HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.06.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 28, 1993
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, June 28, 1993 at 7:33 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Jacobs, Mink
Absent: Commissioners Ellis, Graham, Kelly
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the June 14, 3.993 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - CP noted Items 8-11 have been continued to the meeting
of July 12, 1993. Scott Danielson (action Item 12, 340
Pepper Avenue) noted letters in opposition from several
of his neighbors and asked for a continuance so that he
could discuss his project with them prior to a public
hearing. The Chair continued the item to July 12, 1993.
Order of the agenda was then approved.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. -- SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE LOBBY AT ALAMO RENT -A -CAR,
778 BURLWAY ROAD/1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4
Requests: didn't the original application have a variance for
landscaping, what percentage; did applicant consider reducing the
number of cars; was an addition to the second floor considered rather
than extending the first floor; statement from applicant about the
possibility of asking the city to abandon at least a part of Burlway
Road, particularly up to the western edge of the property, statement
from CA as to the legality of this. Item set for public hearing July
12, 1993.
. 0
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
ITEMS FOR ACTION
:Page 2
June 28, 1993
2. FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 340 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Item continued to the meeting of July 12, 1993 at the request of the
applicant.
3. VARIANCE TO NUMBER OF STORIES AT THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE AT
1412 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/28/93,
summarized the request and reviewed
Three conditions were suggested
hearing.
with attachments. CP Monroe
staff comments, required findings.
for consideration at the public
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Lance Johnson, designer, was
present. He stated they began discussing this project in the summer of
1992, objectives were to add a master suite, bathroom and family room
on the main floor and if possible to add a recreation room; they were
guided by the existing structure, the neighborhood and code
requirements. Several trips were made to the Planning Department, they
did massing studies before any plans were drawn; a floor plan and
concept plan were developed which were discussed with Planning; they
felt the design presented would be a successful plan, it meets the
client's wishes, meets letter and spirit of the code and protects
neighbors' rights. The three story constraint was at surprise, this is
at the rear of the project, the result of extending the existing
bedroom off the same plane as the existing second floor, this bedroom
would be inappropriate behind the kitchen and dining room; the only
alternative would be to put the bedroom on posts which would result in
a totally nonfunctional space below it and would not: support the Tudor
character of the house, it would be an eyesore to the neighbors.
Designer addressed findings: there are exceptional circumstances in the
orientation of the house on the lot, it is compact on the front side,
main floor is only 8" above top of curb, the proposed addition is
entirely behind that structure; slope of the lot produces a structure
which is three stories as defined by code. Granting of the variance is
necessary for preservation of the owner's property rights, denial would
create an architectural eyesore, impact view in the neighborhood and
reduce function of the house; addition will be invisible from the
street, meets setback requirements, is within the: declining height
envelope, height is less than 301. This proposal will not be injurious
to the neighbors, it is consistent with the aesthetics of the
neighborhood; other houses have areas below first floors enclosed, if
put on pilings it would visually impact the neighborhood.
A Commissioner inquired about livable space for each of the three
stories. Mr. Johnson replied total proposed space is basement 572 SF,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
June 28, 1993
first floor about 572 SF, second floor about 965 SF. The Commissioner
noted none of the area presently under the first floor has habitable
ceiling height, with the remodel will the ceiling height of more than
25% of the area below the first floor be raised to habitable standards.
Designer's response was that he had not measured that -area in relation
to the floor above, it appears to be about 25%. Randy VandenBrink,
property owner, advised they had spoken to neighbors on both immediate
sides and to the rear, had heard no objections; these neighbors were
surprised property owner could make the addition without a variance by
putting it on posts; neighbors and property owner felt this would be
structurally less sound and much less attractive.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in the unusual
slope of the lot and orientation of the house, she: did not think one
could make an addition in any other way, this is at nice project, she
would not like to see the house on poles, this is a difficult lot, the
proposed addition would not be detrimental t others in the
neighborhood. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance to number
of stories 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 June 10, 1993, Sheets 1 through 8 and N;
(2) that the conditions stated in the Fire Marshal's memo dated June
14, 1993 shall be met; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform
Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of
Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Mink with the statement the project meets the
intent of the code, it is well designed, trees at the rear of the
property will provide good screening for neighbors behind, there will
be no view impact, it is a good solution to a difficult problem.
Further a Commissioner noted if the basement area were on top of the
structure it might qualify as a half story as defined in the code.
Motion was approved 4-0 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and Kelly
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 720 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/28/93, with attachments. CP Monroe
summarized the request and reviewed staff comment, required findings.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. A letter in support (received June 24, 1993) was noted from
Mehmet Bayramoglu, 724 Paloma Avenue.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. John Webb, applicant and property
owner, was present. His comments: the current entrance to the home is
on the side of the house; he works nights and his returning home at
4:00 A.M. disturbs the neighbors, the existing entrance is hidden from
the street about 80% of the front, he would like to put the house back
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
June 28, 1993
to its original design which had a front porch. Applicant confirmed
the average front setback on the block is 211, proposed front setback
is 17'. Because his house is set at an angle, as are all houses on the
block, the proposed front porch will not be visible to any of the
neighbors. There is a school across the street, with the porch it will
be easier to watch children playing on the playground and the school
will not be adversely affected by the 17' front setback.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C.
Mink found this is a good solution to a remodel in the past which
probably was not as well done as it could have been, it will change the
appearance of the lot and be much more pleasing, applicant's findings
are sufficient and proper. C. Mink moved for approval of the front
setback 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 May 27, 1993, Sheets 1 through 8; (2) that
the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 1, 1993 memo shall
be met; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and
Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 4-0 on roll call vote,
Cers Ellis, Graham and Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND HOURS OF OPERATION TO 24 HOURS j
A DAY AT 1420 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B
Reference staff report, 6/28/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
the request and required findings. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. John Spina, Walgreen's store
manager, was present. His comments: their customers have been asking
for a 24 hour operation, many other Walgreen stores in the area are
open 24 hours and customers expect the same of the: Burlingame store.
These hours for the pharmacy can be a big benefit for middle of the
night emergencies, several retirement residences in the city have asked
for this service. Regarding security, it is company policy to have a
closed circuit TV monitoring system, this will discourage any quick
robbery attempts. Regarding prescription robberies, there are very
few, it is easier to obtain recreational drugs on the street,
prescription users want to retain their prescriptions so do not abuse
this service. The liquor department is separated from the rest of the
store and will continue to be closed between midnight and 6:00 A.M.,
rollaway doors are installed.
Mr. Spina continued: this will be a big customer service as well as a
big expense to Walgreen, but when customers know they will be open 24
hours they will come to this store all the time, this should translate
into better business for the Burlingame store. A Commissioner could
not see how this 24 hour operation could become cost: effective. Store
manager said they have had a lot of practice and are willing to take
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 5
June 28, 1993
the chance. There were no audience comments and the: public hearing was
closed.
C. Galligan commented on his personal experience having to drive to
Millbrae to find an all night Walgreen's. He found there were no
residential' properties in the immediate vicinity which would be
adversely affected; he had seen no crime when using the Millbrae store
late at night and was satisfied Safeway and Lucky in Burlingame had
solved their problems with a 24 hour operation, he felt this Walgreen
service is needed. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special
permit amendment to extend hours of operation to 24 hours a day by
resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the hours of
operation shall be 24 hours a day, seven days a week.; (2) that this use
permit shall be reviewed for compliance in one year (June, 1994) or
upon complaint; and (3) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended
by the City of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 4-0 on roll call vote, Cers
Ellis, Graham and Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. PARKING VARIANCE TO BUILD MEZZANINE STORAGE AND OFFICE AREAS AT
1027 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 6/28/93, with attachments. CP Monroe
summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, required findings.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Responding to Commission questions CP confirmed envelope of the
building will remain the same with the addition of 34 square feet at
the front for a display area; applicant will park cars in the area used
for assembly by the previous plastic molding company tenant; rollup
door on the property line at the rear has been addressed by the Fire
Marshal.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Jeannine and Bogdan Klopocki,
applicants, were present. Fire Marshal advised. openings on the
property line have been addressed, this is an existing nonconforming
condition along the entire block, Fire Department has no requirement
either way. CA noted this alley is a perennial problem. Applicants
advised they are in the process of purchasing this property; one of the
reasons they want to move to Burlingame is to make their business more
efficient,. want to separate parts storage from the public; this
building has parking in the front, their next door neighbor has no
parking; they are planning to buy two special hoists to park cars on
top of each other, this will save space and help on-site parking, they
would use the hoists for employees and customers; they hope to keep the
two existing parking spaces in front open for customers. They -now have
one full time and one part time employees plus themselves.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
June 28, 1993
Applicants presented a letter from the City of Belmont (June 23, 1993)
advising they had received no complaints about this business regarding
upkeep of the property or parking and were sorry to see them leave the
city. They have been in operation in Belmont since 1985.
There were no audience comments in favor. Henk van: Arkel and Dick van
Arkel, Holland Auto Service, 1025 California Drive spoke in opposition.
Henk van Arkel said their main concern was lack of parking in the area,
they have leased their building for the last 30 years and for the last
10 years parking has been a big problem for employees and customers; in
the early morning and at closing time in the afternoon there are many
people coming and going all at once which compounds the parking
problem. A Commissioner asked what would be an appropriate solution
for use of this building if not for auto related uses. Mr. van Arkel
said they cannot lose any more parking on California Drive. For years
this building was used by a plastics company with a small staff.
Holland Auto Service has a total of eight employees, they have two
parking spaces on site. A Commissioner noted applicants are requesting
a total of two employees and have two parking spaces on site.
Dick van Arkel said the problem in that particular area is too many
shops, CalTrain will not let them park across the street even if they
are willing to pay, they are now parking on the residential streets
behind. He suggested if the city could negotiate with CalTrain to
allow parking across the street there wouldn't be a problem; their
employees park on Rollins Road across the railroad tracks; there is
misuse of the alley in the rear, car repair shops have moved into the
easement. Another 17-30 cars a day in this block will be a problem.
A Commissioner suggested Mr. van Arkel contact the Traffic, Safety &
Parking Commission if he felt he had a solution to the parking problem
in the area and commented he did not think the proposed use would bring
in 17-30 cars a day since they will not have seven to eight employees.
Dick van Arkel requested his concerns be addressed before a permit is
granted. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
During Commission discussion it was suggested a condition be added to
limit the number of employees. Commission comment: compared to many
other car repair facilities applicants' approach makes sense,
especially putting in the part storage area and the Space -Saver rack
parking will accommodate any overflow cars they will have; applicant is
concerned about the parking and has found his own solution with the
Space -Saver hoists. It was determined the number of employees would be
four counting the two applicants/owners.
For the reasons stated in discussion, C. Galligan moved for approval of
the parking variance for one stall to build mezzanine storage/office
areas 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 June 17, 1993; (2) that the requirements of
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
June 28, 1993
the memos of the City Engineer (6/21/93), Chief Building Official
(6/1/93 and 6/21/93) and Fire Marshal (6/21/93) shall be met; (3) that
the total number of employees shall be restricted to four full time
employees; and (4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and
Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City -of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 4-0 on roll call vote,
Cers Ellis, Graham and Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES IN THE M-1 ZONE AND PARKING VARIANCE AT
866 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 6/28/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions,
required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Hardy Warren„ To The Elk, Inc.,
applicant, was present. His comments: since their classes are held in
off hours mainly there is plenty of available parking in the lot and on
the street; normally they have 20-30 students plus one teacher, the
need for 41 parking spaces would be extremely rare; he would be willing
to start classes at 6:15 P.M. or even 6:30 P.M. A Commissioner noted
the need to find exceptional circumstances applicable to this property.
Applicant said this is a warehouse with a lot of parking, they will be
using it at night without lights in the parking lot; the structure has
offices, parking appears to be regular tenant parking; the space they
use has six large offices, they use only one room. He had not talked
to the property owner about lighting the parking lot. A Commissioner
wished to add a condition of approval requiring lighting in the parking
lot.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: do not have a problem with a class time
of 6:00-10:00 P.M., the later a class starts the later it will be out.
Applicant was asked to comment and advised he would not object to a
6:15 or 6:30 starting time, they could release students at 9:30 or 9:45
P.M. CA suggested the condition state "no earlier than 6:15 P.M.". A
further Commissioner comment: it's not the use that: makes it special,
it's the timing of the use which puts no additional pressure on the
area.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit for traffic school
classes by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the
project shall conform to the business plan set forth in the Commercial
Applications form and the Letter of Explanation date stamped May 13,
1993, except that weekday classes shall not begin before 6:15 P.M. and
the applicant must provide lighting in the parking lot from twilight to
15 minutes after the close of any evening classes; (2) that the
conditions set forth in the Fire Marshal's memo dated May 24, 1993
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
June 28, 1993
shall be met; and (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements
of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City
of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: will
reluctantly support this motion.
Motion approved 4-0 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and Kelly
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - 1549 ALTURAS DRIVE. ZONED R-1
Continued to the meeting of July 12, 1993.
9. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1508 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-:1
Continued to the meeting of July 12, 1993.
10. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GAZEBO - 1481 BENITO AVENUE. ZONED R-1
Continued to the meeting of July 12, 1993.
11. VARIANCES AT 1349 SANCHEZ AVENUE. ZONED R-2
Continued to the meeting of July 12, 1993. 1
Preliminary Draft Housing Element, June 21, 1993.
CP discussed her memo on review of the preliminary draft housing
element and schedule for review.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its June 21, 1993
regular meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary