Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.02.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, February 24, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the February 10, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1150 PALOMA AVENUE/1249 BROADWAY Requests: reason for the wall sign on the Paloma side. Item set for public hearing March 9, 1992. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT - FINANCIAL INSTITUTION -1229 BURLINGAME AVENUE Requests: is this business currently in operation, if so how long has it been in operation; determination from the Fire Department if there is sufficient exiting from the second floor; since all brokers must be licensed real estate agents why is this brokerage business determined to be a financial institution. Item set for public hearing March 9, 1992. 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE - LIVE COMEDY THEATER - 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Requests: are there nearby residences and/or second floor apartments which might be impacted by noise, show them; is exit corridor on the first floor for emergency only or will patrons and others use for access to Hatch Lane; will the rear door or windows be opened in warm weather; what period of time was studied for the traffic report, would like a comparison of these numbers with the peak parking season of the year; how will excess mezzanine space be used, purpose and use of the Green Room; does applicant propose any other type of entertainment, what type of theater is planned for this building; family entertainment for adults 21 years and over is proposed, why are they excluding family Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 24, 1992 under 21; do applicants have an existing operation of this type anywhere else, if so where and what kind of operation, what experience has that -jurisdiction had with the business, parking, noise, etc.; parking regulations and charges for the parking logs in front and next to the train station; where did the traffic study get the .figure of 1.75 persons per vehicle for employees; what was prior -use of the site, will the proposed use be intensification of parking needs or less; staff review says there will be nine employees, negative declaration mentions 20, clarify this; how many on -street parking spaces will the suggested 50' passenger loading zone in front of the theater take. There was a request that business operators within the block as well as property owners be noticed of the public hearing; following discussion it was suggested staff post a visible notice on the site and a notice be mailed to all businesses in the 200 block of California Drive. CA pointed out if this use is approved by the Commission, applicant still needs to have another public hearing and to receive an entertainment permit from the City Council, entertainment permits are reviewed annually. Item set for public hearing March 9, 1992 if responses to all requests are received in time to prepare the staff report. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2101 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/24/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, statements in the application, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff responded to questions: the metal shed at the rear of the garage was counted in the lot coverage figure of 41.6%, it: is 2-1/2' x 16-1/21; the interior side setback is 41; regarding condition 12, if applicants are granted 41.6% lot coverage, any second story addition in the future would be subject to second floor zoning requirements at that time. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Rick Jeffery, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: interior side setback is 3'-6" existing, they are proposing 41, would prefer to maintain the current building line 3'-611; regarding the variance for lot coverage, they are keeping existing 5' and 4' side setbacks for the new addition since they want to meet code as much as possible, this will bring lot coverage to 41.6% rather than.42%; they are at a disadvantage because this is a corner lot with 7'-6" required side setback; a half bath exists in the space they want to expand, there is at cutout area which they will fill with a shower and extend the space to meet the 4' setback requirement; they would like to have a straight wall on the Vancouver side, would like to match that line in the back but cannot do Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 24, 1992 so and meet code; the metal structure at the rear of the garage has a cement floor and just a tin roof. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal had no problem with the setback variance and found if this were only a minor modification applicants could follow the existing setbacks, it would have been granted with a minor :modification if it weren't for the lot coverage variance; he would consider the metal structure a temporary structure, there is an above grade porch which counts in lot coverage but is actually outdoor space:, not living area; the area of the metal structure and porch together i:; comparable to the 93 SF of lot coverage over 40%. C. Deal moved for approval of the side setback and lot coverage variances 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 January 15, 1992 Sheets A-1 through A-4; (2) that any second story addition in the future shall be required to meet the zoning code requirements in effect at that time; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis with the comment that this lot is 45' wide, somewhat smaller than the normal lot in the city; he had no problem with the side setback variance because it would be approved as a minor modification and it is on the street side so does not encroach onto other properties, excess lot coverage is a relatively small amount and will be less if and when the temporary shed is removed. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING BATHROOM IN A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1321 GROVE AVENUE", ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/24/92, with attachmbnts. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request staff review, statements in the application, study meeting questions, required findings. Letter (received 2/24/92) protesting the application was noted from Victor Tan, attorney representing anonymous clients. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A state licensed residential care facility for the elderly operates on the site, staff advised six elderly residents are permitted by state law even in R-1 districts. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Natividad Roman, property owner, was present. She requested that a bathroom in the garage be allowed, it is needed for their residents when they are in the back yard, otherwise they must go up the stairs into the house to use a bathroom, the garage is at grade; there are two bathrooms in the house, one for women and one for men. She advised the caretakers sleep upstairs in the house, no one sleeps in the garage; at the time the police returned Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 24, 1992 a resident who had wandered off they found her husband wearing pajamas while sorting and storing food in the garage but he does not sleep there; the staff room is where they sleep, linens are stored in the storage room. They are requesting a shower in the garage for the caretakers' use instead of using the bathrooms in the house; their cars are parked in the garage, none of the residents have automobiles. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Claude McRoskey, 1419 Capuchin Avenue: his concern was that the garage might become an additional rental/living unit; in his block there are two illegal apartments now (1410 and 1412 Capuchino) and a duplex at 1418 Capuchino; he did not want this type of development to increase in the neighborhood, was concerned about parking and asked what controls there were; he noted it is easy to add a stove and a bed to a garage. The Chair pointed out that if this use were approved one of the conditions would be that the garage never be used for living quarters and the project will be reviewed for compliance. Mr. McRoskey commented that when owners of the duplex are notified of an inspection the stove, etc. is removed and then replaced after the inspection. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs stated she had gone over the plans with the applicant and made a site inspection, there were only six elderly residents, she had no problem allowing the request for a toilet in the garage but thought all other fixtures should be removed, the integrity of the neighborhood demands this, two bathrooms in the house are enough for six people. Commission/staff discussed what should be left in the garage, removed or relocated; closing off the toilet and lavatory sink; should penalty fees be required for the retroactive building permit; deletion of suggested condition 12 which referred to staff requirements should living quarters in the garage be allowed; addition of a condition requiring removal of all plumbing in the garage when this use is ended. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the application 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 January 28, 1992 except that the shower shall be removed, the toilet shall be retained and relocated to the shower area, the lavatory sink shall be retained, the toilet and sink shall be enclosed within the smallest area that meets Uniform Building Code requirements and the utility sink located within the parking area shall be removed; (2) that a retroactive building permit for the toilet and lavatory sink in the garage (the utility sink shall be removed to maintain the 10' x 20' parking stall), with penalty fees, shall be obtained and any construction required to bring the garage up to all codes shall be completed within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this application; (3) that the unobstructed 10' x 20' parking space be provided in the garage and the garage shall never be used for living or sleeping purposes without an amendment to this special permit; (4).that Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 24, 1992 the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (5) that all plumbing shall be removed from the garage when the residential care use is ended; and (6) that the project shall be reviewed for compliance in two months (May, 1992) and each year by the Fire Department thereafter so long as the site is used as a care facility for the elderly, and/or -upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Commission comment: concerned about the potential of a living unit in the garage but review in two months and every year thereafter will ensure compliance; this type of use is needed in the city. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Minor Modification - 1612 McDonald Way, zoned R-1 Hillside Area Construction Permit - 2517 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1 PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions and discussion at its February 19, 1992 regular meeting and February 12, 1992 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary