Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.12.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, December 9, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Galligan Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the November 25, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEM FOR STUDY 1. SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2010 BROADWAY. ZONED R-1 Requests: are there additional requirements for being located on a corner, how is the house situated on the lot; applicant mentions front setback is no closer than many properties in the area, since the average here is over 191, where are houses no closer; indicate with stakes the outer edge of the new wall including bay window. Item set for public hearing January 13, 1992. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AND SERVICING OF FORKLIFTS AT 889-895 STANTON ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 12/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff explained the change in occupancy permit from B-2 to B-1 required by the CBI. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Tony Ward, applicant, was present. He had a concern about the condition requiring gates in the fence to be removed, they would like one of the gates to remain for access into the facility, some employees work late and need secure parking, they would like to have three or four parking spaces behind a fence. Responding to a question applicant said they had no preference Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 9, 1991 as to which gate, perhaps it would be more convenient if closer to the building. Staff explained the reason for the condition was that some parking spaces were shown next to the gates, if a gate were allowed some of these parking spaces will be lost. Commission and applicant discussed his request for some spaces behind a gate for security purposes. It was noted there will be other spaces available for the public and this business does not appear to have a high impact from customers. C. Ellis found this an acceptable proposal, if approving retail sales in the M-1 zone this is the type of business to allow, parking is adequate, the site is adequate, there is plenty of room, it will not be injurious to the neighborhood. C. Ellis moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1991 Sheet Al Building and Site Plan and Sheet 1 Site Plan; and October 24, 1991 8-1/2" x 11" Office Building First Floor Plan and 8-1/2" x 11" Second Floor Plan; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's November 18, 1991 memo and the City Engineer's November 18, 1991 memo shall be met; (3) that the forklift operator shall be open Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. with a maximum of 22 employees and all forklift repairs shall occur within the warehouse space; (4) that the parking lot spaces shall be restriped as needed to conform to code requirements with a total of 28 spaces (including one handicap stall) on site; and one existing gate in the fence shall be removed and the entire opaque fence replaced with a new opaque fence and gate; and (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Deal and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Galligan absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SUBSTANDARD GARAGE FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 725 CROSSWAY ROAD. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 12/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Naoko Ishizaki, applicant and Robert Colyer, architect were present. Architect discussed the reason for the variance request, existing parking conditions on the site comply with the intent of the code, there are three uncovered parking spaces behind a gate screened from the street, this is equivalent to the code requirement of one covered and one uncovered space; cost to replace and rebuild the garage would be substantial, because there is substantial termite damage to the garage applicants do not want to add to the existing structure. Commission commented this is a large addition; architect advised the second floor addition is approximately Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 9, 1991 35%-40% of the existing first floor area, it contains two bedrooms, master bath and area at the top of the stairs for a future bathroom; the two bedrooms are about 60% of the floor area of the upper floor, in addition there is a large closet and large bathroom. Architect discussed the plans as they relate to a future bathroom on the second floor. A Commissioner pointed out inside dimension of the garage is only 15'-2" deep and questioned the type of car which could be parked there; architect said applicants have a Mazda RX -7 and Honda Accord, either can be parked within the garage. Commission questioned ability to get in and out of a car in this garage. Architect advised currently there is a washer and dryer in the garage which will be moved back into the house. Commission noted applicant is occupying only about one-half of a second floor, with all that room why not move the addition back a couple of feet. Architect replied they are in compliance with code requirements, the design is providing what applicants need. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found that part of the Commission's review process is to look at an application and decide whether or not the proposal is good for the property as a whole, this addition may be good for the homeowner but the fact that the garage is not being rebuilt is not good for the property; with such a large addition Commission likes the property to be brought up to code, it is the only way to get dilapidated structures improved. C. Graham moved for denial of the parking variance with the comment the only acceptable alternative is for the applicant to do the termite work and rebuild or tear down and rebuild the existing garage, the next family to own this property could have a larger car or a stationwagon. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: one of the problems in the city is parking, this is a large addition and applicant has chosen to put a lot of money into the home, not the garage, it is not unreasonable to require a full size garage, this area has a lot of on -street parking, fences discourage parking on site because one must get out of the car to get to the parking behind; in view of the existing termite damage do not want to approve something which will fall down soon and provide no covered parking; cannot find exceptional circumstances to support the variance request. Motion to deny the parking variance was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Galligan absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Hillside Area Construction Permit, 1568 Alturas Drive. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 9, 1991 CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its December 2, 1991 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary