one time and they will be asked to park farther
away. Applicant Webb commented not everyone coming to his cafe would
be driving, there would be people walking to work, to the bus or train.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
February 10, 1992
Christie Burns of San Bruno added, in opposition, that there were some
inaccuracies in the applicant's statements, there are: five places which
are open before 11:00 A.M., three are coffee type places, how will
applicant control where employees park, all they will be doing is
taking away a piece of the existing business pie on Broadway, not
adding to it.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed. CP advised an eating establishment is an establishment which
sells food and/or beverages at retail and provides stables and chairs,
(the number of such establishments allowed in the Broadway Commercial
Area is 21) and discussed food establishment regulations in the
Broadway and Burlingame Avenue areas. C. Deal advised he would abstain
from discussion and voting since he lives close to Broadway and has had
a business association with the owner of this building.
C. Galligan commented on the application and made findings: a
successful retail establishment would create as much parking shortfall
as a successful restaurant, testimony this evening seemed to be from
people with long standing businesses on Broadway, this proposal is
impressive and it would add quality to Broadway; have avoided Broadway
for many years because it was too dangerous, if this business is
successful it will put a lot more cars on the street; it is a redundant
use, there is a similar existing establishment in the immediate
vicinity, this proposal could divide the number of existing customers;
intensity of use would be substantially greater than the eating
establishment it would replace; parking could impact the residential
neighborhood.
C. Galligan moved to deny the special permit and parking variance,
seconded by C. Jacobs.
The Chair complimented the people in the audience for coming out this
evening, he suggested their comments were about changing the
composition of Broadway and noted the city cannot do this, the business
people themselves working with the Chamber of Commerce should get
together and work for the type of street they want Broadway to become.
Comment on the motion: share the concerns about parking but do not have
a need to go to Broadway often and look for a parking space, Burlingame
Avenue is'different and has changed dramatically, people come from
outside the area to shop on Burlingame Avenue, the same thing could be
done for Broadway, there will be a lot of traffic if a business is
successful on Broadway, the merchants speaking this evening seemed to
be sending the wrong message if they want progress; the city had long
discussions/ studies of restaurants and finally reached a designated
number of eating_ establishments for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area and Broadway Commercial Area; do not consider this proposal a
destination restaurant, there are some on Burlingame Avenue, on
Broadway and on the bay, this is a redundant use but that's the
marketplace and there is no way to determine the saturation point, do
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
February 10, 1992
not think it will have a great incremental impact on parking or
traffic.
Further comment: concerned about the intensity of this use, parking
problems are not only the problems of Broadway itself but it is the
entrance to the freeway, it is not fair to compare Broadway with
Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame Avenue has more room, there are
apartments surrounding Broadway, this coffee shod► would be a nice
addition but the area is too dense; the site has been vacant for a long
time, any type of business could have gone in and now someone wants to
come in with a coffee shop, do not think applicant's business will have
a greater impact. Speaking to the required findings, with an
establishment of this size, particularly operating during the commute
hours, it will be detrimental to the vicinity and general welfare, it
is unfair to compare Broadway with Burlingame Avenue, Broadway is too
close to the freeway with a restricted intersection, it will impact
circulation, streets are narrow.with impossible circulation patterns,
the project is good but let's not make the problems any worse.
Application was denied on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and
Kelly dissenting, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:06 P.M.
PERMIT REVOCATION
5. REVOCATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A HEALTH CLUB AT 888
HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 2/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
history of this health club use on the site and. staff's repeated
attempts to obtain compliance with the conditions of the special
permit, specifically requirements for handicap facilities and striping
of the parking lot. Letter dated February 7, 1992 from Thomas A.
Nuris, applicants' attorney was noted. CP felt it would be appropriate
to set a time limit for completion of all violations and that 45 days
after receipt of a building permit as suggested by the attorney was too
long given what has transpired.
Commission/staff discussion: applicant striped the lot but not
according to the plans of July .2, 1991, striping will have to be
redone; regarding handicap accessible facilities, the plans submitted
February 6, 1992 were revisions to do these things in a different
manner; handicap requirements of the UBC should have been in place
prior to applicants' opening the business; the July 2, 1991 demolition
plans were checked against the schematic plans which were approved by
the Planning Commission and found to be in compliance, applicants have
submitted additional revised plans for the handicap :improvements to the
restrooms and locker rooms (February 6, 1992) and are requesting 45
days for completion after a building permit is issued.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
February lo, 1992
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Thomas Nuris, attorney
representing the operators of World Gym, stated 45 - days was
approximately the time it would take to make the improvements, they
will have to close down the club over four weekends in order to
complete the handicap facilities in the bathrooms, the 45 days is not
for the purpose of additional delay but four weekends is the time it
will take to get the work done. Attorney said his clients are new in
this business and time flew by, they did close down for a time for
renovation, the parking lot striping did not come out right and
handicap access has yet to be done; they are trying to give the city an
action plan for compliance. Responding to a question, attorney advised
he has been working with his clients on this issue for two weeks to a
month. A Commissioner asked why someone would go through the special
permit procedure, get plans, have them approved and then not do the
work. Attorney replied the owners were inexperienced, they are not
builders and the original contractor no longer is involved; at present
their highest priorities are the city's requirements.
A Commissioner wondered why applicants did not return telephone calls
or respond to letters and city's attempts to contact them. Dan
Caprini, one of the owners of the business, said he had talked to the
City Attorney many times; they relied on their general contractor to do
what was required; the facility opened August 15, 1991. They figure
the remaining required work will take about eight days or four
weekends. A Commissioner wondered why they did not close for one week;
applicant noted that the members would be unhappy. Mr. Caprini
advised Hyatt will be putting a deli in the building, a snack bar was
approved as part of the use permit. A Commissioner asked what is
better about the new set of plans; staff advised the previously
submitted plans were not complete, World Gym is now back with revisions
six months later.
Ed Marvin, regional director of engineering with Hyatt, Northern
California, spoke in support: Hyatt is going into the outside catering
business and they saw an opportunity with World Gym, they were not
aware of the problems in complying with conditions of the permit;
Hyatt Is connection will be just a snack bar; he noted that for a one
time charge hotel clients who wish to use facilities beyond those in
the hotel can use World Gym's services. There were no further audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/ comment: at the time the application was approved
Commission was led to believe the facility would be open only to
members, now it seems members include clients of the. Hyatt hotel; when
the special permit was approved there was no discussion about one time
fees, do not care if the owners want to do this but would like to see
some behavior consistent with the testimony given when they asked for
the permit.
C. Graham stated she had a real problem in addition to misleading
testimony given last year and that was the owners opened their business
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
February 10, 1992 \..
prior to complying with all city regulations/ conditions and apparently
had no intention of complying, they took action only when they were
aware of the revocation hearing. C. Graham moved for revocation of the
special permit by resolution, seconded by C. Jacobs who commented she
would like to know what is going on, why do the owners need 45 days,
the city has waited long enough. Comment on this- motion: cannot
support revocation but would support a motion for revocation if the
work is not completed within 30 days.
C. Graham withdrew her motion, C. Jacobs withdrew her second. C.
Graham then moved by resolution that this special permit be revoked
unless applicant receives a building permit within 1.0 days of February
11, 1992 and final inspection within 15 days from the date of the
building permit. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a
7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised and it was noted
appeal will not stop the clock for processing the building permit.
C. Mink requested applicant, World Gym, develop language with staff to
include a new condition which specifies who can use the facility, this
language to be presented to the Commission within one month and
attached to the existing permit as a clarification of the conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Announcement of League of California Cities Planners Institute in
Anaheim, April 9-11, 1992.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its February 3, 1992 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10.02 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry L. Deal
Secretary