Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.07.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the'Planning Commission, City, of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, July 27, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Kelly, Mink Absent: Graham, Jacobs Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Phil Monaghan, Associate Civil Engineer; Keith Marshall, Deputy Fire Marshal. MINUTES - The minutes of the June 13, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. GA ENDA - CP noted that Items 10 and 11, Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Parking Variance for dimension on thirteen compact stalls and Tentative Condominium Map, 530 E1 Camino Real, have been continued. Staff will renotice these items when they are ready for public hearing. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND MINOR MODIFICATION AT 2907 2907 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 Requests: Before the next meeting the applicant should place a frame on the house to outline the second story addition and the area on the first floor where the first floor footprint will be expanded; where will the washer and dryer be placed in the remodeled house; prepare an accurate front elevation on the proposed house showing the outline of the existing house, show accurate elevations for new and old roof lines; extend the profile of the south side of the street to include the property and structure at 1841 Sebastian. Item set for public hearing August 10, 1992. 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 2825 LAS PIEDRAS DRI,VE, ZONED R-1 Requests: the Parks Department will provide a report on the trees cut and how that action fits under the present urgency ordinance; the special permit application does not address -,the deck, it should be amended; why is a special permit needed for the deck; is the patio Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 27, 1992 cover custom built or site fabricated; what material is the patio cover made of. Item set for public hearing August 10, 1992. 3,4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL MAP AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ENCLOSING REQUIRED PRIVATE: OPEN SPACE AT 1216 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Requests: is the present architect the one that designed the original project; how have conditions on the side changed since the structure was built; will these tenants have any private or other open space; what is the extraordinary circumstance for the variance into the front setback required by enclosing these balconies; how is this site different from hundreds of others with open balconies on El Camino; have any noise studies been done to establish noise :Levels; would like to see the complete final map, since this is an amendment and the final map has not been filed. Item set for public hearing August 10, 1992. 5. PARKING VARIANCES FOR TWO STALLS AND DIMENSION FOR A NEW BUILDING AT 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Requests: how many of the existing uses on San Mateo Way back on to the street from their parking; exceptional circumstances from both variances need to be addressed; clarify the number of visitors/customers to the site, also the number of employees as distinct from customers for the present and future; can commission consider requiring a special permit for -all future uses in this building. Item set for public hearing August 10, 1992. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR LANDSCAPING FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AT 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD. ZONED C-4 Requests: which will set the five year time limit, the original permit or the amendment; provide landscape evaluation for the entire site (approved and added area); explain why the required landscaping cannot be provided f or the entire project. Item set f or publ is hearing August 10, 1992. ITEMS FOR ACTION 7. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A ROOM EXTENSION AND COVERED PORCH AT 3096 RIVER& DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the project, study meeting questions, required findings, of the staff report. Three conditions were proposed for consideration. CA Coleman noted that adjacent property at 1610 Hunt Drive was given to the city for a fire station; it was determined to be: surplus, sold and developed with a single family house. The -eiJte at 1610 was always zoned R-1. Correction was noted in the staff report; the lot coverage without the patio cover is 29%, with the cover it is 36%. E Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 27, 1992 Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Ron Perner, the applicants architect presented the project noting that the small addition proposed is under an existing roof overhang and is presently unusable space. The covered patio which extends into the rear yard was built as a privacy screen for the rear windows and outdoor patio area after the lot at 1610 Hunt (up hill) was developed. It provides a good separation between the properties. In opposition Eric Fried, 1610 Hunt Drive, spoke. He noted that there were five problems already existent on the neighbor's property as a result of previous construction. These included the swimming pool, the pool pump enclosure with adjacent storage area, the wall at the Hunt side of the property and the patio cover built without a building permit. The Chairman pointed out that tonight's hearing was addressing the issues of view protection and rear setback variance, the other items should be addressed via enforcement. Mr. Fried noted that by granting the rear setback variance it would be legitimizing the patio cover built without a permit. He felt that the shed next to the pool heater is a fire hazard. He has been trying for 18 months to get these issues resolved. He requested that this item be gabled until these items were resolved. The CP noted that a variance and building permit were issued to a previous property owner for the existing swimming pool, wall and pool pump enclosure in the front setback. Mr. Fried concluded noting that there should be a regulation addressing coverage by impervious surfaces. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: the hillside area construction permit is not a problem since no views are blocked, in fact the addition to the living area proposed is unobtrusive; the patio cover has been in place for some time 6 feet from the back wall, it is an extension of the existing rear wall of the house following the same line, it would be a minor modification if those regulations applied to rear setbacks; the rear area serves as a side setback because of the orientation of this house on the lot and 6 feet is adequate for that. It was also noted that this lot appears to have two front setbacks 20 feet: on Rivera and 26 feet on Hunt, clearly the'orientation of the house met the spirit of the front setback requirements at the time the house was built and that has not changed. In fact those two large setbacks placed an unusual burden on use of the remainder of the lot. Based on these findings Commissioner Deal moved approval of the rear setback variance and the hillside area construction permit by resolution with the three conditions: (1) the addition shall be built as shown on plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 21, 1992 and revised site plan date stamped �v�✓1, 1992; (2) that a retroactive building permit for the covered porch shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 27, 1992 was seconded by Com. Galligan. Motion was approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote (Coms. Graham and Jacobs absent). S. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BATH IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A COVERED PORCH, AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AT 2 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Commissioner Ellis noted that he would abstain from any action on this item since it was located within 200 feet of a property he owns. Chm. Mink noted that the item would be heard by a bare quorum of the Commission and asked the applicant if he wished to continue. The applicant elected to proceed. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Joseph Zygarewicz, representing the applicant spoke in favor of the project. He commented that they have lived in the house 10 years and have been getting wet at the front door all that time because the existing eave overhang offers no shelter; it is necessary for them to do repair work to the front of the house which will result in raising the eave 1 foot, so now is the time to address the front porch; addition of the covered porch at the front door will improve the appearance of the house, is consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood which have covered porches, and, because this is a corner lot, the improvement will be highly visible. Regarding the bathroom attached to the garage, it will contain only a sink and toilet; it is needed for the convenience of his parents when they are doing work out of doors or in the garage; they do not intend to use the garage as a living unit; they do not have many guests and they do not stay long enough to over crowd the house. The existing eave depth was discussed and it was noted that they were not deep enough to be counted in lot coverage. There are two bathrooms in the house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the project includes two issues the front setback encroachment of 3 feet for a covered porch to protect people at the front door from the weather; since the front wall of the house is in place the impact on the front setback will be slight; the addition of the covered porch is logical; the purpose of the bathroom is to serve those working in the garage which is needed for parking; many people use their garages for activities in addition to parking; would be a greater problem if bathroom were being proposed inside the garage affecting available parking; the bath could be attached to the house instead of to the garage and no use permit would be required; favor idea of a place to clean up before entering the house; the problem is lot coverage, however the lot tapers from front to rear 51 feet to 42 feet and that makes it different from the typical. lot in size and results in the coverage variance. i Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 27, 1992 Commissioner Galligan moved for approval of the special permit and two variances finding based on the facts discussed and those presented in the staff report by resolution with staff three recommended conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 4, 1992 Sheet 1, Site Development Plan and Elevations; (2) that no portion of the garage shall be used for living quarters; and (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code: and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Com. Kelly. The motion was approved on a roll call vote 4-0-1-2 (Com. Ellis abstaining, Cers. Graham and Jacobs absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 9. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCE TO HEIGHT, STORIES AND -DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE TO EXTEND A THIRD FLOOR BEDROOM AT 1445 ALVARADO AVENUE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, responses to study questions, finding requirements. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained that the declining height envelope was calculated on the basis of the elevated first floor and how the third story was determined. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Fred Bauer, property owner, discussed the continuing problems with water leakage through the present balcony deck into the lower living areas resulting in the necessity of removing the front portion of the house in this area and enclosing the balcony; the enclosure will improve the adjacent existing living space; the only view which this construction could block is from the west, these neighbors support the request; he requested a modification to condition 3 limiting the height to the height of the existing ridge line and not requiring a survey. Commissioner asked why the surface of the narrow balcony remaining was metal; the applicant noted that the metal surface! was necessary to eliminate water leakage. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: the only view of this house. is from the north side and this addition will have little impact; the height of the house and the number of stories of this house are an existing condition which will alter little with this project, the declining height envelope exception is small and the appearance of the house would be harmed if this small area were inset; sloped lot development is unique, this street is developed with a number of imposing houses whose appearance is affected by the existing slope; this proposal is consistent with what is existing in the area now. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 27, 1992 Commissioner Deal noted that the ordinances are generally written for flat lots, all possible conditions cannot be addressed and as noted this lot and its development have several exceptional existing conditions. On the basis of these findings he moved to approve the hillside area construction permit and three variances by resolution with four conditions including an amendment for -condition three eliminating a survey of the new roof ridge and requiring instead that it match the existing roof ridge. The approved conditions were: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 11, 1992 Sheets Al, A2 and A3 and July 17, 1992 Sketch 1 and Sketch 2 for the declining height envelope; (2) that the finish material used on both the flat and sloping portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as approved be the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall match the existing roof ridge and shall be inspected by the building department for this match before the roofing material is attached; and (4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform, Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.. The motion was approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote (Cers. Graham and Jacobs absent). 10. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR - DIMENSION FOR A 38 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Item continued until revised plans and comments are complete. Item will be renoticed. 11. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 38 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Item continued until revised plans and comments are complete. Item will be renoticed. 12. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1532 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 ACE Monaghan presented the report noting that the tentative map for this project was approved by the City Council on July 1, 1991. The project has since been built and all conditions of approval relating to the map have been met; an occupancy permit will not be issued until all the requirements of the building department are met. He suggested that the map be recommended to the City Council for action. Commissioner discussion: The depth of the balconies should be confirmed because of their narrowness; the mai does not show how the parking spaces will be assigned to each unit, that should be done before filing the map; staff will review before filing; how are the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 27, 1992 guest spaces accessed, through a security gate which has a call box to each unit in front. Com. Galligan moved that the final map be recommended to the City Council for action. Seconded by Com. Kelly. Motion parsed unanimously on a voice vote. 13. TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 BURLINGAME COMMERCIAL AREA SUBAREA A Reference staff report, 7/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, the responses to the study questions, the requirements for special permit findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained that since the basement of the building is now unused it cannot be used by this business as a part of this permit; the applicants revision to the number of seats requested from 24 to 42; and the factors which would limit seating in this premise by the fire and building regulations. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Arthur Rubinfeld, representing Starbucks Coffee Company, presented the project. He asked why they could not use the basement area. It was noted that since this area was unused, extending a use such as storage into the basement would require parking and in this case a parking variance. There were no other comments and Chairman Mink closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: it was noted that there was not a condition requiring a trash receptacle outside the door of this premise as has been the case in all the others reviewed. Commissioner Galligan moved to grant this use permit: on the basis that this was a continuation of an existing use which would be, in'- fact, less intensive that of the previous restaurant. The motion was by resolution and included an additional condition requiring a trash receptacle be placed outside the door and maintained by the business. The conditions approved were: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning De- art:ment and date stamped June 10, 1992, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-2.1, A-3 and July 20, 1992, Sheet A-5 with a total of 42 seats; (2) that the basement cannot be used as a part of the business operation; (3) that this business shall provide and maintain a trash receptacle outside the door at a location approved by the City Engineer; and (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Com. Deal and approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote (Cers. Graham and Jacobs absent). Appeal procedures were advised. W Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes- Page 8 July 27, 1992 j 14. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL PRODUCE STORE AT 360 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUBAREA B1 Reference staff report, 7/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, responses to study questions; requirements for findings. Seven conditions were -suggested. The condition requiring no company trucks be parked on the site overnight was discussed as well as the need for trash receptacles at the door. Chm. Mink opdned the public hearing. Peter Whelan, representing Ray's Produce, noted that they will submit revised plans showing as second exit as required by the fire and building departments; that they do not intend to park trucks overnight at the site, in fact they will chain off the parking area when the business is closed; noted the application represents their best judgment about appropriate hours of operation and they would like to be open from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M., but in the winter will probably close at 7 P.M., the customers will dictate the hours but they will not be open later than 8 P.M.. The staffing is a best guess, but they expect three full time and one part time, so number could be four. He noted that his hours in the Palo Alto store are 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. in the summer and 8 A.M. to 7 P.M. in the winter. They did not anticipate ever opening before 8 A.M.. Com. Ellis moved approval of the special permit by resolution with the amendment to the conditions that plans be submitted showing the second exit required; he found that there had been a grocery store at the location before and there had been no problem and this use was less intensive than that; there was parking on site; that the hours noted were maximum hours and the business could be open fewer; that the maximum number of employees be changed to four; action should.include seven conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 11, 1992, Sheet AO, Site Plan and Sheet Al Floor Plan with the addition of a second exit meeting the requirement of the fire and building codes; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 15, 1992 memo, the Chief Building Official's June 22, 1992 memo, and the Fire Marshal's June 15, 1992 memo shall be met; (3) that the retail produce store shall be open a maximum of 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees on site at any one time; (4) that any delivery or company vehicles shall not be parked on the site overnight; (5) that the applicant shall provide and maintain trash receptacles at the door, on the corner of Primrose and Donnelly Avenue, or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (7) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in nine months (April, 1993) or at any time upon complaint. Motion was seconded by Com. Galligan. The motion was approved 5-0-2 (Cers. Graham and Jacobs absent) on a roll call vote. -,Appeal procedures were advised. j Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 27, 1992 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE OFFICE SPACE AT 1510 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, staff review, responses to *tudy questions, required findings for a use permit. Four conditions were suggested. CP Monroe noted that the Millbrae Avenue improvements should commence in the next year and will take about two years to complete. An error was noted in the total office area to be converted from shop area, 275 SF. It was also noted that the applicant was presently in the process of evicting the tenant using the outdoor storage area and that the existing landscaping equals about 5 percent on the'site. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Frank Turner, Plant Manager representing the applicant commented that he felt they could meet all the conditions. They had served the notice to leave to the tenant on June 11 since they have not paid their rent since February; they have contacted their attorney to pursue the matter further; they are requiring that the tenant remove the illegal fill he placed but if he does not they will correct the problem; he will meet with the City Engineer to resolve the problem in the height on the bank along the flood control channel; presently they have a big shop area 180, by 80' in which a number of conflicting manufacturing activities occur, they need to separate these from one another; customers quality assurance inspectors are offended by the present conditions. He noted that the corporate offices also located in this building have flexible hours between 6 A.M. and 8 P.M., the manufacturing function has fixed hours 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., so traffic impacts are minimal. The addition of this office will not result in any more employees; in fact when the company was denied a larger request for office expansion in this building in the past they relocated 20 employees to their facility in. Woodland. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this is a small addition to accommodate a couple of existing employees and for these reasons it will not impact traffic; concerned about a gradual increase in office at the site from 46 percent to 50.3 percent, could this new proposed area be removed when the tenant leaves; clear that this applicant is following the creeping change in the M-1 district and that this need is for the quality assurance employees and others who do manufacturing a permitted use; inability to expand has caused employees to leave town in the past; it would not be a big problem to remove this office since they propose minimal improvements; improvements to Millbrae Avenue will increase access to this site and mitigate any traffic problems; this property has adequate on site parking where many requesting conversion of warehouse to office do not. Given these findings and the facts in the staef report Com. Galligan moved to approve the special permit to increase office space to 50.3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 27, 1992 percent with the four conditions suggested noting that the new office area would be 275 SF. The conditions are (1) that 275 SF of first floor shop area shall be converted from warehouse to office area with non -load bearing ceilings and another 80 SF of area shall be enclosed without a ceiling; (2) that the property owner and tenant of the outdoor storage/ corporation yard area shall make a complete application to the city for a use permit or that the property owner shall have eviction proceedings initiated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to issuance of the building permit; (3) that the back of the creek on site shall be raised to a height determined by the City Engineer to substantially reduce the possibility of flooding across the site and that the elevation of the area within the drainage easement shall be reduced to the height considered appropriate to the City Engineer; and (4) that the proposed improvements shall be installed in conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.. The motion was seconded by Com. Kelly. The motion was approved by a 5-0-2 roll call vote (Cers. Graham and Jacobs absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE SNACK BAR AT 1718 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, responses to study questions, required findings for a use permit. Seven conditions were suggested,. CP Monroe noted that guests were not considered general public users before. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Robert Icho, the applicant, commented that they are not increasing the snack bar area simply adding cold sandwiches to the menu; there will be a small sign in the window facing the street for the cafe, but no other signage. Daniel Dadoun, the Club manager also spoke noting that the lounge is inside the building, the proposed sign can be seen from the outside. There was no further testimony and the put;lic hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the sign is an issue, the Eating at a health club is not, but the use of the area as a restaurant is a problem; conditions 3 and 4 should be changed to be more flexible, they may serve sandwiches, they may serve the general public, but they shall not serve hot food and shall not publicly advertise or post signage visible to general public off the site. Other commissioners noted: if club members and guests can eat there now, do not need general public; how can we enforce restriction of general public, a condition needs to be enforceable; limited signage will reduce the number of non-members who will eat there. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page it July 27, 1992 Com. Galligan found that this use was reasonable because it was a slight change to what was there originally and moved approval of the special permit with seven conditions modified by adding "may" number 3 and 4 and prohibiting public advertising and signage visible to the general public off site. The conditions are: (1) t)iat the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted'. to the Planning Department and date stamped June 10, 1992 Sheet 1, General Floor Plan and the snack bar use limited to the 960 SF area shown; (2) that the snack bar will be open only the same hours as the club Monday though Friday 5:30 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. and Saturday through Sunday 7:30 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. with a maximum of two employees in the snack bat at one time; (3) that the snack bar may serve deli foods including soft drinks, juice, beer, wine, other liquids, snack foods and sandwiches, however there shall be no hot food prepared or served; (4) that the snack -bar may serve the members of the club and the general public; (5) that the conditions of the approved July 9, 1979; June 26, 1978; and November 21, 1985 special permits shall be met; (6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (7) that the snack bar shall not advertise in publications available to the general public except in the club's newsletter to members and shall not pubicly advertise or post signage visible to the general public; and (8) that the site shall be inspected for conformance with these conditions in one year (August, 1993) or upon complaint. The motion was seconded by Com. Kelly. The motion was approved by a 5-0-2 roll call vote (Cers. Graham and Jacobs absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 17. TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP TO CREATE TWO LOTS AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1625/1635/1649/1657 ROLLINS ROAD,, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/92, with attachments. ACE Monaghan summarized the request, described the changes from the previous map submitted, reviewed the code requirements for recommendation to City Council. There were 9 conditions recommended for consideration at the public hearing. ACE noted that Parcel C on the present map is a different lot than the area designated C on the previous map. Here Parcel C is a lot in a different ownership which will be subject to a lot line adjustment because a structure has been removed and the line is being straightened. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Pearson Forbes, representing Simeon Properties the property owner, commented that the lot line adjustment was really a matter of housecleaning but has the effect of increasing the street frontage for their now lot B from 50 feet to 58 feet. They no longer desire to divide the lot into three parcels since they have the U.S. Postal Service as a tenant and they need the area of the old Parcel A for parking. He noted for #41Je' record that although the city had granted them a.use permit and variance they were still Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 27, 1992 negotiating with the Postal service and if they decided to leave they would return and file the original map. There were no other comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Com. Galligan stated that he had not supported this request when it was 3 lots, but felt that 2 lots were acceptable and moved*to recommend the tentative and final map to the City Council with the 9 recommended conditions: (1) that no site development is approved by approval of this map; (2) that all utilities (for parcels A and B) be installed underground; (3) that any damaged or displaced sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the site will be removed and replaced; (4) that the subdivider shall pay to the city the cost for slurry sealing half the width of Rollins Road fronting this site; (5) that the frontage for Parcel "B" be a minimum of 50 feet with a 20 foot minimum driveway .access to the rear portion of the lot; (6) that a covenant be placed on the final map for creating all the necessary easements shown on the tentative map. This covenant shall be non -rescindable without written consent of the City of Burlingame; (7) that the three abandoned sewer laterals (including the one through 1657 Rollins Road) be plugged at both ends and have the wyes removed at the main; (8) that the conditions of the July 15, 1992 fore Marshall's memo be met; (9) that the existing fire line connection at the end of the 17.3 acre parcel be removed per Burlingame Water Department direction. The motion was seconded by Com. Kelly. The motion to recommend to City Council for approval was approved on a roll call vote (Cers. Graham and Jacobs absent) . FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Minor Modification - 301 Clarendon Road. Called up for review. - Site Review - 1400-1404 Oak Grove Avenue 1204 Broadway - Permit Revocation - 100 California Drive, Special Permit for a Retail Hobby Shop CITY PLANNER REPORTS iscussion of Policv on Detached Nonconformina Residential Second Units: CP Monroe reviewed her memo of 7/27/92 which described the issue of how the nonconforming portion to the zoning code should be interpreted when two old detached residential units exist on a lot and the owners wish to undertake more that maintenance repairs to the larger, primary residence. Staff is requesting guidance on this policy issue. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 27, 1992 Commission discussion: there appears to be three choices: no improvements beyond maintenance without removing one unit; allow expansion of floor area and footprint increase to the primary but not the second unit; allow floor area and/or footprint to both units. A key aspect of this is that some of these units are so• -advanced in age that they need major rehabilitation which exceeds the narrow interpretation of the code; there should be review of major remodels in this situation, but there appears to be a need 'to allow something beyond minor maintenance and repair; policy change should be reviewed by the City Council, if done by ordinance change they would have to act on it. Commission directed the City Attorney and City Planner to develop a change to the ordinance which would define the primary residential structure on such a lot, would establish criteria to be used in this determination, would require a special permit or commission review of expansion of such a unit and would limit improvements to those as defined in the UBC. - Review of a Take-out permit for a Coffee Shop at 1249 Broadway, zoned C-1. CP Monroe reviewed the July 27, 1992 memo which noted the need to clarify that the action on this permit had included take out sales. - Determination on Submittal Requirements for a proiect at 1420 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea As CP Monroe reviewed the staff memo, 7/27/92 with attachments, in which it noted that at study the commission had requested that this applicant prepare a parking and traffic study to address the intensification of use and expansion of floor area proposed by this project in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The applicant submitted a letter stating that they wished to move to hearing before the commission without preparing the study. The commissioners noted that this was a big variance request and the parking and traffic information would serve as another input in that determination. The City Attorney noted that in these proceedings the burden is on the applicant to present evidence. If the evidence is insufficient because of the absence of the traffic and parking study, it is not the City's responsibility. With that point clear, the commission determined that the application could be brought forward without the traffic and parking study. - CP Monroe reviewed the City Council actions at its July 20, 1992 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT j The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 27, 1992 Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary