Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.10.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, October 23, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, Graham, Harrison, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the October 10, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. At the request of the Chair, CE Erbacher gave a brief status report on the effects of the October 17 earthquake in Burlingame. FM Reilly discussed Fire Departments recommendation concerning inspection of chimneys and gas which has been turned off. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1317/1321 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE Requests: why does applicant think he has 16 on-site parking spaces available; number of on -street parking spaces available; explanation of "paint wars", what do the police think of this recreational use; why does the applicant expect his customers to arrive 4-5 per automobile; will there be any sales on the premises; what type of liability coverage will they have; are there any other P.M. businesses in the area. Item set for public hearing November 13, 1989 or when answers to these requests are available. 1-A. PARCEL SPLIT AT 1333 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: clarify setback requirements, front and rear; landscaping requirement for each parcel; clarify location of the lot on the aerial photograph. Item set for public hearing November 13, 1989. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 23, 1989 ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. VARIANCE FROM SIDE SETBACK AND THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONVERT A NONCONFORMING SECOND UNIT INTO A RECREATION ROOM AT 609 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (CONTINUED FROM 10/10/891 Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, history of construction on this lot. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The Chair thanked staff for including Attachments A, B and C clarifying existing and proposed plans; as far as staff could determine the house and accessory structure were built in 1913. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Ron Bellanti, applicant, was present. He wished to keep the two windows in the living room facing the side yard which add character to the house and suggested they might put fire sprinklers above these windows to provide fire spread protection if allowed by the Building Department; he confirmed these windows were on either side of the fireplace and removal of the other two windows on that side was not a problem. With regard to retaining the shower in the accessory structure following remodel of the house, applicant said he will use the recreation room as an exercise room and would like to keep the shower for his own convenience. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi found no problem with this project other than retaining the shower in the recreation room which could be easily converted to a second unit in the future; applicant will have two full bathrooms in the main house; using the building in the rear as a temporary living structure during remodel of the house was no problem. C. Graham agreed with these statements, she found the layout of the existing house is so unusual that in order to get to any of the bedrooms one must go through the kitchen, this project will make the house much more livable and will not compromise the zoning or the neighbors. C. Graham moved for approval of the variance and the special permits, incorporating findings addressed by the applicant in his supplemental statements, by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 25, 1989; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal (memo dated September 12, 1989) and the City Engineer (memo dated September 13, 1989) shall be met; (3) that the project, including renovations to the nonconforming second unit and the main residence, shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; (4) that all the work on the site be done under one building permit and final inspection for the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 23, 1989 primary residence shall not be issued until the work on the second unit, including removal of the kitchen and removal of the shower plumbing and stall and completion of any bathroom renovations, is brought up to Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; (5) that the accessory structure shall not be used for living purposes under any circumstance after remodel of the primary residence and the final inspection and issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; and (6) that the driveway width as it currently exists (8' clearance past the bay window) shall be maintained at no less than 8' at all times. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. VARIANCE FROM SIDE SETBACK TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO AN EXISTING HOUSE AT 1204 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, staff said if the dormer did not contain a window or did not open it would still require a variance if it were other than one hour construction. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Steven Hill, architect/designer representing the applicant, Silas Wheaton, commented the dormer would be a nice architectural feature, the large tree in the back would remain. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Jane Gomery, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue: she did not think there were exceptional circumstances with this property, applicant could redesign and meet code, the houses are very close now and putting anything closer will not enhance the area, this addition would give a San Francisco look to a Burlingame neighborhood, all trees on the property should be saved, the narrow second floor balcony will not add to the property, the existing at grade deck is an asset to the property and is in the back yard. Phil Lyons, 1208 Drake Avenue (next door to the subject property): he put in a swimming pool five years ago located to benefit from the setback area, he was worried about this house going up to a second story in the front, he has a shake roof too close to the applicant's fireplace. Steven Pade, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue: city has set up guidelines, he didn't think there were exceptional circumstances to support the variance; this would be pushing the limits of residential property in the area, more like a city townhouse; he was opposed to the size and impact. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 23, 1989 Barbara Lyons, 1208 Drake Avenue: is this gentleman a resident on the site now; can understand a variance for a family with children in this neighborhood when there is a need for more space but not as speculation. Speaking in rebuttal, architect said the house was recently purchased, no one is living there now; they took special pains designing the addition, second story is within the guidelines, dormer is a positive factor, adding the second story will make the house livable, without the dormer they would need to figure another way upstairs which would affect the flow of living space. Responding to a Commissioner suggestion about decreasing size of the room at the bottom of the stairs, architect advised that room is a family room and would be less usable if narrower. Another Commissioner suggested removing the fireplace in the family room and cutting the stairs closer, architect said this would not have much effect on living area, it is 2' wide, and because of stair design requirements that void will be there no matter what. One of the speakers in the audience commented the house has been vacant for at least six months, he did not think there was any intention of the owner living in it. Silas Wheaton, applicant and property owner, stated the first sale of this property fell through, he only closed escrow in June, he did not plan to move in until construction was completed. Another member of the audience commented it was unreasonable to be able to increase a house by 175% and not be able to relocate the staircase within code. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison found it was difficult to make findings of exceptional circumstances, the design creates the variance, not the property. C. Graham agreed with this statement, she failed to see exceptional circumstances that apply to this property and thought in the design there is a 121 x 15' vaulted ceiling space that is not being used as a room, it would seem the applicant could make better use of that space with a different location for the staircase. C. Graham moved for denial of the variance application. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. In discussion on the motion a Commissioner asked if a building was allowed that close to trees, staff advised there is no regulation on the placement of trees, the city's limitation is on street trees but not private trees on private property. Further comment: will support denial, there are ways to put the staircase in and adequate room, cannot find exceptional circumstances, think architect can redesign; these are deep narrow lots and neighbors are close to each other, think an architect can fit the staircase in. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 23, 1989 Motion for denial was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. VARIANCE FROM SIDE SETBACK TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING STORAGE SHED ATTACHED TO THE GARAGE AT 2700 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Gerry O'Driscoll, representing the property owners, AMTAD, Inc., was present. He has done work in Burlingame previously, was not aware of the requirement for a building permit for a shed under 100 SF, AMTAD is a major corporation in the construction industry, this site will be a home for its corporate executives when they are assigned to this area, traditionally they stay three to five years. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: have a problem in that applicant states there are no extraordinary circumstances, cannot make findings for exceptional circumstances, if Commission cannot do so for each property it makes it impossible to grant the variance. In view of applicant's statement in his supplement to the application that this particular property does not have extraordinary circumstances, C. Harrison moved for denial of the variance. Comment on the motion: think applicant may not have understood exactly what was being asked, he does say the structure, layout and design are unique; this is a unique house for the Mills Estates area, the garage covers the addition from the street; many people put in temporary Sears sheds, this looks better; there is a courtyard which most houses don't have, the addition is in an obvious place for storage. Based on these comments C. Harrison withdrew his motion for denial. Further comment: the lot is on a slope so its encroachment on the side is not as intrusive to the house next door; do not have a problem with the request, it is not the typical home in that area; there have been a number of cases like this in the city where setback lines have changed, structures are in place and someone wants to make an addition, because the city changed the rules it can't be done without a variance, would support approval. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances, the property location and layout is unique, the small structure is behind the garage, it will not be detrimental to the neighbors because of the slope of the lot. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 23, 1989 with the following conditions: (1) that the project should be built (and completed) as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 21, 1989; (2) that electrical outlets and water connection in the storage shed shall be prohibited; (3) that the project shall meet all the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that the applicant shall pay the required penalty fee and shall also complete the plan check and building permit process, obtain a building permit and request and receive a final inspection on all work from the Building Department within 90 days. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WATER CONNECTION IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND TO USE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR HOME OCCUPATION AT 1433 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted letters and petition in support included in the packet and one supportive letter received after preparation of staff report from Peggy Litchenstein, 2404 Easton Drive (October 1, 1989). Commission/staff discussed how the use of the accessory structure had been discovered, art classes have been held there for about two years; a maximum 2" waste pipe could be required in the conditions. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Carol Swanson-Petterson, applicant and property owner, discussed her use of the accessory structure as an art studio, one of the reasons they purchased the property was because this structure was already there as well as water, she found no problem aesthetically since it is an existing building and cant be seen from the street, classes are small, a maximum of six children, sometimes smaller; her neighbors were very encouraging and supportive, many signed the petition in favor, this is a worthwhile endeavor for the development of young children. Chris Ganas, 1423 Laguna Avenue asked if this type of business fell within the limits of R-1 zoning; CP explained the home occupation regulations, this particular home occupation requires a use permit because it is a classroom use. Mr. Ganas stated there is a dangerous problem on Laguna between Grove and Mills, people drive 40 miles an hour; he hoped applicant would take this under consideration so that parking/drop-off of children would be done under supervision for their safety. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 23, 1989 Commission discussion/comment: adding a condition limiting the classes to six children; it's a needed service and a good setup; should garage be increased to 20' x 201, this would require an addition to the structure, applicant meets parking requirements of one covered and one uncovered space for the size of house. C. Graham found this is a good use for the benefit of the city's children, applicant and parents are well aware of safety and equally concerned, this use has been operating for some time without any problems. C. Graham moved for approval of the three special permits by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall conform to the plans as shown and submitted to the Planning Department, date stamped September 7, 1989; (2) that the building shall be brought up to the standards of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes (one hour fire wall construction for walls 3' from the property line and no openings in walls 3' from the property line and a one hour fire wall separating the art studio from the garage area), that the waste line shall be limited to 211, and that the conditions of the Fire Marshal (memo dated September 19, 1989), the City Building Official (memo dated September 20, 1989) shall be met; and shall comply with all other pertinent municipal codes; (3) that the structure shall be used for children's art classes only for a maximum number of six children per class up to 10 years of age, and shall not be used for living purposes; and (4) that this permit shall be in force for 10 years at which time it shall come under review by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comments on the motion: children need to be in a caring and creative environment, this is an opportunity for that; children would have to use the bathroom in the primary structure; this is a narrow but quiet street, with only six children per class and adequate supervision it is a wonderful idea; Coolidge School was not far from here and 150 children used that school; permit will run for 10 years, need to make it very clear it is for children's art classes and age of the children. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:55 P.M., reconvene 9:10 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SERVICE RETAIL BUSINESS TO A RETAIL TAKE-OUT BAKERY AT 1160 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: the project's parking, Earthbeam's (1399 Broadway) parking; retail sales are Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 23, 1989 allowed in this zone, special permit is required for the take-out use. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect representing the applicant, Teri Jew, addressed Commission: he advised applicant has had the beauty salon for the last 13-1/2 years; she has been baking cookies for friends and relatives but not on this site. Regarding the CBI's requirement for a handicapped accessible restroom, this would only be required if partitions were added; applicant will not add partitions (architect has discussed this with the CBI). Goods will be prepared and baked on site, there will be ovens, preparation area and sink as required by the health department. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners, comments: have no problem with this request as long as there is no wholesale, the use permit for take-out will go with the land, if this tenant leaves any new business must operate under the conditions of this special permit. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit incorporating the statements of the applicant in her supplement to the application, C. Graham found the use will be in accordance with zoning of the area and it will not be detrimental to neighboring properties. Motion for approval was made by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 7, 1989 except that no on-site parking shall be provided; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official (memo dated September 18, 1989) shall be met; (3) that the project shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that this use shall be limited to a bakery with take-out service and have no tables for eating purposes on the premises; the bakery operator shall provide and maintain a trash receptacle on the site for use of customers and be responsible for picking up litter on the sidewalk in the area between the store location and Broadway. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. In comment on the motion it was noted applicant indicates she will have two employees, site is only 400 square feet, this is a commercial district where deliveries are routine. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE FOR AUTO REPAIR AND A VARIANCE FOR PARKING AT 70 STAR WAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 10/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of permits granted for 50- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 23, 1989 60-70 Star Way and use permit amendment required for 50-60 if 70 Star Way permit is granted, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for the 70 Star Way application, Conditions 1 a -e for the 50-60 Star Way permit amendment. Commission and staff discussed the parking variance. The Chair pointed out action on the request for separate use of 70 Star Way will require amendment of the present use permit for 50-60-70 Star Way; both would be considered at the public hearing. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Nicholas Crisafi, property owner of both Star Way and Whitethorn Way, addressed Commission. He discussed his development of 50-60-70 Star Way, use of 50-60-70 Star Way by Charles Potts of California Classics, work done without benefit of building permits, most of this has been corrected. He has met with a representative of the Fire Department and was advised all corrective work required by them has been done, they still need to do restriping of the parking in front of the building, he was waiting for the tenant at the end to move out before completing this and now has an agreement with a striping company to do the work. He leases land from the railroad from his property line to the tracks, this is available for additional parking, the other side of the street is also available for parking, parking has never been a problem in this area for patrons and employees. Mr. Crisafi continued: the mezzanine at 70 Star Way can be removed, he has been trying to comply with all of the requirements and has met most of them. Responding to a Commissioner question about the land leased from the railroad, Mr. Crisafi stated he has done some landscaping, some of the land is his land and some leased from the railroad, paving it would not be a problem; the lease runs year to year and he has had it for nine years. There used to be a problem with parking on Whitethorn, the business causing the problem has left and there is no problem now. A Commissioner expressed concern that the lease of land from the railroad might not always be available. Gary Christensen, applicant for the 70 Star Way site, was present. He discussed with staff and Commission his desire to keep the stairs and mezzanine area, it is a good place to store parts. Property owner stated that area had been used for an overnight stay by a man from out of town restoring a car for a sublessee of California Classics, there is no mezzanine, just an office with set of stairs going up to the roof of the office, this area is not being used for living area. Staff noted there are storage mezzanines in other places in the city. Applicant reiterated all he wants it for is storage, he added that parking will not be a problem, most cars can be parked inside. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 23, 1989 During Commission discussion it was noted 50-60 Star Way will lose storage space in 70 but will still be required to store cars inside. At the request of Commission CP reviewed history of the site, permit in effect at the present time and this request, there would be no change to the intensity of the existing business, merely elimination of storage use of 70 for 50-60 Star Way and the addition of another business at 70. CP commented there are many cars stored in the railroad right-of-way area now and recommended tieing the lease with the railroad to the special permit amendment. A Commissioner discussed his concerns: in condition #4 for 70 Star Way occupancy will be conditioned on completion of the work by 50- 60 Star Way, that might take two hours and it is leverage on the property owner to get the work done, he did not think the property owner has the right to charge the applicant rent until that work is completed; the mezzanine for storage of parts would be useful to the business at 70 Star Way, he suggested changing condition #4, 9th line to read ". . ., and complete inspection by the city Building Department of the mezzanine and stairs to that mezzanine built without a building permit in 70 Star Way to determine their conformance with code requirements". Intent of that change is to have building inspectors say the stairs are safe or they are not safe, if not they will have to be ripped out and/or replaced, if they are safe leave them; regarding striping of the parking lot, he suggested keeping the language that is in the condition and adding "or post bond within 60 days for striping of the parking area". These changes to the conditions would solve the problems of the applicant for a business at 70 Star Way and provide the property owner with leverage to deal with his contractor and the other tenant. Another Commissioner who was concerned about storage of the cars suggested a further condition tieing both the new special permit and special permit amendment to retaining the lease on the railroad property, if this lease is not renewed they would need to amend both permits. Commissioner comment: this requirement would apply more to 50-60 Star Way than 70 Star Way, she didn't think it was right to put such a condition on the tenant of 70 Star Way. Property owner addressed Commission: requirement for a fire wall has been completed; he believed California Classics gave up 70 Star Way because of a curtailment of the business and he did not need so much space; he had no objection to a condition regarding lease of the railroad property; the stairs could be removed in two hours. Commission/staff discussion: the 50-60 business could grow, would like to require a lease on the railroad property for parking as well as requiring paving of that area; possible wording of an additional condition to cover this. C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit and parking variance for 70 Star Way based on the information received this Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 October 23, 1989 evening at the public hearing by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the 3,100 SF area of 70 Star Way shall be used for retail auto repair including some body work but no auto painting, with one employee operating only on evenings Monday through Friday after 5:00 P.M. and on weekends; (2) that all the conditions of the Fire Marshalls September 12, 1989 memo, City Engineer's September 13, 1989 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors October 2, 1989 memo shall be met; (3) that all employees and customers shall park in the three parking spaces in front of 70 Star Way and no vehicles, operative or inoperative, on the premise for repair or maintenance work shall be parked in these or any other spaces or areas on the site outside of the building; (4) that this use permit shall not become effective and this use cannot occupy this site until all conditions of the use permit granted in January, 1989 to 50-60-70 Star Way have been implemented including a one hour fire separation between 50 and 60 Star Way as approved by the Fire Department with final inspection by the Building Department, restriping of the parking areas as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 19, 1989 or post bond with the city within 60 days for the restriping, and complete inspection by the city Building Department of the mezzanine and stairs to that mezzanine built without a building permit in 70 Star Way to determine their conformance with code requirements; (5) that storage of vehicles for this business shall be allowed on the adjacent paved railroad right-of-way so long as the property owner retains a legal lease to use this area and loss of this lease shall result in review of this use permit; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in six months (April, 1990) and every two years thereafter and any change to the operation of the business as set out in the conditions of this permit shall require an amendment to the permit. C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit amendment and parking variance for 50-60 Star Way by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that all conditions of the use permit granted on January 18, 1989 to 50-60-70 Star Way shall apply only to the operation of the business at 50-60 Star Way except that: (a) all vehicles, operative or inoperative, on the premise for repair or maintenance or any other purposes associated with the business at 50-60 Star Way shall be parked and/or stored inside the portion of the structure identified as 50-60 Star Way and not left in required parking or any other area on the site outside of the structure; (b) that the business shall be operated at all times in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (c) that five of the six parking stalls on the site dedicated to this business at 50-60 Star Way shall be designated for employee parking and shall be used by employees; (d) that no portion of the building designated as 50 or 60 Star Way shall be subleased to another business or activity without amendment to this use permit; (e) that Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 October 23, 1989 the use permit for 50-60 Star Way shall be reviewed in six months (April, 1990) and every two years thereafter or upon complaint, and any changes to the operation as outlined in the January 18, 1989 use permit as amended by the November, 1989 use permit shall require amendment to the use permit; and (f) storage of vehicles for this business shall be allowed on the adjacent paved railroad right-of-way so long as the property owner retains a legal lease to use this area and loss of this lease shall result in the review of this use permit. These two motions were seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its October 16, 1989 regular meeting and October 18, 1989 study meeting. The City Attorney reminded Commission that use permits and variances run with the land, and are on the property regardless of who occupies it. Thus decisions should be made on the circumstances of the particular lot and building, based on such factual matters as dimensions, physical obstructions and aesthetics. Decisions should not be made on the basis of the family status of the present occupants, who is or will be occupying the property, or any other such personal factor. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary