HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.10.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING OOWISSION
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Cannission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Giami on Monday, October 26, 1987, at 7:31
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giani, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City .Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer;
Ken Musso, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 13, 1987 meeting were
unanimously approved with the following corrections:
Meeting called to order at 7:31 p.m.; item 1, Page 1,
second paragraph "president" should be replaced with
"precedent", and in third paragraph "receive only" should
be in quotes; item 6, page 4, second paragraph, "Singage"
should be "Signage".
AGENDA - Item #5 dropped. Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. TWO VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Reference staff report, 10/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, history, staff review, applicant's
letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. CP Monroe verified that a gate in the fence, is now located
in front of the garage.
Chm. Gicmi opened the public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Brosnan,
applicants, were present. They commented that they are willing to
comply with all city requirements. Mrs. Brosnan stated garage is
currently being used for storage because of the small size of the
house, but items will be moved when second story addition is
Burlingame Planning Cammission Minutes Page 2
October 26, 1987
constructed; currently have no place to put belongings. Some
discussion ensued regarding the need for an obstruction in the narrow
1.5' area between the garage arra spa, to prevent someone from falling
in the spa. The removal of the gate at the front of the garage to
ensure use of garage arra the realignment of the fence were also
discussed. Mrs. Brosnan commented there would be no problem leaving
the driveway open with no gate, or in placing a permanent obstruction
in the narrow area between the spa and garage. Would like to maintain
existing setback of 3' on second floor to create symmetrical look on
the addition.
Speaking in favor of the application, Richard Hoskinson, 1915 Broadway
Avenue: he stated applicants are good neighbors, trying to provide a
pleasant place for their children to live, believe project should be
approved. There were no further audience comments, and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission comment: Nn agreeable to approval of this project since it
was previously denied without prejudice, and applicants are trying to
comply with direction given by Commission, however, need the gate
isque resolved. Some discussion followed regarding the removal of
the existing gate in front of the garage and the addition of a fence
perpendicular to the side property line, along the driveway edge
closest to the house.
C. S.. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the
placement of the pool/spa which have caused problems in the expansion
of the garage; applicants are trying to build a code standard garage;
The new garage is making a bad situation better; They need additional
space in their house. C. S. Graham moved for approval of the two
variances with the following conditions: 1) that the conditions of
the Chief Building Inspector's Oct. 9, 1987 memo shall be net; and
2) that the second story addition and garage replacement shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped October 1, 1987, with the added condition that a fence be
placed perpendicular to the property line on the side of the driveway
closest to the house, with a push gate placed so as to avoid the pool
and spa area, the gate to be no closer to property line than 21, with
the existing gate across the driveway to be removed; and that a
planter or some other fixed obstacle shall be placed in the 1.5' area
between the garage wall and the spa.
Second C. Harrison; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call, C. Jacobs
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Comnission Minutes Page 3
October 26, 1987
2. VARIANCE FOR SIDE SETBACK FOR A BREEZEWU AT 5 LAS PIEDRAS COURT,
7.rNM R-1 _
Reference staff report, 10/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, history of property, staff review,
applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Chu. Giami opened the public hearing. Dino Sideris, applicant, and
his wife were present. They commented that they agreed with staff
review of the project; contractor built wet bar in area where door to
breezeway was to be; this happened before applicants bought the
property; only available door to connect to breezeway was in the
breakfast roan. An addition to the garage had been proposed because
the garage is at a 90 degree angle to the driveway, with a very narrow
access, and is difficult to park in. Proposal was to use existing
garage for storage and build an extension to the garage in front of
the existing structure, with the door directly facing the driveway in
order to make it more accessible to parking. Storage area is needed,
roof of garage had to be lowered to meet height limitation, therefore,
lost potential loft storage area. There being no further audience
canments, the public hearing was closed.
Camâ–ºission/Staff discussion: City approved construction of a
breezeway, but not this breezeway. If breezeway put where allowed,
would be permitted to enlarge garage. C. E. Erbacher verified that
problem with existing garage is that a tight turn is required to get
in. Commission comment: have no problem with breezeway except that
it allows applicants to construct a garage greater than 500 sq. ft.
C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances in that removal
of the breezeway from its present location would place it in the
applicant's family room; door was misplaced, to relocate it back now
would create hardship; the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of the property rights of the owners; it will not be
detrimental to other property owners in the area and will not
adversely affect the zoning plan of the City; the zoning will not
change. C. Harrison moved for approval of this variance application
and adoption of Camnission Resolution Approving Variance with the
following conditions: 1) that the breezeway built 31into the 5'
required side yard shall never be enclosed and shall be maintained as
shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped September 22, 1987; and 2) that because of its location in a
required fault setback area, the garage, and any area attached to it
or added to it within the fault setback area, shall not be used for
human habitation.
Burlingame Planning CaYmission Minutes Page 4
October 26, 1987
Following the action, the Commission asked Staff to set for discussion
the current ordinance provisions which address the issue of when two
structures are joined.
Second C. S. Graham. C. Giomi canmented she would vote for the
project with reservation, since she would not like to see an expansion
of the garage, but feels unusual circumstances exist in that door was
misplaced and to remove would be a hardship; do not feel it imposes on
neighboring properties. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote,
Cers Garcia and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SERVICE BUSINESS AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY,
SUITE 339, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. In response to a Commissioner's
question, CP Monroe ocmmented that condition number 2 would be policed
on a complaint basis.
Chm. Gicmi opened the public hearing. Michael E. Fahey, President of
Timesavers, Inc., applicant, was present. He stated they have been in
operation in Burlingame since 1976. They were originally located at
1299 Bayshore Highway, and about a year ago located at the 1633
Bayshore Highway site. He presented two letters to the Planning
Cammission documenting that business is a good tenant, and if
necessary to have designated parking in the future, the landlord would
negotiate.
Suggested that car rental, restaurant uses, and many permitted used in
M-1 District generate more traffic than this use; over time they have
been discouraging people from dropping off time cards and picking up
pay checks; trying to do more of this activity by mail. The Branch
Manager of the 1633 Bayshore office was introduced. In response to
Canmission question, it was stated that at any one time, they may have
over 100 applicants registered at this office, not all are active; on
a weekly basis may have a total of 30 plus applicants. Does not mean
30 people come in, most checks are mailed out; only those in the area
or who really need check that day come by. Currently have a staff of
3; 4.5 is projected in the future. Responsibilities of 3 employees as
well as how business operates discussed. All interviews scheduled on
appointment basis only; trying to balance out increase in applicants
with a decrease in number of people coming in to pick up checks and
drop off time cards; doing more and more contract work with multiple
employees on the site, where one person handles transactions of
dropping off time cards and picking up checks; encourage people to
practice on typewriters and retest; very few take advantage of this.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
October 26, 1987
There being no additional audience camments, the public hearing was
closed.
Carmission/Staff comments: past approvals for this site include a
credit union and coffee shop to serve the building. There may be
pre-existing service uses in M-1, not many recent approvals. Review
of business licenses revealed this use; had same difficulty getting
the applicant to file an application for a use permit, which is why
the delay in review.
C. H. Graham moved for approval of Special Permit and for adoption of
Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following
conditions: 1) that the retail service use at 1633 Bayshore Highway
shall be limited to the 722 SF area of Suite 339, to be operated five
days a week, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with
four full-time and one part-time employees; 2) that visitors to this
place of business shall not exceed 25 per day; and 3) that this permit
shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in one year's
time (Nov., 1988) and every two years thereafter or upon complaint.
Second S. Graham, with C. Ellis supporting the motion since he had
been to the site many times, and there were always parking spaces
available. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
4. ANIWMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO DETAILING TO ADD
WHOLESALE AUTO SALES AMID STORAGE OF THREE VEHICLES AT
1405-A NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report 10/26/87 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study
meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Chm. Gicmi opened the public hearing. Anthony Stagnaro, owner of Mr.
Detail business at 1405 North Carolan, was present and representing
the applicant. He explained that the red van parked on the site
belongs to the Shriners and is to be picked up this week. Regarding
the boat stored on the lot, it will be moved to a storage area at the
rear of the property. No buyers will come to the site to see the
cars; Bob Ellis will run City Auto Mart business; he will bring cars
to Mr. Stagnaro who will detail them; no auto repairs will take place.
Mr. Ellis will be both a customer and tenant to Mr. Stagnaro. "Us"
referred to in letter implies family, friends, whoever is available to
drive cars; all used cars are obtained locally; currently running
business at this location. Gas tanks on property were recently
removed, this created 2-3 additional parking spaces in the work area
on the property. There being no additional audience carmrents, the
public hearing was closed.
.
Burlingame Planning Cannittee Minutes Page 6
October 26, 1987
Cixn. Jacobs, commenting that since there is a condition to limit
vehicles to no more than 3 at one time with a maximum of 12 a month;
and since Mr. Stagnaro has been at this location for awhile, and this
business is already operating, moved for approval of Special Permit
Amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special
Permit Amendment with the following conditions: 1) that the conditions
of the Chief Building Inspector (Sept. 21, 1987 mono) are met;
2) that this business shall be limited to the 100 sq. ft. storeroom
area converted to office in the building at the front of the site with
no more than one person associated with the wholesale auto sales use
on site and no more than 3 wholesale cars on site at one time not to
exceed 12 cars per month, no cars shall be on site more than two
days;
3) that the wholesale automobile business shall be limited to the same
hours of operation as the auto detailing business, six days per week,
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., closed on Sundays; 4) that no cars shall be
sold directly to customers frau this site and; 5) that this permit
amendment shall be reviewed at the same time as the auto detailing
permit, once each year in September, except in the event of a
canplaint when it shall be reviewed immediately.
Second H. Graham; motion approved 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
5. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 7' TO 8' HIGH FENCE AT
412 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: Clarify whether lattice is included in 7' and 8' fence
height on the plans; where will spa be located.
Item set for public hearing November 9, 1987
6. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AT 1199 BROADWAY,
ZONED C-1
Requests: what signage have we granted permits for; existing
conditions on site. Item set for public hearing November 9, 1987,
with understanding that if application is not complete, staff will
recommend denial.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
October 26, 1987
7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF SPACES AND DIMENSIONS OF SPACES
AT 11 GUITTARD ROAD, ZONED M-1
Requests: where will goods be stored; how do Employees get to work,
number that drive, what types of cars do they drive; possibility of
fencing off part of area in rear to provide additional Employee
parking; how much of the area at the rear is paved; is there any
self -storage in building.
Item set for public hearing November 9, 1987.
Discussion of Prohibiting Non Vehicular Storage and Campers in Front
and Side Setbacks. C. S. Graham moved that Commission recommend to
City Council adoption of amendments to parking section of zoning
ordinance to include language suggested by City Attorney stating that
inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers not be stored
or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side
property lines. Seconded by C. Harrison. Approved unanimously by
voice vote.
C. Gieimi reviewed City Council actions at its October 19, 1987
regular meeting, and Cers S. Graham, Ellis and Jacobs reviewed City
Council actions at the October 21, 1987 study session.
Chm. Giomi requested discussion of Attendance and Notification to be
scheduled for P.C. Meeting on November 9, 1987.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S. Graham, Secretary