Loading...
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