HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.07.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 28, 1986
'CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Vice Chairman Schwalm on Monday, July 28, 1986 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm
Absent: Commissioner Giomi
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the July 14, 1986 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. TWO VARIANCES TO ADD A BEDROOM AND BATH OVER THE EXISTING
GARAGE AT 707 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/28/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letter. Four letters in opposition were noted from the
following: Frances Guynes, 754 Walnut Avenue; Ramona Martinez, 709
Walnut Avenue; Cecil Oakes, 713 Walnut Avenue; Beatrice Marino, 750
Walnut Avenue. Petition in opposition signed by 18 area residents was
also received. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
It was noted 705 and 709 Walnut had been reversed on the aerial photo.
Fred Sanderson, San Mateo was present representing the applicant, Tony
Garisto. He advised two people live in this home. He distributed
photos to indicate original property line and repaired fence which was
set inside this line and contended the actual front setback
encroachment would be less, thus if the addition were not cantilevered
it would meet the 15' front setback requirement; Commission commented
on the need for a lot survey to verify property line.
Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. There were no audience
comments in favor. Speaking in opposition: Ramona Martinez, 709 Walnut
Avenue and Beatrice Marino, 750 Walnut Avenue. Their concerns: impact
on privacy; addition will look into neighbors' backyards; development
of this large parcel with two homes was acceptable, when rear portion
was developed fences were constructed, survey should be made to
determine property line. Janice Lemson, resident of 707 Walnut,
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1986
commented that big trees screen 709 Walnut, from second story applicant
would not be able to see into the neighbors' backyards, there would be
more privacy than they have now. Applicant's representative noted the
staff report states existing garage is 14'-2" from front property line,
the house sits back 25' from 709 Walnut, he did not think another 10"
would make that much difference. There were no further audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: made a site inspection and can
understand neighbors' concerns, this lot is not good planning; with
only two in the family believe one of the existing bedrooms would
accommodate the applicant's need for an 11' traction rack; unable to
make findings to support the variance request. Responding to
Commissioner question, applicant's representative stated it was felt a
cantilevered addition would look better and add to property value.
C. Leahy noted the variance procedure is a safety valve for properties
which might suffer a hardship with existing codes; excluding the long
driveway, this is a large lot and it does not need a safety valve,
there is room to expand in two directions without requiring a variance.
C. Leahy moved to deny the variance request, seconded by C. Graham.
Comment on the motion: there are other alternatives, could expand the
house at grade or remove a wall between bedrooms; with three existing
bedrooms think this additional request is excessive. Motion approved
on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
2. FIVE VARIANCES TO ALLOW A TWO STORY GARAGE/BEDROOM ADDITION
AT 2117 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/28/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, architect's
letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Discussion: stairs located inside the enclosed hallway between the
existing house and garage addition; city code requirements for curb
cuts.
The applicants, Nancy Brock and Donna Wright, were present. Gary
Larsen, architect, presented a model of the project and addressed
Commission: this is an undersized lot with a difficult trapezoidal
shape; the bay window will only project 6", it will add interest to the
structure and character to the neighborhood; the addition within 3'-6"
of the side lot line will extend only to the point where the existing
garage is now; regarding the variance to build within 2'-9" of the rear
lot line, this will be only at one point since property line goes back
at an angle; lot coverage is exceeded because of the undersized lot.
He added they would be happy to make the inside dimensions of the
garage 20' wide rather than 19'-3" but this would increase either front
or rear setback encroachment. Architect presented a letter in support
signed by four adjacent neighbors.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
July 28, 1986
Commission comment: this looks more like an R-2 (duplex) house,
particularly with the extra door on the front, could door going into
the center area be replaced with a window, concern about conversion of
the addition to R-2 use sometime in the future.
C. Schwalm opened the public hearing. Donna Wright, applicant,
discussed the issue of the door, they now have a fence and gate which
goes out directly to the parking area; with this proposal they will
have an exit from the enclosed patio'area out to the garage similar to
the existing gate. There were no other audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: most of the variances are necessary because of
the original placement of the house on the lot; would like any approval
to be acted on by resolution to ensure that the area over the garage
does not develop into a second unit; would recommend Commission require
a garage to code with 20' inside dimensions; if this were required a
further encroachment would restrict use of the back area, would prefer
the five smaller variances.
C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in this small
irregular shaped lot, that the variances were necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owners, a two car
garage meeting city code requirements will be gained, with control of
the windows it would not be detrimental to other property owners and
since it will not be used as a second unit it would not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Graham moved for
approval of the variance application and for adoption of Commission
Resolution Approving Variances with the following conditions: (1) that
the curb cut for the driveway shall be reduced to 201; (2) that the
construction shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped July 11, 1986 and all construction
and remodeling shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform
Fire Code; (3) that the area over the garage shall never be used as a
second living unit; (4) that interior dimensions of the finished garage
shall be 20' front to back and the rear setback shall be 21; and (5)
that there shall be no windows on the rear wall of the garage addition.
Second C. Garcia.
Comment on the motion: this is an unusual trapezoidal lot, will
eliminate some on -street parking, it has almost the same structural
footprint as the existing footprint. Motion approved on a 4-1 roll
call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures
were advised.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN A PORTION OF THE
ROOSEVELT SCHOOL FACILITIES AT 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/28/86, with attachments. Planner Williams
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions, available on -street parking. Four conditions
were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: loading zones at the school, their present condition and
maintenance; one tenant has vacated some rooms previously used but is
still on the property.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1986
Larry Krusemark, applicant, was present. He advised two of his staff
members would drive, the other would be dropped off. If his staff
increases to eight (five teachers and three assistants), six would
drive to work.
Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. Katherine Peto, 1160 Vancouver
Avenue, directly across the street from the school, discussed the
on -street parking congestion in the area and requested any night
meetings be limited. It was determiAed this use would be on site only
three nights a year. Commission suggested applicant coordinate with
other tenants when night functions are held. Mr. Krusemark had no
objection to limiting night events to three nights a year. There were
no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
During discussion it was determined the CE would investigate the three
loading zones at the school and arrange for their repainting and
maintenance.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of
Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1)
that access to handicap bathrooms be provided to all tenants; (2) that
this operation comply with all Fire and Building Code requirements; (3)
that this leased area will be used as a school as described in the June
18, 1986 letter from Larry Krusemark including a maximum enrollment of
90 students grades K-8, from 9:15 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Monday through
Thursday, with five teachers and three assistants; (4) that True
Learning Center be limited to three evening functions at the school per
year, and that these be coordinated with other tenants; and (5) that
this use be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of the use
permit in May, 1987. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-0 roll
call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 11 ONE BEDROOM UNITS AT
1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3
5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Reference staff report, 7/28/86, with attachments. PLR Williams
reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions.
Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commissioner comment: front setback landscaping is 2% short of the 60%
required by the condominium guidelines; developer added area under
stair so that front landscaping met code standard.
Applicant was present. Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. There
were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Roy
Keiser, 721 Neuchatel Avenue: he was not opposed to the project but was
concerned about on -street parking congestion in the area and felt two
parking stalls should be provided on site for each unit. Staff
commented the current parking code requires 1-1/2 spaces for a one
bedroom unit, traffic congestion in the neighborhood could be a result
of apartments which were constructed under the previous parking
standard. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1986
It was noted this project has been designed to meet all code
requirements, and to the maximum allowed.
C. Garcia moved for approval of the condominium permit and for adoption
of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with the
following conditions: (1) that the requirements of the City Engineer
(July 7, 1986 memo) and the Director of Parks (June 23, 1986 memo)
shall be met; and (2) that the final'drawings and construction be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped June 18, 1986 and June 26, 1986 and meet all Fire and Building
Code requirements. Second C. Graham.
Comment on the motion: agree it might help traffic congestion if the
code required two parking spaces for each unit, but code requirement
has been increased from one to one and one-half for a studio or one
bedroom unit; there are two parking spaces designated for guests which
will take some parking off the street. Motion approved on a 5-0 roll
call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Garcia then moved to recommend the tentative condominium map to City
Council for approval. Second C. Graham; motion approved 5-0 on roll
call vote, C. Giomi absent.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PENTHOUSE EXTENSION AT 10 GUITTARD ROAD,
ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 7/28/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letter, study meeting questions. One condition was
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Applicant was present. Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. There
were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement this property is in the M-1 district, the penthouse
extension is minor, it is not visible from the street and will not be a
problem to adjacent property owners, C. Jacobs moved for approval of
the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving
Special Permits with the following condition: (1) that the addition to
the existing equipment penthouse as built shall be consistent with the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 18,
1986. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C.
Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT SECOND FLOOR STORAGE AREA TO
MANUFACTURING AREA AT 1170 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1
Reference staff report, 7/28/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter in
justification of the variance request, study meeting questions. Four
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1986
Comments: does applicant have property owner's consent; is he allowed
to sell wholesale from that site (staff stated wholesale only as
incidental to the primary retail business on the site). Code
requirements for intensification of use on Broadway were discussed.
This application came before the Commission as a code enforcement
item.
Stephen Kircher, applicant, addressed Commission: expansion of the
manufacturing area is not to increase number of employees but to help
current employees become more productive, in the past have had to move
equipment around, now have added new machines which are located
upstairs. He had 15 employees this year compared with 19 last year,
primarily because of the new wrapping machine. Second floor area was
previously a storage area (box storage); all paper products are now
being stored in rented space on Guittard Road. Responding to
Commission question, Mr. Kircher advised he can comply with the
Fire and Building Code requirements, two exits will be provided from
the second floor.
Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: intent of the code regulations for
intensification of use; believe some flexibility should be allowed
store owners; if this same space were added on the back of the lot it
would be considered an expansion of manufacturing and an
intensification of use.
With the statement this application has been noticed to adjacent
property owners, none have objected, the square footage of the
business is small, adding two machines will make it more efficient and
two additional employees will not impact the area, C. Jacobs moved for
approval of the parking variance with the following conditions: (1)
that the conditions of the Fire Prevention Officer's June 27, 1986 memo
and the Chief Building Inspector's July 1, 1986 memo shall be met; (2)
that all the requirements of the County Health Department regarding the
manufacturing and sale of food from this site shall be met; (3) that
the manufacturing/candy production use on the second floor shall be
limited to an area of 1,820 SF and the entire second floor area shall
be used as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped June 20, 1986 as further dimensioned in the Planner's memo
dated July 18, 1986; (4) that there shall be no more than two
additional employees; and (5) that the building permit will be picked
up within 15 days of approval of the variance and improvements
completed within 90 days. Second C. Graham.
Discussion on the motion: applicant advised he did not intend to become
a large wholesaler, his business is not cost efficient enough to be
competitive; there is a paved driveway and loading door in the back; he
would prefer some flexibility in number of employees because of the
seasonal nature of his business. Commission comment: provision in the
code to review intensification of a business is a good one, allows
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1986
control of expansion and more intensive use of land; in this case he is
using space which is already there; other merchants have not objected;
believe there has been adequate justification for a finding of
hardship. Motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ART STUDIO AND SCHOOL AT
1530 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 7/28/86, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letter, property owner's letter, study meeting questions.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Discussion: this use would more properly belong in the C-2 district;
the zoning code requires a use permit for classes in any district; area
proposed for this use would require one parking space for warehouse
use, four parking spaces for office use.
Geri Kelly, applicant, was present. She expressed some concern about
the CE's requirement that no classes by held between 4:00 and 6:00
P.M.; this condition could be modified to read "no classes shall begin
or end between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M." All classes will be taught by the
applicant herself, not 12 hours a day every day, schedule presented is
an overall schedule.
Chm. Schwalm opened the public hearing. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement this use would have less impact than an office use
and that there are racquetball clubs in the M-1 district already, C.
Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of
Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following
conditions: (1) that the art studio/class use be limited to the hours
of 9:30 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. to 2:30 P.M., Monday through
Saturday, except that no classes shall begin or end between the hours
of 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. daily. Classes shall be limited to a
maximum of eight students and one instructor and have a maximum
duration of three hours; (2) that this use shall be operated in
conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and
Uniform Fire Code; and (3) that this use permit shall be reviewed in
one year's time (July, 1987). Second C. Graham; motion approved on a
5-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 AND 3,
BLOCK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PARK NO. 6 AND A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL,
150 ANZA BOULEVARD
Reference agenda memo from the DPW, July 22, 1986. CE Erbacher
reviewed the item; this map is one of the conditions of approval for
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1986
the Embassy Suites Hotel, it will combine several parcels of land,
subdivided lands and State lands; it indicates some easements which
will be abandoned, public access easements and utility easements to be
accepted and other easements as needed. The map is ready for City
Council approval. CP noted for the record this map will not become
final and effective until it is signed by the State of California.
Howard Hickey, civil engineer, was present. Chm. Schwalm opened the
public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to
City Council for approval, all parties including the State of
California are required to sign the map. Second C. Graham; motion
approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Staff will forward
to Council.
Recess 9:32 P.M.; reconvene 9:40 P.M.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
10. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING HOME TO BE REMODELED TO FOUR
APARTMENTS - 315 EL CAMINO REAL
Requests: length of the substandard driveway; include correspondence
with adjacent property owner in action packet. Item set for hearing
August 11, 1986.
11. VARIANCE TO CREATE A SEPARATE PARCEL FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE
BUILDING AT 1011 CADILLAC WAY
Requests: clarify length of lease for the 10 parking spaces; are there
other parking alternatives. Item set for hearing August 11, 1986.
12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1011 CADILLAC WAY
Item set for hearing August 11, 1986.
13. SIGN EXCEPTIONS - 101 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
Requests: does this site have a master sign permit; was Sign C
previously approved or is it a new sign. Item set for hearing August
11, 1986.
14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXTEND OPERATING HOURS - WALGREEN DRUG -
1420 HOWARD AVENUE
Requests: will liquor department also be open for the hours requested;
how were original hours established. Item set for hearing August 11,
1986.
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1986
15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE THE SAFEWAY STORE AT 1450 HOWARD
AVENUE 24 HOURS A DAY
Request: when were original hours established. Item set for hearing
August 11, 1986.
16. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1710 GILBRETH ROAD
Requests: how will opening and closing of the gates be controlled; will
they be open in the daytime. Item set for hearing August 11, 1986.
17. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1608 GILBRETH ROAD
Set for hearing August 11, 1986.
18. SIGN EXCEPTION - 150 ANZA BOULEVARD
Set for hearing August 11, 1986.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its July 21, 1986 regular meeting
and July 23, 1986 study meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy
Secretary