Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.08.09THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER August 9, 1976 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Francard (excused) OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Kirkup A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chm. Taylor at 7:40 P.M. on the above date. ROLL CALL The above named members were present, C. Francard having been excused. MINUTES Minutes of the July 12, 1976 meeting were approved as mailed. ACTION ITEMS 1. FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 1A AND 2, BLOCK 31, LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION OF BURLINGAME (APN 029=294-150/160), ZONED R-3, BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR ROBERT AND SYLVIA PISANI. C.E. Kirkup advised this final parcel map referred to the northwesterly corner of Dwight Road and Peninsula Avenue where an apartment is now being built; he said the map meets all requirements of the code and recommended approval. C. Mink moved approval of this Final Parcel Map; second by C. Cistulli and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICE AT 1365 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-122-200), ZONED M-1, BY JACK K. HUDSON (APPLICANT) WITH BOGER AND REED (OWNERS) (ND -87P POSTED 7/15/76). C.P. Swan reviewed this application, advising that Jack Hudson's application was for a small automotive service to be called Jack's Automotive. He would be leasing a 3200 SF area in an existing 15,000 SF industrial (building at 1365 Rollins Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1976 Road. This area has been used for a machine shop, which is an M-1 use. The automotive service would be a C-2 use and thus required a special permit. The C.P. noted Commission had received letter from the applicant with justification for this use and a site plan showing how the building is divided into four different establishment areas. There is off-street parking at 90 degree angle to Rollins Road in front of the building. Jack's Automotive is in need of four parking spaces for that amount of processing floor area. Mr. Hudson plans to use the interior and most cars being worked on would be parked inside. A sketch of the layout has given staff doubts that most cars could be parked inside at one time. There will be only 2 or 3 employees, and thus it would seem 3 or 4 cars would be a full day's workload. Generally it is expected work could be completed on each car• in one day. A Negative Declaration was posted July 15, 1976 with the City Planner's conclusion that: "Applicant proposes to run a clean professional auto shop in 22% of an existing industrial building. Most of the cars will be kept inside the building. The increase in traffic to and from the establishment will be insignificant. It appears that there will be adequate parking and that the proposed use will not have adverse impact upon neighboring business establishments." A report from the Fire Inspector dated 8/3/76 was noted as well as the fact that the fire exit requirements would be met. C.P. Swan told Commission this special permit can be acted upon and, thereafter, inspections by Building Inspector and Fire Inspector after business license applica- tion will be a further check that the Fire Department's requirements have been met. The applicant addressed Commission advising he has had experience in running a service department in a new car establishment in San Mateo, and consequently is aware of the laws and requirements for this type of business. It was determined during discussion between Mr. Hudson and Commission that: he did not plan to get into the business of wrecked cars; overnighters would be limited to one or two at the most; Wilson Auto Air, next door in the same building, installs air conditioners in cars; the applicant could not foresee himself being able to afford loaners. He. also advised he would be willing to have the special permit conditioned to exclude body repair and was agreeable to limiting the overnight parking to the inside of the building. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in favor of this application. Gordon Wilson, owner of Wilson Auto Air, told Commission he had known Mr. Hudson for the last three years and dealt with his former company; regarding parking, Mr. Wilson said the applicant is welcome to share space in his shop which is 5,000 SF and is empty at night. Dirk Reed, owner of the building, 13765 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA. stated he had talked to Fire Inspector Pearson, and advised Commission the building will be fire sprinklered, with the required fire exits. Referring to C. Jacobs' observation regarding cars parked in front of the building this evening, Mr. Reed noted that there is still a tenant in that area of the building and they are using the parking spaces. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in opposition and, there being none, he declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink moved approval of this special permit to Mr. Jack Hudson with the following conditions: (1) there will be no repair of wrecked automobiles; (2) overnight parking will be limited to the inside of the facility; and (3) Fire Department requirements are to be met before applying for a business license. Second by C. Cistulli and motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1976 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AND TO USE THIS BUILDING AS A RUMPUS ROOM, AT 1404 BALBOA AVENUE (APN (126-013-190), ZONED R-1, BY OLOF AND LYNNE FLODIN. Chm. Taylor determined that the applicants were in the audience, and asked Asst. C.P. Yost for review of this application. Mr. Yost reported that 1404 Balboa is a large lot - 140 ft. deep and 7,000 SF in area. At the back it abuts on a 10 ft. wide alley, and the R-3 apartment zone along E1 Camino Real. The Flodins presently have a three bedroom two bath house; they have two children, a boy and a girl, ages 11 and 9; Mr. Flodin's father, aged 70, is also staying with them. In order to obtain extra space for family activities, they have applied for a permit: to use an existing 200 SF accessory building as a hobby room. The Asst. C.P. advised this structure is technically illegal; it was constructed without a building permit at some point in the recent past; it has been well maintained since its construction. The Flodins wish to add a storeroom of 71 SF to the existing building, plus a 47 SF bathroom with shower, sink and toilet. Plans of these proposed changes have been submitted and distributed to Commission, together with photographs of the garden and a letter of explanation. Staff recommends the Commission review both the immediate and proposed use of this building by the Flodins, and also its future potential as a rental unit. Mr. Flodin told the Commission they do not have plans in the future for turning this accessory building into a rental unit; in fact, they are very happy with this R-1 neighborhood and do not foresee ever wishing to move. After his father moved in they merely ran a little short of room and need some extra area as a benefit to the whole family. Secy. Sine read into the record an August 2, 1976 letter from Joe and Gail Galligan which stated: "We reside next door to the Flodins on their south side and request you grant them the special permit. It will be a fine addition to their home and thus enhance the values of the entire neighborhood." Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments for or against and, receiving none, he declared the public hearing closed. Discussion between the applicant, Commission, City Attorney, and staff brought out the fact that approval might set a precedent which the Commission would have to live with through the years and which would become untenable; granting this permit would constitute condoning an illegal structure for which no building permit was issued. It was determined the present accessory building is quite a substantial room, but even with the proposed expansion, not all family members could use it at the same time. C..Sine advised he had visited the site with Mr. Flodin, that the electrical comes underground from the existing building, there is no plumbing or water at present, and it is not a badly constructed building. C. Mink suggested the applicant reconsider remodeling his house rather than adding to the accessory building; C. Sine also questioned Mr. Flodin in this regard. Commission consensus was that the proposed plan would invite a prospective buyer of this home to go into the rental business which would downgrade the R-1 neighborhood. It was noted that one of the obligations of the Commission is to be concerned with what might happen in the future. C. Sine moved to deny this special permit; and the motion died for want of a second. Commissioners discussed the option of bringing this accessory building up to code and granting the applicants a permit to use it as a rumpus room. C. Jacobs moved to approve the special permit to Mr. and Mrs. Flodin for use of the existing accessory building as a rumpus room, after it has been brought up to code. Second C. Kindig. C. Mink suggested adding to the motion, for clarity, "with improvements Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 9, 1976 to be limited to bringing it up to present code but without expansion of the building." C.A. Coleman advised Commission any properly constructed building may be used for storage and that there would be no limitation on storage by allowing it to be used as a rumpus room. Motion having been made and seconded, it was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONER: SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD Chm. Taylor advised the applicants their special permit would become effective one week from tomorrow if there is no appeal to City Council. 4. VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION WITH TWO BEDROOMS .AND BATH OVER AN EXISTING GARAGE WHICH IS LESS THAN 20' WIDE AT 2000 DEVEREUX DRIVE (APN 025- 212-280), ZONED R-1, BY EDWARD AND BERNADETTA DOWD (CONTINUED FROM JULY 12, 1976). Asst. C.P. Yost reviewed this application to add two bedrooms and one bath to a house with a garage of substandard width. He noted that the public hearing had been concluded July 12, 1976 and an amended plan which removed the new staircase from the garage interior was to be prepared by Mr. Dowd. The item had been continued to the meeting of August 9. The Asst. C.P. advised new plans have been received from Mr. Dowd which show that the proposed stairway has been moved. It no longer touches the garage at any point, but ascends from the new family room which presently is a bedroom. Also the second floor plan has been redesigned. In the opinion of Mr. Yost the.plans have been considerably improved; architecturally it is a far better layout and a much cleaner design which will qualify for a building permit if the variance were granted. There are no staff objections to the amended application. Mr. Dowd said they were much more satisfied with the plans themselves and thanked Commission for their suggestions in prior meetings. There was.little Commission discussion. C. Jacobs moved approval of this variance in accordance with the latest plans submitted dated August 5, 1976. Second C. Cistulli and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD 5A. VARIANCE FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE SPACE TO BE ADDED WITHIN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 320 BEACH ROAD (APN 026-332-090), ZONED M-1, BY TAIN . YUNE AND ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (ND -88P POSTED 7/30/76). C.P. Swan reviewed this application, first noting two letters in support of the application which were received August 9: (1) from George S. Kujiraoka, President, TPS Aviation, Inc., 381 Beach Road, and (2) from Fred Wurlitzer, M.D., another nearby property owner. He then distributed plans to the Commission and discussed the proposed alterations. Preliminary plans show 20'x97' or 1940 SF of office space with two stairways for access to storage rooms on the second floor. It was the C.P.'s belief the total addition of floor area would more likely be in the Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission. Minutes August 9, 1976 neighborhood of 3800 SF. Parking in that particular area is a problem. Essentially there are eight off-street parking spaces in the front of the building, to the east. There is a planted area along Beach Road and it would be preferable not to disturb that for parking Therefore, the applicant had suggested the alternative location of the driveway to the drive-in theater which is not in use during the day. He noted Anza is the owner of the drive-in theater which is leased to Syufy Enterprises; their lease runs until 1989. The 15 or 16 parking spaces proposed at the entrance to the theater are within less than a block of the location of this proposed import business. Mr. Swan stated this application is for a parking variance, and concluded his review. Mr. David Keyston of Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, co -applicant of this variance application, next addressed the Commission. He noted that this building was built at the time Burlingame had a parking ordinance covering bulk warehousing. That ordinance has since been repealed and the parking has been nonconforming since that time. The drive-in theater entrance area has been used by some of the other Beach Road establishments in present years. He stated the applicants would be happy to comply with whatever parking requirements the Commission would ask, and remarked about the difficulty of leasing or selling warehouse space without office space. It is an importing business, importing and redistributing merchandise. The second floor area with windows is designed as a showroom, not office space. Mr. Keyston also noted the presence in the audience this evening of Tain Yune and Dick Lavenstein, a nearby property owner. Commission discussion with the applicants determined: that in Mr. Keyston's opinion the 1900 SF on the second floor is storage space; they would be willing to stripe more parking spaces if required by Commission and expected to add one more parking space on the premises, bringing it from 8 to 9 spaces; it is strictly a warehouse use, and strictly wholesale; the showroom will be used for out -of -the -city customers; the products imported and distributed are horticultural accessories; there would be approximately three truck pickups per day by a truck company such as PIE, and only four employees; two or three times a month sales are made to local people who come in with their own trucks. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments for or against; there being none, he declared the public hearing closed and asked for any further Commission questions. C. A. Coleman requested recording of a document which would alleviate his concern about some future lessee of the drive-in property wondering about the stripes, a document stating this owner has the right to park in the drive-in entrance. Mr. Keyston was agreeable to this suggestion, adding he would record only the number of parking spaces required by Commission for this application. Any further modifications would require another application. C. Kindig moved approval of this variance from -parking requirements for office space to be added within existing industrial building at 320 Beach Road (per modifications as submitted in the drawings dated July 29, 1976), with the understanding that the additional parking needed would be on the drive-in theater property and that a document would be recorded indicating same. Second C. Cistulli and approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 9, 1976 Chm. Taylor declared a recess at 9:05 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M. STUDY ITEMS 5B. FENCE EXCEPTION TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 10' HIGH FENCE BETWEEN HOUSE AND GARAGE, 13 HUMBOLDT ROAD (APN 029-305-250), ZONED R-1, BY CARL CARING. C.P. Swan commented on this item which had come to his attention Friday, August 6. On Friday he had not seen the screen or fence, or decided regarding proper handling. He had advised the applicant a minor permit might be acted upon at the August 9 meeting, but did not tell him there was a $15.00 fee for a fence exception. This item is concerned with a privacy screen on top of a fence. August 5 letter from the Chief Building Inspector to Mr. Carl Carino noted the fence had been constructed without the required building permit, it is in violation of the local fence ordinance, and also in violation of the local zoning ordinance which states that four feet clearance must separate an accessory building from any other building. Chm Taylor, with Commission consensus, set this item for hearing August 23, and requested the required notices be sent to adjacent -property owners. It was also requested by Commission that staff ask a member of the City's public safety agencies to inspect the site. 6. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: PENINSULA AVENUE REZONING STUDY C.P. Swan introduced this item. He noted on July 19 the City Council considered an appeal by Mr. Peratis for reclassification of the vacant lot at the corner of Peninsula Avenue and Dwight Road from R-1 to C-3. Council sustained Commission denial and directed a study be made by the Commission to determine whether or not rezoning is desirable for the lots fronting on Peninsula Avenue for the area between Dwight and Humboldt Roads, (which would include only 25 lots). Staff had collected information covering physical relationships, assessed valuation, land use and a new traffic count on Peninsula Avenue. By considering these facts at this study meeting and subsequently taking some action on August 23, the Commission would fulfill the Council directive to report back within a 40 day period. Asst. Planner Yost presented the preliminary report, Rezoning of 25 R-1 Lots on Peninsula Avenue, with exhibits covering the following: a physical description of the proposed study area (noting the difference in zoning across the street in the City of San Mateo); lot area, setbacks and accessory building(s) information for each lot; graphic showing lots which are less than 5,000 SF in area; assessed values of property listed with owners' names and designating absentee owners; graphic indicating "Best" properties; owner/renter occupied housing within the five block area; graphic indicating single family/multi-family housing units; a population profile based on 1970 census data; and a listing of property owners' responses to a rezoning questionnaire mailed out by staff. He told Commission if rezoning is favorably considered the P.C. would have to decide which type of rezoning would be best from a number of options. It was suggested that the Commission could direct the Chm. to send a written report to Council. Another option would be to initiate reclassification and direct staff to prepare an EIR. Considerable Commission discussion followed. C. Jacobs questioned surveying only the 25 property owners since rezoning would affect many other people in the general area. C. Kindig felt using the 25 property owners for this, preliminary report was a good idea, but agreed that in any rezoning the area impacted would be much wider. C. Cistulli wanted a report from staff covering costs for water and sewage and felt this was needed before Commission could make any recommendation to Council. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1976 C. E. Kirkup noted the water system will have to be improved, and the Department has already embarked on a five year program for the entire City. The sewer system is adequate now, but will have'to have some work done in the downstream. Storm drainage is adequate and would remain adequate. He mentioned that traffic on Peninsula Avenue would undoubtedly.get heavier with future development of the Anza properties and tne.new golf course which might have more impact than the 25 lot rezoning study; consideration of the entire general area, however, would of course have a greater impact. C. Mink wished to consider a General Plan study rather than a rezoning study. C. Sine agreed and commented that he had recommended to the Traffic Department that it consider widening the street by .10 feet. The Commission referenced lot sizes and inferred that for proper development there should be some consolidation and that the study should perhaps include Lots 12 and 18 of all the subject blocks. It was generally agreed the Commission has seriously considered and determined not to set this item for public hearing, but instead will submit a report to City Council at a later date for.their subsequent action.., Commission report essentially will be a progress statement. The P.C. will formulate a response two weeks from tonight, but a response without public hearing. Chm. Taylor affirmed the matter will be on the agenda for the 23rd of August. 7. VARIANCE TO PERMIT A HOUSE ADDITION THAT WOULD HAVE A 2' SIDEYARD AT 822 CROSSWAY ROAD (APN 029-021-280), ZONED R-1, BY JOSEPH AND HELENA VELLA. Asst. C.P. Yost reviewed this application for Commission. 822 Crossway Road is a large lot: 187' deep, 9500 SF in area. The present house sits at the front of the lot and has a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room and three bedrooms with two baths. On the second floor there is a playroom and storeroom. The house originally had only two bedrooms and one bath, but in 1968 a building permit was issued for a 468 SF addition. This present application is to allow a further extension of the house. The reason for the variance is that Mr. Vella proposes the new addition be extended to within 2' of the side property line. The required code sideyard is 5'. Mr. Vella has been advised by staff that both the Fire Department and Planning Department will recommend against the granting of this variance; however, the application is complete and could be set for hearing. During Commission discussion Mrs. Vella was asked if they had considered alternatives. Revised plans were suggested. She thought they could be presented and asked the Commission to schedule the variance for hearing August 23. Chm. Taylor so advised. (This item will be continued, as an August 10, 1976 letter from Mrs. Vella has been received requesting their application for variance be taken off the agenda to allow more time to come up with alternative plans.) 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING GARAGE AS A RUMPUS ROOM AT 1520 VANCOUVER AVENUE (APN 026-034-180), ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM J. KIRCHEN. Asst. C.P. Yost told Commission that within the last two months the two car garage at 1520 Vancouver had been remodeled. It had been fully paneled, carpeted and rewired; sliding glass doors had been cut into the side wall, and the car door no longer can be opened. This was brought to the attention of the Building Department by a neighbor and the Chief Building Inspector confirms no permit was issued for this work. The present application is to permit this room to be used as a rumpus room, with the family's 18 year old boy sleeping in a built-in bunk in one corner Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 9, 1976 No plumbing or cooking facilities have been installed. There is no covered parking on site since the conversion of the garage to a rumpus room. Mr. Yost advised the application is technically complete, and could be set for public hearing. During Commission discussion of this application Mr. Kirchen did make a commitment to obtain a building permit for a carport before the August: 23 hearing. Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing at that time. 9. RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE LOT FROM R-1 TO R-3, BEING A PORTION OF 1500 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 028-291-010), BY SOL AND HOPE GITTLESOHN. This request for reclassification of one lot from R-1 to R-3 was presented by C.P. Swan. Sol and Hope Gittlesohn advised their house at 1500 Howard Avenue is located partly on each of their two lots. Draft Negative Declaration, ND -89P, described the project. Mr. Swan read his reasons for a conclusion that no environmental impact report is required: "Environmental Impact Report EIR-32P for the reclassifi- cation of the lot and 9 other lots from R-1 to R-3 was approved by P.C. Res. No. 2-75 and later modified and certified by the City Council April 21, 1975. Reclassification of this lot was recommended by P.C. Res. No. 3-75 adopted March 10, 1975. The resulting R-3 parcel would be 12,560 SF in area. The urban corner lot could be improved with an 8 to 10 unit apartment building fronting on Howard with a 20 foot side setback from E1 Camino. Such an improvement would have little or no adverse impact but measurable benefits to the City of Burlingame." C. Kindig recommended that a parcel map be prepared to combine the two lots into one parcel. It was decided to hold up scheduling a hearing on the application for reclassification until a tentative parcel map was received for concurrent review and action. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO DEALER'S USE OF EXISTING GARAGE IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1100 CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-233-100), BY RECTOR CADILLAC (APPLICANT) AND DONALD TATEOSIAN (PROPERTY OWNER). C.P. Swan explained this special permit to remodel an existing building at the corner of Carolan Avenue and Cadillac Way. Rector Cadillac needed more space for new car preparation. Extension of the C-2 use to this building in an M-1 District deserved the benefit of a special permit. Proposed plans were reviewed and the application was scheduled for hearing August 23. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE AT '1241 WHITETHORN WAY (APN 026-131-020), ZONED M-1, BY NICHOLAS CRISAFI (BUYER) WITH INDUSTRIAL REALTY COMPANY (SELLER). C.P. Swan indicated the proposed use is a retail service that will bring customers to this M-1 District for storage of personal and business goods. The preliminary plan submitted by Mr. Crisafi indicated aisles within the existing building. The arrangement of storage cubicles has not yet been determined but cars could enter to just inside the door. Seven parking spaces would be provided in front of the building on Whitethorn Way. Mr. Crisafi confirmed that the building is located on two different parcels. He advised that he intended to purchase both of these parcels, upgrade the buildings and improve Whitethorn Way. Commission requested a tentative parcel map for consideration along with the special permit. Mr. Crisafi thought this could be prepared by Bill Wright, his land surveyor, in time for the August 23 meeting. Both matters were scheduled for that time. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes, CITY PLANNER REPORT Page 9 August 9, 1976 C.P. Swan reported on the problem of approving bedroom additions to houses in Ray Park because double garages are nonconforming. He said that garages were built too narrow to obtain FHA approval. Commission was firm in following code require- ments to solicit a variance when the garage has less than a 20 ft. wide clear interior space. An option discussed was amendment of the existing regulations. This matter will be reconsidered at the September 13 study meeting. The City Planner distributed for information a tentative draft of proposed formula for parking contribution by new projects within the existing Parking District, and commented briefly on the status of possible capital improvements in Burlingame. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary