Loading...
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