The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1221-1223 Donnelly Avenue - Staff ReportR TO: DATE �. CITY l,r• O'�' BURl1NGAME S T A F F R E P O R T �. 1 _ HONORAaLE MAYOR A�JD CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY AUGUST 24, 1983 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVE BY AGENDA ITEM /s MTG. ^/�/^� DATE y t5 ,�B�E�T: REVIEW OF PLANNI�JG COP•1�1ISSION ACTION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A C�FIFfE�CIAL BUILDING AT 1221 DONNELLY, C-1, SUB-AREA A BURLINGAME AVENUE COMh1ERCIAL AREA RECOMMENDATION: Council hold a public hearing. At the hearing the following condition should be considered: that the project as-built be consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped June 20, 1983. Following the hearing Council should act on the project. BACKGROUND: The Project The applicant is at 1221 Donnelly. is located above required for the Commercial Area. History requesting a va riance for two parking spaces for a new building The variance is necessary for the 2,000 SF of storage area which the ±5,720 SF retail on the first floor. Off-street parking is not first floor retail use in Sub-Area A of the Burlingame Avenue In April, 1983 the applicant submitted plans for a new structure at 1221 Donnelly. These plans included two off-street parking spaces for the 2,000 SF storage area. However, a variance was required because there was not room on the site for the parked cars to turn around and enter ponnel.ly forward. In addition the curb cut for these two substandard spaces caused the loss of one on-street parking space; so there was a net gain of one space. The City Engineer was concerned about the safety of cars regularly backing directly onto Donnelly. At the Planning Commission meeting of May 9, 1983 the Commission denied withou�� prejudice the application for the two off-street parking spaces-which were substandard (required users to back up onto Donnelly). Since the project was denied without prejudice the applicant resubmitted plans on June 20, 1983. These new plans showed no off-street parking; thus the request for a parking variance for two off-street spaces. A comparison of the two plans shows that those submitted the second time removed the parking and increased the ground floor area by ±590 SF. Ground floor retail uses in Sub-Area A are exempt from off-street parking requirements, therefore the increase in square footage had no effect on parking. The applicant's intention is to use the building for retail use, with related storage on the 2,000 SF second floor. The attached Planning Commission staff report (August 8, 1983) addresses city staff concerns. The applicant also submitted a second letter (Lage Andersen, August 5, 1983) an� the minutes of the Planning Commission, August 8, 1983 are also attached. -2- Planning Commission Action At their meeting of August 8, 1983 the Planning Cor�nission approved granting a two space parking variance to the project at 12�1 Donnelly on a 5-2 vote (Commissioners Giomi and Graham dissenting}. Findings for the variance were addressed in the minutes and dealt with the small size of the lot relative to its neighboring lots; the fact that retail use was the only realistic use for this lot; the parking variance was better and safer than cars backing onto Donnelly; the variance was necessary to preserve and protect the property owner's right because he cannot do anything more with his property than this proposal; the variance would improve safety in the area; and the retail use would not affect the zoning or the objectives of zoning in the area. Commission discussion addressed: discontinued talks regarding possible easement exchange (see Andersen letter of August 5, 1983); underground parking; choices made by the applicant regarding mixed use (retail and office); the size of the parking request; and whether granting of the variance would establish a precedent in the area. EXHIBITS: - Lage Andersen letter, August 5, 1983 - Planning Commission Minutes, August 8, 1983 - Planning Corrmission Staff Report, August 8, 1983, Item #1 - Plans date stamped June 20, 1983 MM/s cc: City Clerk City Attorney Earl Raymond Lage Andersen Bill Kubach Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1983 1. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1221 DONNELLY AVENUE BY � LAGE ANDERSEN FOR EARL RAYMOND CP Monroe reviewed this request for a two space parking variance to build a 7,305 SF commercial building. Reference staff report dated 8/1/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/6/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (7/27/83 memo), City Engineer (6/27/83 memo) and Chief Building Inspector (6/27/83 memo); May 31, 1983 letter from Lage Andersen, attorney for the applicant; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped June 20, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification for the variance, Planning staff comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Secy. Giomi read letter dated August 5, 1983 from Lage Andersen, applicant's attorney, regarding their unsuccessful attempt to obtain access to the property other than by a driveway onto Donnelly Avenue. Attorney Andersen addressed Commission: the proposal represents a choice to allow the applicant to develop his property at a net loss to the city of one parking space; there are factors which will limit a precedent being set in this case - could be limited to Donnelly, a street where retail uses need to be encouraged; limited to a minimum number of parking spaces (1 or 2) from the code requirements; and limited to storage uses. Applicant purchased the property prior to adoption of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (BACA) ordinance, thinking he could develop the lot with a 15,000 SF building and be exempt from providing off-street parking; believe it is fair to allow him to develop the property in the proposed manner. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor. John Kockos spoke in oppostion: have had conversations with the applicant regarding a possible easement, but no deal; wonder if putting the top floor of this building in storage is not an attempt to get around the present parking requirements; there are serious parking problems in the area, even allowing a one or two space variance would make the situation worse. Attorney Andersen advised there was a limited time in which to complete a deal regarding an easement. There were no further cor�nents and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: applicant's decision to discontinue talks regarding a possible easement exchange; alternative designs if underground parking were provided; applicant did not wish to build offices above a retail use, without the storage area the project is not viable for him; if this were in Sub-Area B applicant would be required to provide parking for all floors, think his request for a two space parking variance in Sub-Area A is too much; seems it would be a be.tter project with underground parking. Attorney Andersen stressed the financial nardship upon the applicant in developing this small parcel. Further discussion: approval �auld be a precedent setting action; the applicant's hardship does not pertain to the land, it is a financial consideration; there are other small lots in the area, some with underground parking; approval does not necessarily set a precedent, Commission would look at each individual project on its merit; find there is a hardship in the smallness of the lot, applicant bought this property in good faith, would like to see him develop it. C. Giomi moved to deny this parking variance. Motion died for lack of a second. % C. Taylor stated his belief this application could be treated by itself without fear of creating a precedent. He found there were exceptional circumstances applicable to the property in that the lot is smaller than the surrounding lots and there is no other realistic use for this property in this location; that it would be better to grant the parking variance than allow cars to back onto Donnelly; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, he cannot do anything more �-�ith this property; that to use the property at all requires the applicant obtain a variance; that granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, it would improve safety in the area; and that this use of property in Sub-Area A of the Burlingame Avenue Corrmercial Area would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, it is consistent with the objectives of the zoning plan. C. Taylor moved for approval of the parking variance with the following condition: (1) that the project as-built be consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped June 20, 1983. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. � ROBERT R.THOMPSON ALBERT J. HORN DAVID C. CARR ARTHUR H.BREDENBECK NORMAN 1. BOOK, JR. QUENTIN L. COOK R08ERT A. NEBRIG RICHARD C. BERRA L. MICHAEL TELLEEN LAGE E.ANDERSEN KEITH P. BARTEL MARK A.CASSANEGO PENELOPE C.GREENBERG LAURENCE M. MAY NANETTE SCHULZE STRINGER KRISTI COTTON SPENCE ROBERT W. PAYNE JAMES R. CODY GWENDOLYN V. MITCHELL FRANK B. INGERSOLL.JR. CYRUS J. McMILLAN SPECIAL COUNSEL Planning Commission City of Burlingame Members of the Planning Commission: AUG 5� ' 1� CRv�NiNc �p�ME This letter supplements the information you have received for Item 1 of your Agenda for August 8, 1983. Item 1 concerns a requested variance for Earl Raymond to construct a 7,305 square foot commercial building at 1221 Donnelly without providing the two parking spaces required for the 2,000 square foot second- floor storage area. At the suggestion of Chairman Harry Graham, Earl Raymond and I(with the held of Mr. Raymond's son Bill, a real estate agent) have investigated the possibility of obtaining an easement over the ten-foot strip of land to the east of Mr. Raymond's par- cel on Donnelly that is a part of the Woolworth parcel. We con- tacted Russell Keil of the Sonoma Corporation, owner of the parcel. He was agreeable towards granting an easement, but only if the holder of the long-term Ground Lease on the property would also consent. We contacted a representative of the holders of the long- term Ground Lease, a Mr. John Kockos. We discovered that Mr. Kockos would only grant such an easement if Mr. Raymond would grant him the back thirty feet of Mr. Raymond�s property in return. Obvi- ously, we cannot make such an exchange and still have a viable piece of property remaining. Mr. Raymond and I have taken these steps to try and determine whether or not this easement was available in order to be sure that there was no alternative solution to provide the required two spaces for the parcel before proceeding to the hearing on our variance re- quest. LAW OFFICES OF CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL,THOMPSON & HORN 216 PARK ROAD LUTHER M. CARR P. O. BOX 513 J. ED. McCLELLAN CLARENCE E.MUSTO BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-0513 OF COUNSEL TELEPHONE 1415) 342-7461 � `� August 5, 1983 / w� f�: � � �y� C � I consider it another extraordinary circumstance of the property that there is no way to obtain access to the property but by drive- way directly to the property from Donnelly. At the suggestion of �. Planning Commission August 5, 1983 Page 2 Mr. Graham, we exhausted this possibility and feel that we have ex- hausted all possibilities short of the requested variance eliminating the two parking spaces. Mr. Raymond and I look forward to appearing before you on Mon- day night and respectfully request that you consider our variance request favorably. As a long-time Burlingame resident, Mr. Raymond is asking for what in effect is a waiver of a requirement to provide one parking place (because the City will lose at least one street space on Donnelly to Mr. Raymond's driveway) so that he may attempt to develop this property on Donnelly. Very truly your , n ",; %� � ` .� _ �'' �:..�� _ �'� � �-r��> �'. - ��'. ; _ i - � Lag.� E. Andersen, for CARR,McCLELLAN,INGERSOLL,THOMPSON � HORN LEA:rlh cc: Burlingame Planning Department Frank Cistulli A. M. Garcia Nanette M. Giomi Harry S. Graham Robert Leahy Charles F. Schwalm Thomas C. Taylor _ MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER P.C. 8/8/83 Item #1 SUBJECT: PARKING VARIANCE FOR A 7,305 SF COMMERCIAL U5E AT 1221 DONNELLY AVENUE The applicant, represented by Lage Andersen, is requesting a two space parking variance to build a 7,305 SF commercial building at 1221 Donnelly Avenue. This project is located in Sub-Area A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Because it is located in Sub-Area A, retail use on the first floor receives an exemption from on-si.te �arking requirements. The reason for the parking variance request is that the project includes a 2,000 SF storage area above the first floor retail use. The parking requirement for storage area is one space per 1,000 SF of floor area. City staff have reviewed the project. The Fire Marshal (July 27, 1983 memo) had no comments. The City Engineer (June 27, 1983 memo) notes that if the applicant must include the storage area, the City Engineer prefers providing no parking to the previous request where the cars using the two spaces had to back onto the street. The City Engineer notes that he would still prefer on-site parking requirements be met. The Chief Building Inspector (June 27, 1983 memo) notes that if the project is approved the applicant would have to meet Building Code requirements for bathrooms, Title 24 and handicapped access, and that services provided on the second floor would also have to be provided on the first floor. In the applicant's letter of May 31, 1983 the point is made that the property was purchased prior to the current ordinance which provides parking exemption for only the first floor retail. To make an economic return on the development, based on the purchase price of the land and the new city regulations, practically full lot coverage is required. In addressing the findings necessary for a variance the letter points out: that the parcel is smaller than the nearby lots, so providing area for on-site parking stalls to turn around and pull out would be a hardship; his architects have stated that the lot is too narrow for the underground parking necessary for a second story of offices or stores; the loss of the parking spaces will not affect the public health, safety or welfare; and because the application provides first floor retail space it is consistent with the intent of Sub-Area A to encourage retail commercial development in this area. Planning staff would point out that in the opinion of many residents and merchants, parking is a particular problem in the downtown area defined by the code as Sub-Area A and B; that these overlay districts (Sub-Area A and B) were created to address the economic viability of the area as it is affected by both use and availability of parking. The concept being that without available parking the retail use cannot survive or at least prosper. This request for a two space parking variance would establish a precedent for the reuse of all the underused sites within Sub-Area A. The issue is not whether the site can be used at all, or even if it can be used more intensively, for it can. The size and shape of the lot do not provide for the most efficient underground parking layout, but underground parking can be provided. Underground parking has been provided on other sites in this same area. The size and shape of the lot has not changed since its purchase. The applicant as a property owner in the area at the time the code revision was considered was aware of the proposed change. The right to use his property has not been revoked. In fact he can build his first floor retail ±5,000 SF without on-site parking and any action by the Planning Commission. -2- To grant a variance the Planning Commission must make the following findings (Code Sec. 25.54.020): a. that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or class of uses in the district, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss; b. that such variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the property involved; c. that the granting of such variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or improvements; and d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. Prior to action on the variance for the two parking spaces, the Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. The following condition should be considered at the public hearing: 1. that the project as-built be consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped June 20, 1983. ��ui��; rn�,� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 8/1/83 cc: Earl Raymond Lage Andersen %/;, ;� � c.�4-,'�: ,.. ,�-� „ti .; . . . T , �---- - ----�-_ — . _ , PROJECT APPLICATIQ�N �r CEQA ASSESSMENT � � +� v s- c -� a� N +� c � � N N � s_. • +� a� p •r cn � U r � N •r (LS v � �_ > a, � �n cn � L •r '� �1--� � �--� U QJ 3 �F •r S- N N •r � � N C � i-� � tn N U •r �+�� o c � � • � � a--� U1 QJ � � [6 N i N O N � r� O L O'� � U �— •r N N U 4- � � N •r N � �i o i •r +� a� ci. Ci 3 -� N � O +� L L L � •r Cr O Q� � y— c c •� •r r (/7 O �Y•r•r (n � s- �a � a� a� +� �a +� +� a�, � a a� � rts +`"-� � � o o � a o s- +� �Los..cno N 4-� O 3 X O � +� a�¢-ar- o a� �- � s N rtS N O I� � 7 '� "a •L �a� � ¢ cn o cn � N I •r U � C/) � � • � i cn N O Q cn O � O as o a� o � ��t o � U•r��+��--� � � Application received ( 6/6/83 Staff review/acceptance ( ��CITY Q� 1221 DONNELLY AVENUE BURLINGAME project adctress ��,�e'��,�' project name - if any ) ) i. APPLICANT Earl Raymond 697-6747 name telephone no. 2812 Rivera Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 applicant s address: street, city, zip code Lage Andersen, Esq., P.O.Box 513, 342-7461 contact person, if different U1” ingame, . telephone no. 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION Speci�.l Perr;it ( ) Variance* ( X) Ccndominium Perr:..i �( ) Otner *Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION VARIANCE to allow a 7,305 SF commercial building without parking. P.�rkin� is required only for the 2,000 SF second floor storage area; 2 arkin4 spaces are required. The first floor area is exempt from parking requirements by Code Sec. 25.72.020 3. All o-ther zoning requirements for floor area ratio, setbacks and heiqht are met by the proposed design. (attach letter of explanation if additional s�ace is needed) Ref. code section(s): (Chap.25.54 � �25.70.030 � 4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ( 029-152-050 ) ( ) ( APN lot no. block no. � C-1 � � 6,325 MOL. zoning district land area, square feet Earl Ra_ymond, et al land owner's name � Acreage, City of Burlingame� subdivision name 2812 Rivera Drive address Burlinqame, CA 94010 Reouired Date received city zip code (yes) �� ( 4/8/83 ) Proof of ownershi� �� (no) ( — ) Owner's consent to anplication 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The site is improved with one story buildings housing the Encore Shop, Vivan's BeautY Salon and Martha's Village Store. Required �YeS) �� (yes) (�s� (�e� (no) (�� (no) (other) Date received (6/20/83 > m � — ) ( 6/6/83 j Site plan sho�-�ing: property lines; public sidewall:s and cur5s; ali str�;ctures and improvements; paved on-site parkino; landscaping. Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area by tyqe of us�`on each floor plan. Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant). Site cross section (�s) (if relevant). letter of explanation *Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT Pf:�POSAL Proposed construction, Below orade ( — SF) Second floor ( 2,QQ Q SF) gross floor area First floor ( 5,59 5 SF) Third floor ( — SF) Pro.ject Code Pronosal Requirement Front setback vari es � Si de setback tl . d. — Side yard � 0 Rear yard Q � Project Code Proposal Requirement �ot coverage F 3.0 FAR dX. Ruildinn height 25' SR over 35' �andscaoed area 250 SF 0 On-site okg.space� Q 2 * -- - _� --V _ .. _ 6 �� *Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAPdD USES City of Burlingame parking lot on southwest; EBS and Master Craft Printers on northeast; other retail, service and some residential uses on other adjacent sites. This use conforms to Required Date received the Genera Plan. (yes) (no) ( n/a ) Location plan of acijacent properties. n�� (3 businesses (yes) (no) ( ) Other tenants/firms on property: OCCU y th2 2X1St— no. firms ( ) no. er�ployees ( � floor area occupied ( SF office space) i11g bldgs.� ( SF other) . no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. comoany vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee $ () Variance/R-i,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 ( X) Variance/other districts $ 75 ( X) Neoative Declaration $ 25 ( X) Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ () TOTAL FEES $ 125.0� RECEIPT N0. 3322 Received by ii.Towber I herehy certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best_of my knowledge and belief. _ , Signa /,a"Gl // !/ ��. /,/ � '�.a /�`� 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) EXISTING after 8-5 5 PM IPl 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM Full tir�e employees on site ' Part tir�e emnloyees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Trip ends to/fror� site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles can STAFF USE OPlLY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. The City of Burlingame by on completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required. 19 , Reasons for a Conclusion: See Neqative Declaration ND-338P Signature of Processino Official Title Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the deterr.�ination shall be final. DECLARATION OF POSTI^lG DaCe Posted: I declare under penalty� of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I oosted a true copy of the abov� Ne�ative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to th= Council Chambers. Executed at 6urlingame, California on Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o , 19 EVELYPJ N. NILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF QURLINGAME � - ., ._ •� , � �. STAFF REUI EW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIOfJ Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy: date circulated reply received City Engineer ( 6/22/83 ) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no) Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOPJ MEASUP.ES Concerns Do the plans meet all Fire, Building and Engineering requirements? Does the applicant satisfy the four legal requirements of Chap. 25.54? memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Mitigation Measures Request comments from the Fire Marshal, Chief Building Inspector and City Engineer. Review applicant's 5/31/83 letter; make findings. 3. CEQA REQUIREP4EPITS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject: Is the project subject to CEQA review? YeS See Neqati ve Decl arati on ND-338P. IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study comoleted Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed RFP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR acce�ted by staff Circulation to other agencies � � � � � � � � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Study by P.C. Review period ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � i � � � i � ) ) ) ) } ) % 4. APPLICATIOP! STATUS �phone Cd�� Date first received (6/6/83 ) Accepted as complete: no( X) �i�14' to aoplicant advising info. required (6/10 83 ) ves( X) date 6/20/83 P.c. study (-�lii :Y� ) Is application ready for a�ublic hearing? es) (no) Recommended date (st/ �J f,3 ) f Date staff report mailed to aoplicant (�/ 3 �) Date Commission hearin ( F��I $ 3 j Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes , (no) Application approved (� � Date Council hearing ( q�"� / g� ) Aoolication aporoved ( ) Denied (�jY � (� � z8 �3 signed date , , R��li1�Ci • �� June 22, 1983 JUN 2 u ��; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNIMG pEPT. MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CNIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR (plans w/City Engineer) �E—MAF�HAL FROM: PLANNING SUBJECT: REVISED PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1221 DONNELLY AVENUE On May 9, 1983 the Commission denied without prejudice a similar plan for a commercial building on this site. New plans have now been received which exclude the two on-site parking spaces previously proposed which required occupants to back out onto Donnelly. Please review these new plans; we will place the application on the July 11 agenda for study. Your comments should therefore be returned to us by July 1. Thanks. �/� Helen Towber Planner att. �t1�E� � ~�'�-Ac1� �C—.7�cLs �S �u�3i�1 �77c:�U '• �QE �� Q�- ;��s = �o�� c� � � �'(n /�� , June 22, 1983 MEMO T0: Y ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR (plans w/City Engineer) FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING SUBJECT: REVISED PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1221 DONNELLY AVENUE On May 9, 1983 the Commission denied without prejudice a similar plan for a commercial building on this site. New plans have now been received which exclude the two on-site parking spaces previously proposed which required occupants to back out onto Donnelly. Please review these new plans; we will place the application on the July 11 agenda for study. Your comments should therefore be returned to us by July 1. Thanks. �/� Helen Towber Planner s/ att. �: /�'1�� '�� _ � /� �' �� ,rJ/�P�is'�ay %�`v� S'G� � /6�� / ��' � �-� �''/� �� S�'��l�iS�l�'r/'l � �� !D� �9 � ;�� - �� '� � � sa��'�� c��.�� s�� ' �� '��r�, �� ',�l��fi�� ' r B p A �/ N`/� � �!/(�� V {�f �V�' I �" �%r ��„ �� ,�� /9��'r'L� " ��"r',.�`� �� 1 �� s ��o� � �� /�� ',�, - �� /% �'�� s ��% ��z� �� J� . �� 'G^ �� -� �� '�� a�� %�� ` � � ��-� . -� �� %� .�� = ,� r � sr�� _ � �� >��' _�`�� .�,�� e� �� ,�� -�s , ��x�� ' � ;� ,� ,� � ,�� , w, , June 22, 1983 MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER DING INSPECTOR (plans w/City Engineer) FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING SUBJECT: REVISED PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1221 DONNELLY AVENUE On May 9, 1983 the Commission denied without prejudice a similar plan for a commercial building on this site. New plans have now been received which exclude the two on-site parking spaces previously proposed which required occupants to back out onto Donnelly. Please review these new plans; we will place the application on the July 11 agenda for study. Your comments should therefore be returned to us by July 1. Thanks . `� -� �` �� I� �U : ,�/ yi" � n � �t/E �l �2 / ly+ � v1 / . �/� � � Helen Towber �2�J� ,` .�u,��i,�,� D,✓✓S id�, Planner S� �S �o�� c d � 1, c � ��;, /, E �� >,Q� ��I`�f att. . _ , . ., � � .. ` / � �v �t � /�� n � � i v 1 S � d � f,�✓ n �,.c %� /iC' � � .e � 7'`/+� C' /�o /�w �'.-��. � C� c c c� � � � /� .�� .�� /� �"3 cLr �� .� �,� f%� u; ,� t. �, � � � ,� � � � �l%D yi,r L'•�r �e/� �OG..ij. �� // �f• � u l.� E ,� f� � �s o ,r �%�/ a y, �� :�� .�� s .�'�`// � � ,�� , 3; �� //i L!"„5 Q' J��JK�°r�O �%�'1 �.2.� �' n�.v� C' ! /�' Ll [ /1 E � C: H �Q' L� v� ��/ �� y �� ,- � ��,,� �� /s � � �. ROBERT R.THOMPSON ALBERT J. HORN DAVID C. CARR AF2THUR H. BREDENBECK NORMAN I. 600K, JR. QUENTIN L. COOK ROBERT A. NEBRIG RICHARD C. BERRA L. M�CHAEL TELLEEN LqGE E.ANDERSEN KEITH P. BARTEL MARK A.CASSANEGO PENELOPE C.GREENBERG LAURENCE M. MAY NANETTE SCHULZE STRINGER KRISTICOTTON SPENCE ROBERT W. PAYNE JAMES R.COpY GWENDOLYN V. MITCHELL FRANH B. INGERSOLL,JR. CYRUS J. McMILLAN SPECIAL GOUNSEL Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Planning Commission Members: J �1 f�! E; - 1983 CITY QF BURUNGAME PUINNING DEPT. Applicant, Earl Raymond, respectfully requests a variance from Section 25.70.030(i) (which provides that Mr. Raymond's project must have one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of storage space) by eliminating the requirement for two (2) off-street parking spaces. Background Information A variance for permission to back into the public right- of-way on Donnelly Avenue from two parking places to be located at the northeasterly corner of the property shown on the site plan was denied by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1983. The subject property is located at 1221 Donnelly Avenue and Encore Shop, Vivan's Beauty Salon and I�Iartha's Village Store. Applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures and build ��a-�`��"-_` a structure with approximately�5,305 square feet of floor area on the ground floor and a 2,000 foot mezzanine to be used exclusively for storage in connection with the retail business on the ground floor. Two (2) off-street parking spaces are required under Section 25.70.030(i) of the Zoning Code. (one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area of storage area above the first floor.) Under Section 25.70.040, the first story is exempted from parking requirements. LAW OFFICES OF CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL,THOMPSON & HORN 216 PARK ROAD LUTHER M. CARR P. O. BOX 513 J. ED. McCLELLAN BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-0513 CLARoNcouNSE USTO TELEPHONE (415) 342-7461 May 31, 1983 � �. ��.�r�:� �` �II� The property was purchased at a time prior to the proposal and enactment of Ordinance No. 1214, an ordinance establishing Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and Regulations therefor. At Planning Commission May 31, 1983 Page 2 the time of the purchase of the property, the owner, in discussions with City Planner John Yost, understood that he would be able to build a building of 15,000 square feet and be exempt from pro- viding off-street parking. In the period following the purchase of the property and prior to the applicant's submission of a plan for obtaining a building permit, Ordinance No. 1214 was enacted. The price paid for the property was paid on the basis that an approximately 15,000 square foot building could be built with- out providing off-street parking. After extensive discussions with two different architects, the applicant finds that with respect to the price that he has paid for the property and the regulation imposed by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Ordinance that he cannot make economic use of the property unless he is able to achieve practically full coverage of the lot with commercial space. Request for Variance Section 25.54.020 provides that the Commission may grant variances to the parking requirements under the Zoning Ordinance if the Commission finds, after a full investigation and public hearing, that all the following are true: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances applicable to the property or class of uses in the district, so that the denial of the application would result in undue property loss; B. That such variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property right of the owner of the property involved; C. That the granting of such variance would not be materially detrimental for the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property and improvements; D. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City. In the following sections of this letter, I will address the four requirements for granting of a variance. I believe that the exceptional nature of the circumstances with respect to the parcel will lead the Planning Commission to the conclusion that a variance should be granted in this case. Planning Commission P�Iay 31 , 19 8 3 Page 3 A. and B. Exceptional circumstances and necessity for enjoyment of property right. The parcel is a relatively small, narrow parcel compared to the surrounding larger parcels. There- fore, in providing a space for cars to turn around and pull out a large amount of the available commercial area would be used. Applicant's discussions and planning with his architect have revealed that the parcel is too narrow to provide underground parking necessary for a second story of offices or stores. Denial of this variance application would thus result in an undue property loss to the owner and an inability to preserve the right of the owner to develop the property. C. Detriment to public health, safety or welfare or injury to other property owners or a quiet enjoyment of other property or improvements. Elimination of the requirement for two parking places will not cause a detriment to public health, safety or welfare. D. Adverse affect on comprehensive zoning plan. I have reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan and believe that neither of the requested variances will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City. The most recent amend- ments to the comprehensive zoning plan, the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Ordinance, is designed to encourage retail uses in the Burlingame Avenue area. Either variance would make possible an additional store to the retail area along Donnelly. Generally, Donnelly is an area that is not developing commercially at this time. The establishment of a viable retail entity on Donnelly may encourage commercial development along Donnelly, bringing needed revenue to the City. Ve�y truly urs , � � �. La E. Andersen, for CA R,McCLELLAN,INGERSOLL,THOMPSON & HORN LEA:pf Attorneys for Earl Raymond ;� iu � � + � �� ' � � °� y �K' •� � , ,,+� ��,� � � �r��'4 �.,,� � .. ,�an �� r ' ' -- .� �. � � ^�' � L :N '.+',�� ,� � ' . - . � y. ` ,�J'� r �'��. k . � �, . � �«` � � � �-•- ,,. :; `� 1} �' - �-`�� .�� ;� � . �; s r� �^�,.,�Y • . � +M. . � � ' . ��i5„�'a� � � �,. � �d.�4 ,V �- ,'� t?,.:e - '� h GYX�� . ��' ' .. � �� j'R (� � .i > �.� +�i • --'� . ��,'?17V �� , i1 � .::,ir �� ., '` I w � 1 4i.. \�,i\ � . . ' ' . 1"!' 1� . t � l�. �\ �' :..'^,� i �i,•t s .. � � . T � S � � �° �. ,, � a . r4 a, - - � ai� .� _� ,� . . . ..,�{' � . s v49 � P� �... 4 �.�.mk . "i� ;..,;�.,,,.. � . °:��.� _ • .._ . � ..�a ..: .� �� • p . � f,fS� r �,� f t+ �` �� ,.__ �. �. J� . ; '*�C .., " �'(T�� _,�f_ � � - l ,! . �jC� y�� ,�• �,� / * "'3 -� . ?� �.,` . .�. � y � ` �:O,p�/q ► �1,�,��3,�..t /t� • ,/r,�-yy� . P�_� vl/ �y° !�".�:,, `�'�� '"'�+:' �,; J � 7 s N � A � - � �g' / r t�\ .-�.y� � �a,�.,, � "x '�:� � \„� •. � . r • x .,,� e :Y. ��'��" , r r'� ' � �?�/� . . " J ' ~�' � �/U � �.7p, . . t� y '� 't.- �, �r- ��/ . � • . ^ ..,�� '�� va�`_� �•h` .l.",. �i+- �"�4 :*/ � ry; �, R . .<. ,f.. ,- gdj '4k�. ''f"+�. '3,�,;. �`s `� - � - � .. .':t ��`V ' 'k 1 � y~_ �,iy- . _ .� i: � i •s-. � ?: � ` �`A^ ,�.,, �+ �.y� � -i� � - '�a „�6'� � . � , / • / / �..�r !, �, �+1� �?.� T t�+' � .�` � � I ` � . � -`al" � \ v � // '` ♦ ! 9f €`x lY - � ' � � I 3 ..[�` s� 'rY�ts«.�.'; � � . �i-, . ` . .. " \�� f ' ,e� rt��--�, !'l - �k �. . � � ...� � ^,� � . i � ! � _ �\i� �A. �2y �Jf < �.a' ,. ' . yf,' .� I \ �x � .C' .. r 'C� "�-L`^'yz. 3y�an A � �1. f q.� \ �Y 1�?�� 11� :.;; - � �. J.Y '.., V:�? t �'t�A'�' "�. ��.%��•,, "� • �e,.. � �.T, 'd' r"�J . �' �� 1 '. 7" �. . � .•yt ! .'�b � �� ^^k.R'.`4` ` �� '�.V t� . . / _\ ,. � �V i �'n�,;,.tr; .. . - �.._ \� r-� � .�' �`r � k }' `�� i � a '� . \l ' � • �. ' ae � � ,,l,�, :. % �� \ - w �i' °�� v ��',�N� r\ 4;`�� / �� •t` r. d` *.'� �` 'g> - ... v� �/� F � F :� ariV.^� � 4 •n� +�T .,.�,. �1' . , � � , \�„ 1 Y 2a {`Lt _ / / �_ ' . A� � I`.. •I� ,• ^v� � �` _ �� l �" , � y �G_ �; _ o� .' � �`i a � ,'��, ?��' �,j �'� t"_ �� ..� �. �,� � � \ ;�/ ��,,, ` . ;;,. _' Q,J�� -:-,� �r �� =��: . �a,, ..,. .:Q , . � �!��, `. , o ti�� " � � �.. � �' � = ,�'. = ,� q , _ � � \ d . , , ��! y '9 Y � ''/ --,:. r- ��- ' ,,� _ �, � . �rk . ��G ,.r- _ r , f' �; r � i � •., ..►.� ��; �; � �pt�� _�� G h � : r . �a " . � r �'� ' k i : �' - � \ "+ y ?. " ' ' ` �' •� � . . ` _ � �� ` /' ` _ j , y,¢� � . ( / ,� a,� .y�t�� \f_".* _ ,. i.e , � .r� + O ' " � 1 '- � ,' , , � :' �� . ` /+��4r,-. - •ro.• �` M � ,�f '� ' ?�" . /� ��`� � �!'R • ' . �'.� ' � i1 '��k�'� / *� . ., ' . _ .� ..�" �iC � .�. .� � a� , . "� �.i ��' ��" . .^��' � �� ,, j � ,;� � �. F '+{ "'" ,�� , , � ` a„� ' , .: I�, � .�"� � w.1•. .. ♦..:ca:' �,�,r . ��i�� L`��i\\ �� ^ , .� . -. � ,�3�i � �,�:�fy�' -�r. �tT J � Tn . . ,y3��r�R ,�� 4 . � �/' � `� � ��.. �'�� i a f�'�� / . �.F� .. `'V � ��I '� � :�.. .. . -,— - �. �'% oq � �' 4 '.r � �;� ,z ,••_ ,•t.,� . ' V`�.- \ �,�; _ =0� ��1� ! �'� � �-,� + .. � .�,, �_� . d;� �i+1l�� 4T . �� `� � n t /� �,,''.;�. yt�` � ' '" .-fi �,''"` r,�'. ...c\ ' +vG�� _ � T , � - _ \ •rh �, � ` � I. . � .� , i�. Y� � .i } I � \ �,� , _ �, � � rc'� "�%t' ° ��` • ioP � • � :� -f � , ' .�.- � � ,% - _ @ s� � . ' �, i�� y � i�.� � ' . t • � ' .1 � ` � , .. ;�• �' - � v>, .. /` ' . �^� ^� � �iii� � �j .. . .. ' # <' R � . �. � ' �i ' � C : � � �- -.,�,, 'L� � ;ry� rP .- � w �T � �` • . h �'� . �..�i :' c� 'Q �� .�' �,.,,_r � - �,- > =�%.,� �.r� , . ,. - -�+-�- � , � � t' `�. � � ^ _ r � _� __,� _ �. � ., ��*''� g� -� �Qc *�. '� i • -' � - � • . � „� . � b �j �- - ; . � . � .� -- .. . . �.� �� AT _.._... _,w ' . ' .` . ..�._ , � � „� .� r�_ �_ _ �, � ,`��.` o��, . �2`�n�' �"Q ��/�� 'y �� - ' ` . _ � � \ �6''L-'.,� ��-�q � �:.,y�' ,,�� '��rV�� .. ��`/ '�+�' . y��, ♦ :" r �� ' �. . + . � �" ! _ 4�� Z��; � +�"� �"'�` � ` ,l , * ^ � � ` . �. ,:'i� F ' '^'^ �� / G�� P�p �1 , w w . / . / �r' � �wer� . ,p �.��, � " . 1 �, , �/ �— � � \ � s r ' i � �' • . �'_ �-- �— }� �� t }, / . ��r_ � , /: � � _ � 4 � _ _ 4� _ T. '� '% � ��'� �.� � < s�% • � , �� _ �� , - � '�, � �`' � .. � � ' .c� . T i'��}.f t i . . .. . C' , J. . � . � \ . i�, . __ J , � . ' . ' i .6 , � `r � . s ♦ . � ! �. ' � '__ \ \ � � / � r.. . �\ �./^��, � ,3.. � ' .,ti It � /` � ./ �. '', .�: � � \ ''� � , � _ � :�� a�"� �'�,. ��-" �� - ^ , . , �/�; ,� , ��/�' � E� � �. • , ,a� � - y' � � � ?` �/—= �� ' � - ,. ,� � , .-; , ,. :�. - �. `�'--�' � i � - ,�`��,, . ��. '�s ' � -''r ' \' : r � , . �F' �:�. �-- ti�_ r.' - r , � �: 9 •✓. • � \ :�,{ir �I� w., . • � � ;5 � �, 7!f � � %"�S' � � V pA . • , ', ; ..> , / � .. , . �f+ Y •�` � � � � �• � f • �• `. I �a R r , ' , \ , . ,. - • , ` � p� . ... / �. ;D� t �� ; .... . . . . !'1- ""i�. j f F1! ' .y\ \ � / _� �.F i . _ � \\� / ��'�'.. � ,�•� �` ' 1,�, ,`r� � � // � � . ' . � � / � � � 1 ^ �� . ✓ � /` ' ,. . S♦ ' f �(�, .. �P J � _�� f �� -. � � /.� .! , .� i/'` i , �. �\ A % . �/ �'� _ '� 's ` � \� � � �+ / ,1C �fr• � . Y� ' . , � r , .- � , / �� ` h n i+ . r _ ..� �, \\ / J� vI' � � ` / � `��i . ' �! ��i � r , �� %.., � �%�l /e�� .l` � . - . � � � 3� City Council Minutes---- September 7, 1983 � blayor Crosby opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. Council expressed concerns about limiting to driveways. Some driveways are small, others are very large, this could be unfair. Also was con- cern about neighborhood sales, this would discriminate against neighbors going together for a sale. Present ordinance allows people to have sales in their back yard; this couid be more of a nuisance to a neighbor than having sale in front yard. People who haul in goods for a sale are doing business in their homes. Perhaps a complete inventory of inerchandise for sale should be required. City Attorney will revise ordinance and return it at next meeting. REVIEW OF PARKING VARIANCE FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1221 DONNELLY City Planner reviewed her memorandum of August 24 in which she recommended council hold public hearing and take action. Council should also consider two letters received from applicant after agenda went out. Applicant is requesting a variance for two off-street parking spaces for a new com- mercial building, off-street parking is not required for first floor retail but is required for the 2,000 square foot storage area on the second floor. Mayor Crosby opened the public hearing, asking for comments from the applicant first. Lage Andersen, attorney representing the applicant, reviewed the purchase of the property before off-street parking district was formed. Owner was told he could develop, was not aware that parking would be so severely limited. If the variance is not allowed, �he applicant will not be able to develop the property. Council discussed at length with Mr. Andersen; mezzanine will be for storage with access by stair and conveyor belt; ground floor is for re- tail use; severe parking problems in the area; possibility of underground parking for the project; small size of property; possible rental dollars available for the property. Councilman Martin suggested lowering the ceiling height of the mezzanine, thereby precluding any use other than storage. Councilman Amstrup stated if plans on ceiling height were changed this should go back to Planning Commission. Applicant spoke briefly to council stating his need to achieve the best use of the property. � Mayor Crosby closed the public hearing. Mr. Andersen requested council put condition on approval of project that ceiling height of inezzanine be lowered, then applicant would not have to go back to Planning Commission again. Councilman Martin moved to approve the project with the condition that the second floor be not over 6 foot 9 inches from the finished floor to the finished ceiling. Seconded by Mayor Crosby. Motion failinq on roll call vote: LAYES: CROSBY, MARTIN NOES: AMSTRUP, BARTON, MANGINI Councilwoman Barton moved to reverse the Planning Commission decision and deny the variance. Seconded by Councilman Amstrup, carried on roll call ��ote: AYES: AMSTRUP, BARTON, MANGINI NQES: CROSBY, MARTIN 3� ° BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA September 7, 1983 CALL TO ORDER • A duly noticed, regular meeting of the Burlinqame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order by Mayor William J. Crosby at 8:08 p.m. � PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG , Led by the City Attorney, Jerome F. Coleman. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE MINUTES � Minutes of the Study Meeting of August 10, 1983 and the Regular Meeting of August 15, 1983 were approved. PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND READING - ORDINANCE 1256 - PROHIBITING THE • KEEPING OF CHICKENS City Attorney reviewed previous action regarding this ordinance. Council had received a complaint which initiated this ordinance. Council wondered how many complaints city receives each year regarding chickens, and also how old was the original chicken ordinance.' City Attorney replied city gets about two complaints per year. As to the age of the original ordin- ance, he would have to check further but it is very old. Mayor Crosby opened the public hearing. Speaking in favor of the ordinance was Mr. and Mrs. Krietter, 331 Lexington. They had lived in the same house for 29 years but the chickens next door were just too noisy. They suqgested revising the � present ordinance to reduce the nwnber of chickens allowed to six and distance from homes to 50 feet. Two residents spoke against the ordinance, stating fresh eggs are much healthier than store bought; chickens are not as noisy as dogs or cats; Burlingame is "country;" lots are not large enough to allow 50 feet around chickens. Mayor Crosby closed the public hearing. - Council discussed at length; perhaps this particular complaint was because neighbor had too many chickens and too close to property lines; if people comply with the current law there would not have been a com- • plaint; perhaps the county health department should be involved. Jean Sircusa, 345 Lexington, commented chickens invite other pests such as roof rats, flies, and piqeons. � ! Councilman Amstrup moved to take no action on this ordinance. Seconded by Councilman Martin, carried unanimously by roll call vote. Council requested staff investigate site to determine if people are complying with the law. I RECESS I �__ Mayor Crosby declared a recess at 8:30 p.m. Meeting reconvened at , 8:35 p.m. with all members present. � PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND READING - ORDINANCE 1257 - LIMITING SITE AND CONTENT OF GARAGE SALES City Attorney reviewed background on this ordinance. City had received two complaints about a garage sale where people had hauled in :,taterial to be sold. This ordinance will limit sale to driveway and require that people own material to be sold for at least six montYs before sale. He stated these new rules will be given to people picking up q�rage sale permits. � � I