Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.02.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Tuesday, February 14, 1989 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Harrison Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 23, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Items #7 and #12 withdrawn; item #11 was heard as the first action item. Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS AN ART STUDIO, 1750 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1 Requests: has applicant considered adding on to the home, explain to applicant the city's problems with accessory structures; number of rooms and number of bedrooms in the existing home; what type of exhibitions are proposed; will sink have garbage disposal, is a 2" sewer line big enough; does special permit go with the land as with a variance. Item set for public hearing February 27, 1989. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A FLOWER SHOP, 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Requests: is applicant the same person who operated a flower shop at the Adeline Market site; signage allowed at this site, what signage does applicant expect, is he aware of the limits. Item set for public hearing February 27, 1989. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 14, 1989 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR CHURCH SERVICES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES, 1157 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Requests: where will applicant tell members to park, will on-site spaces be marked for the church, ingress/egress for those spaces; can a church use be restricted to a certain number of people; if applicant anticipates 30 people for each service why are there 72 seats; is the building currently in use; what signage will be allowed; how was the code requirement of 15 on-site parking spaces determined; rationale for fire department requirement regarding remodeling the stage area; if people park across the street how will jaywalking be controlled, what safety control measures will be taken; is the floor in the building level, will it be made level for installation of the seats. Item set for public hearing February 27, 1989. 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL HOBBY SHOP, 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D Requests: how will customers be made aware of which spaces are available for parking in the garage, what level of the garage does applicant intend to use for parking for the hobby shop; will food and drink be provided, what kind and how much; will there be pinball and other similar machines available in addition to the racetrack; clarification of the racetrack use and races to be held Wednesdays and Saturdays; statement from applicant as to type of lighting, interior and exterior, and how he proposes to abate noise occurring on site. Item set for public hearing February 27, 1989. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SATELLITE DISH ON THE ROOF OF THE RAMADA INN, 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Requests: pictures of roof indicating placement and height of the dish from different angles; how could it be screened; are there alternatives for the proposed location such as on the ground behind the hotel or the area behind the restaurant; bay side of the hotel is in BCDC jurisdiction, discuss BCDC's attitude and requirements for installation of a satellite dish in its jurisdiction; if put behind the hotel where would it have to be located; could it be put farther back on the roof so not seen from the street. Item set for public hearing February 27, 1989. 6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR USE, VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT, 1461 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: how and where will off-site parking be provided, provide diagram; clarify all adjacent streets on the aerial photograph; what on -street parking is available, what other uses are existing in the area; why not screen the trash area; diagram of existing Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 14, 1989 building indicating how much of the interior area they will use for what purpose; how can the off-site parking work without valet parking; possible impact on adjacent office building parking; how will people find the off-site parking, is signage proposed; are there any classes being held in the evenings in office buildings in the vicinity, especially those office buildings whose lots will provide the off-site parking; discuss how applicant will provide and manage 165 parking spaces; maximum occupancy allowed under the fire code for this building. Item set for public hearing February 27, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 7. PARKING VARIANCE - 1365 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Item withdrawn by the applicants. 11. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, RESUBDIVISION OF TWO PARCELS INTO TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS, 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND 810 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 2/14/89, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this resubdivision request, filed only to move lot lines. He discussed proposed Parcels A and B, Planning staff review and comments, study meeting questions. CE recommended that this map be forwarded to City Council for approval. Discussion: Parcel A driveway is off Bayshore Highway, right turn only signage for egress; original property line for Parcel A was in the center, it was never developed that way, it was leased out separately. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Cynthia Herzer, Brian Kangas Foulk, engineers preparing the map, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Garcia moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Staff will forward to Council. 8. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR STORAGE PURPOSES AT 824 ALPINE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/14/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, background of construction and use of this structure since 1958, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a Commissioner question, CP commented on the windows within 10' of property line. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 14, 1989 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Applicant, Tony De Angelis, was present. Commission/applicant discussion: is all this storage area needed, would applicant object to removing interior walls; applicant stated he did not want to remove the fireplace/barbecue, he would like to brick it in and cement it, the partitions are part of the structure; he has several hobbies, particularly gardening, with a need for storage space, the garage is very small, no one has been living in the accessory structure since he purchased the property, he asked for a letter regarding the status of the accessory structure but never received one, the previous owner now lives out of state. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion/comment: is there a reason for requiring removal of the barbecue; staff commented there is no point in having a barbecue of this type in a storage area, the previous dweller apparently used it to heat the area, staff recommendation is that it be removed. Further Commission comment: brick and cement are not easy to tear out, it will be very difficult to remove the barbecue; have no problem if applicant is willing to brick it over and make it inoperable; it will take up more storage space; would go with staff's recommendation for removal, seems the wisest for safety reasons; would consider an alternative to removal if it could be made completely inoperable; allowing the barbecue to remain could give a future owner the wrong impression about what is habitable area; would like to get away from requiring removal. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the three special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's January 18, 1989 memo and the City Engineer's January 18, 1989 memo shall be met which shall include cutting off any gas, sewer and water pipes to the accessory structure at the main dwelling and then plugging any remaining pipes in the walls with concrete in both ends; (2) that this 504 SF structure shall be used only for storage purposes and shall never be used as a living area or any other purposes; and (3) that the barbecue and fireplace in the accessory structure shall be made permanently inoperable as determined by the Fire Marshal and Building Department before the building permit is finaled. C. S.Graham stated applicant is doing the city a favor by removing the illegal unit, the size of the structure is not an issue, it will not be detrimental to surrounding properties, this structure has been there since the 19501s, if applicant is agreeable to the conditions the structure could still be used for storage and enable him to put his car in the garage. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Jacobs dissenting, C. Harrison absent. advised. Recess 8:40 P.M.; reconvene 8:52 P.M. Page 5 February 14, 1989 Appeal procedures were 9. TWO VARIANCES TO THE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR SIDE SETBACK AND DORMER AREA OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE AT 132 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/14/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a Commissioner question, CP stated the existing second story is at the rear of the property, the addition will have a lower roof, the building with the addition may look taller but will not be taller, it is a long, narrow house. Commission/staff discussed parking requirements, code definition of bedroom and of habitable area; applicant is converting one of the existing bedrooms to a den, with the new bedroom addition the property will still have only three bedrooms; den will be required to have 50% of the wall area open to an adjacent room and no closets. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Ron Madsen, applicants and tenants, were present. They presented a letter in support from Jonathan B. Horowitz, owner of the property at 134 Bloomfield Road. They stated they would like the master bedroom upstairs for themselves, they have three children and need the storage area. Speaking in favor, Frank Prendergast, architect for the project: the second story attic area in the front part of the house was never intended to be habitable area, calculations on the foundation were submitted with the drawings, membranes were included in the submittal, they want to make the attic space comfortable. Commissioner comment: front roof is 18" lower than the back portion, it cannot be habitable area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham stated she liked the plans and had no problem with this project. C. S. Graham moved for approval of the two variances and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variances with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's January 11, 1989 memo shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 6, 1989, which shall include the conversion of one of the existing three bedrooms into a den by removing the closet and opening the room up at least 50% to the adjacent room; and (3) that the proposed second story shall consist of a 907 SF bedroom/dressing room and bath and the remaining area in the second floor shall remain unfinished and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 14, 1989 shall not have a habitable height per the building code standards and this area shall only be used as attic storage area. C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances with this long and narrow house, they are not able to put a second story of usable area within the declining height envelope, the use of dormers is aesthetically more pleasing to the neighborhood, the addition will not be injurious to neighboring properties and will be compatible with adjacent properties. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham with the finding that dormers are necessary for the bedroom area to provide light, make the room more habitable and provide better ventilation. Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE INTO A LAUNDRY ROOM AND BATH AT 2470 POPPY DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/14/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question CP discussed minimum lot size established in the zoning code. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jeffery and Deborah Griffith, property owners, were present. They advised they purchased their house in 1976. Speaking in favor, Terry Nagel, 2337 Poppy Drive and John Sabol, 2480 Poppy Drive: there will be no impact on the neighborhood from the outside and the conversion will give applicants better use of their property. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi stated she had no problem with this project and moved for approval of the variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspectors January 30, 1989 memo shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 30, 1989 except that plans submitted for a building permit shall call out dimensions on the floor plans to verify that lot coverage will not exceed 40% of the lot area; (3) that detailed drawings of the proposed deck shall be provided at the building permit stage and this deck shall not encroach into the rear 15' setback and no portion of the deck shall be more than 5' above grade; and (4) that a minimum 111-6" x 20' parking area shall remain clear inside the garage and shall be available for parking vehicles. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 14, 1989 C. Giomi found the lot is less than the 5,000 SF code minimum, it is irregular in shape which limits options for parking, there is ample parking in the driveway in front of the garage to park an additional vehicle behind the front setback, it will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighbors and will not change the zoning; statements in the staff report supporting the findings were included by reference. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE, 857 MALCOLM ROAD. ZONED M-1 Application withdrawn by the applicants. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS Review of suggested requirements for condo handbooks Reference CA's memo, February 3, 1989. Commission discussed CA's suggested condition for condominium projects and were agreed this should become a standard condition on any condominium development. - Planning Commissioners Institute, April 5-7, 1989, Monterey, California was noted. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 6, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary