Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.09.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, September 24, 1984 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Schwalm (excused) Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the September 11, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. PARKING VARIANCE TO REMODEL A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16 CHANNING ROAD, BY ROY AND BONNIE CASSTEVENS CP Monroe reviewed this request to remodel an existing nonconforming area now used for storage, but originally intended for parking, as additional living space. Reference staff report, 9/24/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/29/84; plans date stamped August 29, 1984; applicants' letter received August 29, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (9/5/84), Chief Building Inspector (9/17/84), City Engineer (9/12/84); copy of Sanborn Map for the immediate area; Appraisal Report, Assessor's Office, San Mateo County; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed September 14, 1984; plans by Peninsula Drafting Service date stamped September 21, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicants' letter, Planning staff comment. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened Commission does not requirements of the achieved. Roy built in 1931 property; the occurred and n lined and is a floor seems an the public hearing and advised the applicants that have the authority to grant relief from the building code, a 7'-6" ceiling height must be Casstevens, applicant, discussed this home which was and had one owner only until the time they purchased the home sits high on a concrete block, no, flooding has o water has flooded the garage; garage! area is concrete finished room; cost of removing/replacing the concrete unreasonable requirement; the present, layout of this multilevel home creates some problems, the remodeling would allow much closer supervision of their young children. Mr. Casstevens presented Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1984 photographs of the utility room area and a petition in support signed by 17 neighbors. CE discussed building code requirements for membrane waterproofing under the concrete slab floor of habitable rooms. Applicant felt this would result in a step between the garage and remodeled room which would be a safety hazard. Harvey Triplett, 17 Channing Road spoke in favor; applicant has been a good neighbor, this remodeling would not be a blight on the neighborhood, would not like to see the applicants move if their request is denied. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the alternative of adding on to the breakfast room; applicant advised this had been considered but rejected as it would take away landscaping recently put in, would close off one part of the yard and would be more expensive. Further Commission comment: even if the variance were denied, is there room to make a garage out of that area; in view of the building codes that must be met, suggest deny without prejudice so applicant can come back with another plan, the only solution seems to be to build in the backyard; have no objection to the parking variance as long as the applicant is aware of the building code requirements, the parking situation will be the same as it has been for many years. C. Giomi found the discontinued use of required parking has been a long standing situation, that this proposal will upgrade the living area, that there are exceptional circumstances in the footprint of the house, that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, that .it will not be detrimental to other property owners and will not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city, R-1 zoning will remain R-1. C. Giomi moved for approval of the parking variance with the two conditions recommended in the staff report. Second C. Taylor. Comment on the motion: think there are other options„ the area itself was originally a garage and there is space in the rear yard to add a family room; find this basically a modest remodeling, will not change the use, will not change the footprint; feel we are giving the garage to the house officially if we approve this variance, there are alternatives to this proposal. Motion was defeated on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Jacobs and Leahy dissenting, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BATHROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2112 HALE DRIVE, BY CONSTANTINE AND VICTORIA STRASH CP Monroe reviewed this request for a 59 SF bathroom addition. Reference staff report, 9/24/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/9/84; plans date stamped August 9 and September 11, 1984; applicants' letters (August 9 and September 15, 1984); staff review: City Engineer (8/27/84), Fire Marshal (8/15/84), Chief Building Inspector (8/11/84); study meeting minutes, September 11, 1984; Towber Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 24, 1984 letter, September 12, 1984; plan date stamped September 17, 1984; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed September 14, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letters, Planning staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff comment: possibility of adding another bathroom in the house; this might be more expensive. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicants were present. Mr. Strash discussed his proposal: professional help was engaged several years ago, it was determined adding a bathroom in the house was not feasible, house is only 1300 SF and to go into the second floor would be too expensive; proposed addition would be in the middle of the property, would not affect the neighbors, would be near sewer line; reasons for the request are: to have a second bathroom, to add storage room and to have outside space for gardening; would be beside the garage, not in the garage, would have gutter so water would run into the patio and it would be well below the 500 SF allowed for accessory structures under the code. Applicants advised three neighbors had expressed no objection to the proposal. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: proposed addition includes a toilet and wash basin, no shower; seems a reasonable proposal for gardening activities; rear fence height is 61; concern about the size of the addition, almost twice the size of a full bath, and possible conversion in future; CE advised the fixtures are placed in the exterior wall which would lessen the likelihood of converting the garage to a living unit; this is not a request for a second bath, applicant is asking for gardening area and half bath. C. Taylor moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of August 31, 1984 be met; (2) that the garage area with addition never be converted to a full bath or a dwelling unit; and (3) that the bathroom addition be built according to plans submitted and date stamped August 9, 1984 and September 11, 1984. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE SIGNAGE AT 1352 BROADWAY THAN IS PERMITTED BY THE SIGN CODE, BY JACKSON WONG FOR PHILIP CHEUNG CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a total of 88 SF of signage and seven signs on the primary frontage of Foto Foto, Inc. Reference staff report, 9/24/84; Sign Permit Application filed 8/16/84; Sign Exception Application filed 8/7/84 with attachment; :sign drawing; staff listing of existing, approved and existing, not approved signage at 1352 Broadway; staff review: Fire Marshal (8/20/84), City Engineer (8/20/84), Chief Building Inspector (8/31/84); photograph of existing signage, 8/16/84; aerial photograph; study meeting minutes, 9/11/84; Notice of Hearing mailed September 14, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's reasons for the request, Planning staff comment, study meeting question. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1984 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Jackson Wong, representing the applicant, advised that the activities of this business at the present time were 45 minute photo finishing and video tape rentals, there is no snack bar; the drawing of the signs presented with the application is not.drawn to scale; referring to the photograph of signage attached to the staff report, the sign "Thursday is discount day" has been removed; businesses throughout the area are not totally dependent on the neighborhoods to survive, some flexibility in window signage is necessary to advertise in a meaningful way; present window signs which exceed the permitted amount are temporary signs, video tape rentals at 99� would not be feasible for long if the applicant wished to stay in business; applicant would be willing to accept any conditions of Commission or alter signage to make it acceptable to the city. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: it appears applicant wishes to change the text of the signs in a period of time or at will, staff would need to know the size and location of each sign specifically; with reference to the applicant's letter, he appears to be asking that Commission establish two sign codes, one for older businesses and one for newer, the sign exception to apply to new business; there are many businesses in compliance with the sign code, a maximum of 50 SF and three signs on the primary frontage; cannot find special circumstances which apply to this business such as size or shape of the lot, surrounding land use, height of the building. Mr. Wong stated the applicant is requesting a sign exception for flexible window signage so that the message could be changed from time to time. Commission asked if the applicant had considered a changeable readerboard within allowable square footage. C. Taylor moved that this sign exception be rejected. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:43 P.M.; reconvene 8:57 P.M. 4. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND -363P FOR R GARDENS PROJECT AT 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Reference staff report, 9/24/84 and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND -363P posted September 18, 1984. CP discussed environmental review; Commission's action this evening should be to determine if the mitigated negative declaration discloses all the potential environmental effects of this project on this site; if found complete it should be recommended to Council for action prior to final action on the project. Staff found two environmental impacts: traffic/ parking and noise. Studies have been made by a traffic engineer and an acoustical engineer; the traffic report was reviewed by the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. Following considerable discussion Commission consensus was that the studies were not complete and additional information was needed. Concerns were expressed about crowd control, use of off-duty police officers, parking availability, pedestrian noise impacts and land uses in the parking impacted area. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1984 C. Taylor moved that the mitigated negative declaration, ND -363P, be recommended to the City Council for review when the following additional information and mitigations identified by this information have been prepared: noise impact in the area, at all hours, of pedestrians walking to and from their cars; noise impact of pedestrians queuing at the site; review of numbers and availability of off-duty police officers required to handle crowd control and traffic control; a broader study of parking availability, include Friday evening within the same time frames as the Wednesday and Saturday studies and include a study at midnight; identify existing land uses in the impact area. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Staff will forward to City Council when the studies are complete. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. USE DETERMINATION - R GARDENS PROJECT - 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE 6. PARKING VARIANCE - R GARDENS PROJECT - 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Requests: clarify number and location of parking spaces the applicant actually controls, do they have a lease on any of CalTrain's lots; will there be patrons attending the daytime taping sessions; will there be a full liquor license; will transmission from this site affect television reception in the area; when CalTrain acquires the railroad station will parking in their lot be affected; would like realistic figure of number of employees, including ticket taking, food and beverage service, security; how will truck deliveries be made; clarify the concept of membership; applicant should investigate the possibility of leasing the SP/CalTrain lot, would it be available for theater patrons in the evenings; if the 12 parking spaces now leased by the gas station are returned to theater use, where will the gas station park cars; correct page 10 of the project report to clarify that the city does not support the project but is requiring certain items for processing the application; need letter from the applicant in justification of the parking variance as required by code. Commission requested that all property owners in the parking impact area be noticed on this project. The use determination and parking variance will be set for public hearing at a future date. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Request: history of signage permit on this site. Item set for hearing October 9, 1984. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its September 17, 1984 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:18 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi, Secretary