Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.05.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 1992 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Tuesday, May 26, 1392 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the May 11, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGEND - CP noted Items 3 and 4, negative declaration, condominium permit and tentative condominium map, 812 and 820 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. ITEM FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1148 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: Sheet A-1 shows two steps coming down from the laundry room, there is at least one more step, concern about stairs and other objects interfering with backup from garage space on the right, please verify and correct plans; why are four fluorescent light fixtures needed in the garage; why a sliding door on the side versus a typical man door; height of plates is listed as 8'-2" and slab slopes 8" from front to rear, where are dimensions taken from, want to make sure structure is not getting higher at the rear; does applicant plan on adding to the home in the future, five people live in this two bedroom house, doesn't seem necessary to do the garage first, might be more: important to add to the house first, could alter how one wishes to use development limitations or need for variances later; has applicant been advised about 40% maximum lot coverage, with the garage there will be no space left to add to the house at grade. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1992. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 26, 1992 0; • - • 2. .SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1524 MEADOW LANE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/26/92, with attachments. CP'Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Robert Howard, applicant, was present. He advised'the house is 2,000 SF, they do not have a family room in the house, use of the accessory structure as a recreation room would encourage their 14 year old son to bring his friends home. Mr. Howard presented a petition in support from 19 neighbors. The following members of the audience spoke in favor: Steve Alms, 1534 Meadow Lane; Cindy Haugland, 1529 Meadow Lane; Jean Ann Carroll, 1525 Meadow Lane; a resident to the rear of Mr. Howard. at 1122 Eastmoor Road. Their comments: there was an old structure in the same location for many years, would prefer a sound and safe structure in its place; this will give applicant's son space to entertain his friends; structure will not be in anyone's way and will not be obtrusive; there was a structure at this location built by the original homeowner in the 1950's when the house was built, it was in a state of disrepair when the Howards moved in, have no objection whatsoever, it will be a nice addition to their home and to the neighborhood; it is a good looking structure, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion staff advised applicant must renovate the structure to meet all the requirements of the UBC and UFC as amended by the City of Burlingame and pay all penalty fees required. C. Galligan found there were exceptional circumstances in the size and shape of the lot, it is almost triangular, a side setback of 7' appears to be excessive compared to the setbacks in the rest of the neighborhood with more regular lots, the preexisting structure was closer to property line than this one. Based on these findings C. Galligan moved for approval of the side and rear setback variances and special permit by resolution with the following conditions including a clarification to staff's suggested condition 15: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 30, 1992; (2) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspe.ctor's memo dated April 3, 1992; (3) that plans be submitted to the Building Department and penalty fees paid within 30 calendar days of the effective date of action on this application; (4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (5) that the accessory structure shall not have water or sewer connections, shall not be used as a secondary dwelling unit, and if so Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 26, 1992 used this permit shall become null and void and the structure shall be demolished; and (6) that this use permit and variances shall be reviewed for compliance in one year (May, 1993) and every three years thereafter or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 7-0-koll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT 812 AND 820 EL CAMINO REAL. ZONED R-3 Item continued. 4. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 6, BURLINGAME TERRACE NO. 2, 812 AND 820 EL CAMINO REAL Item continued. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY) AT 1408 CHAPIN AVENUE, 12, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B1 Reference staff report, 5/26/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: tutorial consultants renting space on the second floor of this building, if classes are being held a special permit will be required, staff will investigate and deal with this separately; concern about available on-site parking, there are only five parking spaces to current code for 10 people upstairs plus eight downstairs and vacant downstairs space; property owners within 300 feet of the site were noticed, other tenants of this building were not. Comment: have never had problems parking in this area; CP advised there were times in the past when there was a parking problem, she did not believe there is a problem at this time because of the downtown in retail and office rentals in the area. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Robert Sutter of Fidelity National Title, applicant, was present. He advised this is a small branch of their company with three employees now, they may expand to four, it is their policy to sign papers in their clients' offices; business is referred by real estate agents/brokers, Fidelity's notaries go to their offices; they are located in a small space at the rear of the building, it is hard to find; most of their business comes from clients nearby; he did not believe they would ever have more than eight people in the office at one time, might have three employees plus a husband and wife client but no more;.they have a large office which is in San Mateo of which this is a small branch to serve local clients. He stated he understood the suggested limitations irk number of people on site in condition 12. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 26, 1992 Steve Cohn, property owner, advised the offices for the tutorial consultants are on the second floor, all have full daytime jobs elsewhere, on week nights they work with children with learning disabilities, do not come in before 4:00 P.M. Speaking to a Commissioner's concern about tandem parking which has been used on this site in the past and might easily be abused in the future, especially if the other tenants were not aware of this application, he said they have no designated parking spaces on the property, it is suggested that people park in the library garage; the title company has been operating at this site since April 1, 1992. Mr. Cohn was aware that real estate uses needed a special permit but did not know a financial institution would need one; he asked the applicant to go to the Planning Department and discuss the use. Mr. Sutter commented on obtaining a business license and then hearing from the city that he needed a special permit for the use. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. The Chair referred to staff report statements that the "existing office building is nonconforming in parking" and "this is not an intensification of use" so the "real estate use does not require a parking variance" as well as CE's comments on the "new use"; Chm. Mink wished to make it clear this is an existing use and is exempt from parking requirements. Commission discussion/comment: concern about tenants of this building not receiving notices and therefore not having an opportunity to express their views about the impacts of this tenant at this meeting; do not want to penalize this applicant because tenants were not notified, they have been operating there since April 1 and no complaints have been received which must indicate they are getting along; some uses could go in without concerns about: parking but with title companies there can be problems, people often ;park illegally for a quick stop and.stay longer than anticipated; for the most part there is no one in the building except employees, this seems to be a less intense use than other commercial establishments. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and amendment of condition 12 to read "eight people" rather than "four employees and four clients". Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: conditions include review in one year and upon complaint, this should alleviate some of the parking concerns; have no problem with this use but have a concern with the tutorial uses on the second floor, if any of these need use permits staff should follow up. Commission discussed at length the wording of condition 12 which includes number of people/ employees allowed on site and concerns about parking. Staff was directed to advise all tenants of the building about Commission's action this evening, a letter will be delivered Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 26, 1992 tomorrow describing the project and the appeal procedures, this will leave.time for an appeal to Council. C. Galligan amended his modified condition 02 to state " no more than four employees and no more than eight people on site at any one time"; this was accepted by the seconder. Conditions follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 10, 1992 Sheets Al and A3; (2) that the title insurance company shall operate Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. with no more than four employees and no more than eight people on site at any one time; (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that the project shall be reviewed for compliance in one year (June, 1993) or upon complaint. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT FOR A BAKERY AND DELICATESSEN AT 327-329 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA Bl Reference staff report, 5/26/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. There was some Commission/staff discussion regarding condition 15 and monitoring and collecting excess trash or debris in the area; it was noted the laundromat next door generates a considerable amount of trash and Commission did not feel this applicant should be responsible for collecting other's trash. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Dennis Berkowitz, applicant and owner of Max's Restaurant group, was present. He stated he would make better use of this site than has been done in the past; they will be adding a bakery with a deli take-out bar, no liquor,; this bakery will supply all the Max's restaurants in the area; with the bakery he can make this site profitable as a restaurant; trucks carrying bakery goods will have to be in the city by 9:00 A.M. He will do some interior remodeling, needs more venting, etc., the plans; referred to in condition 11 do not show this; he had no problem with conditions 2 and 3, would like to eliminate condition 15 because his take-out business will not litter the street, baked goods will be taken home, sandwiches/salads will be.s elf -service; he cannot use the name Max's for this business. He was told if employees increase he could come back to the Commission to expand his use permit. Trucks are van type vehicles, not large semis, they have to be able to go to locations in San Francisco; generally they start baking early in the morning, it's possible they might bake all night sometime in the future. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 26, 1992 Commission/discussion comment: am happy to see something being done with this site, it has been an eyesore, but am concerned about condition 15 requiring the restaurant to clear the area of trash, monitoring and collecting debris for 100 yards is too far, he would have to go across California Drive and all the way to the library parking lot, think something less than 100 yards is appropriate. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit for take-out with the conditions in the staff report and amendment of condition 15 to state that trash be monitored and collected within the parameters of this establishment, between the boundaries of the property. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Commission discussed condition 15 and trash collection/monitoring: Burger King polices the whole side of the street on Burlingame Avenue, this establishment would be more like Copenhagen bakery; there appeared to be consensus to limit trash monitoring and collection by this restaurant to the boundary lines of its property. Conditions of the motion follow: (1) that the project: shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 8, 1992 Sheet 1, General Floor Plan or as modified and accepted by staff; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's May 11, 1992 memo shall be met; (3) that the restaurant shall be open for take-out service 7:OO A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of 25 employees at any one time; (4) that the restaurant shall provide and maintain trash receptacles at the door, on the corners of Lorton and Donnelly Avenue, and at the border of the property adjacent to the existing laundromat at 333 Lorton Avenue, or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (5) that the restaurant shall monitor and collect its excess trash or debris within the boundaries of the property along all public rights-of-way; and (6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Gal.ligan dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were.no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Hillside Area Construction Permit - 2807 Hillside Drive - Minor Modification - 716 Bayswater Avenue (this item was called up for full review by C. Deal) - Hillside Area Construction Permit - 1811 Sebastian Drive Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 26, 1992 - Site review, special permit, retail automotive restoration business, 1295 Rollins Road - Site review, special permit, eating establishment, 1205 Howard Avenue '•� CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its May 18, 1992 regular meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary