Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1994.04.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1994 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, April 11, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan (7:32 P.M.), Jacobs, Kelly and Mink Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 28, 1994 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. (Commissioner Galligan arrived at this time.) ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO RETAIN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USES AT 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 (ALLEN AND ANN MENICUCCI. PROPERTY OWNERS AND ALLEN MENICUCCI. APPLICANTI. Reference staff report, 4/11/94, with attachments. CP ]Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Mr. Menicucci was present to answer any questions and asked that there be no time limitation on this request. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. 7. Kelly noted that for the reasons cited in the previous review these zpecial permits and variance will not have an impact on the area, he then moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1994 conditions; 1) that the structure size and floor plan shall continue to be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 2, 1994 and April 27, 1989; 2) that the accessory structure shall be used as an exercise/therapy room only and shall never be used for living purposes; 3 ) that this use in this structure shall cease and the bathroom portion shall be completely removed in five years (April 1999) or a new application shall be made before this permit expires to retain this use; and 4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Graham absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE AT 816 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (.,ROBERT ISOLA. PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 4/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. There was clarification of the actual configuration noting that the "basement" so designated in the old assessor's records was in fact a first floor, slab on grade and the room over it a second story. Four :onditions were suggested for consideration. There was discussion by the commission about the existing 792 square foot non conforming area. Also, the two cars stored in the driveway are not operable and inhibit access to the garage. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Robert Isola, 816 Paloma Avenue asked for an explanation about the method used to compute the lot coverage. He commented that his neighbors felt the adjustments are certainly an improvement to the original building. Frank Hegeny, 814 Paloma Avenue and Andrew Gettus, 820 Paloma Avenue, both spoke in favor of the project and the certainty that the use is consistent with past practice. It was made clear that this renovation is an improvement and the original building was an "eyesore". There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. There was discussion about the sewer lateral test. The City Engineer stated that two things happen with the sale of a house, one is a passing test, the other is a total replacement. In either event the Public Works Department only inspects the exterior, make no determination and keep no record of when the 1•ine was placed on private property. The City Attorney raised an evidentiary question as this item was not advertised as sleeping quarter use and a bathroom was not shown It was noted that these items were part of the non conforming use and as such could continue if not expanded or replaced. There was a short discussion of the draft housing element now under consideration and the point that -2- 9urlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1994 this 1940's unit might well be one that would be considered under the suggested amnesty program. The gist of such a program would be if a second unit could be identified and proven to be of a certain vintage, yet to be determined by ordinance, and could meet particular safe and sanitary standards, it would be recognized as a rentable nonconforming second unit. Until inspected, it is unknown if this structure meets those standards. There are two standards for inspection, one is the Uniform Building Code and the other is the Housing Code. When a the focus of program is to try make old units safe and sanitary inspection is based on the Housing Code which is a lesser standard. This building might meet that standard where it would not meet the Uniform Building Code standard. While the visual aspect is not compelling, the testimony seemed to verify a preexisting condition that has continued for a very long period of time, apparently in excess of 30 years, both as it relates to the residential use upstairs, as well as a shed use in the back of the structure. C. Galligan noted that for the reasons cited before, this special permit will not have an impact on the area and is essentially a betterment to what was there previously, noting that a specific date should be set for the removal of the stored vehicles and that the property has enough accessory structures and the action should state specifically that it is an existing nonconforming sleeping area, no kitchen, no cooking facilities should be allowed. He then moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following added and amended conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 1, 1994 General Site Plan and the existing building, as a nonconforming structure, shall retain its present envelope and eaves; 2) that all inoperable vehicles shall be removed from the driveway by May 1, 1994 and the driveway shall not be used for auto repair in the future; 3) that all conditions of the City Engineer's March 7, 1994 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 7, 1994 memo and the Chief Building inspector's March 9, 1994 memo shall be met; 4) that the uses in the structure shall be parking in the garage with a minimum 9 foot clear width, storage in the first floor room behind the garage, sleeping in the second floor room behind the garage, and storage in the shed and that at no time shall a kitchen be added to any portion of the existing structure or shed addition so that it can be used as a dwelling unit; 5) that the property owner shall request an inspection of the structures by the Building Department, such inspection shall be based on standards in the Housing Code, and the property owner shall be required to make any corrections necessary to insure that the existing structure and shed addition meet all the requirements of the Housing Code, building permits shall be obtained for all required work and proper inspections called for and completed; 6) that the Building Department shall inspect the bathroom and determine if the toilet and shower were installed prior to 1950; if they were installed prior to 1950 the bathroom shall be retained and improved to meet the safety and sanitary requirements of the Housing Code for the benefit of the sleeping room otherwise the bathroom shall be removed as a part of making the structure -3- 73urlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1994 comply with the safe and sanitary requirements of the Housing codes; and 7) that so long as the nonconforming garage with the two story addition at the rear with the new shed addition continues to exist on this site, the property owner shall be prohibited from adding any more detached or attached accessory structures anywhere on the lot. 'Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Graham absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Reference was again made to the draft Housing Element and the possibility that the amnesty program could very well include this second unit. 3. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE AND IMPROVEMENTS AT 733 FARRINGDON LANE, ZONED R-1 (JIHAD CHEDID, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 4/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Ten conditions were recommended for consideration. Communications received after preparation of the staff report as well as a letter from the property owner were read into the record. The letter from Audrey Morgan, a real estate broker involved in the sale of the property totes the home was listed as a 2 bedroom, 2 bath home with a 2 car tandem detached garage. The commissioners discussed the ability to regulate the amount of chemicals on site. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Jihad Chedid, 733 Farringdon Lane, described the circumstances leading up to the cosmetic reconstruction of this structure. There were many questions regarding the disclosure of the use of the structure at the time of purchase and the real estate disclosure. The old electrical structures that have been replaced are still in his yard, visible if anyone cares to check the prior existence of these fixtures. Mr. Chedid confirmed the kitchen has been removed. Rahad Chedid, brother of the applicant, residing at the same address, informed the commission that his observations, in working with his brother, were that the items existed in the room, however were not in a usable condition, the plumbing was leaking through the walls and the electrical wires were loose and an extreme hazard. They fixed things themselves and enhanced the property. Steve Warden, 736 Acacia an, commission regarding the views to potential fire hazard and neighborhood. Robert Booth, property while it was waiting c the same time as the house wi above the garage was limited tc be used as living quarters. I Howard Bush, 732 Acacia spoke to the from their yards (rear) and the objections industrial product use in a residential 728 Farringdon Lane and caretaker of the ne year to be sold. The garage was built at th the stipulation that the upstairs room a ceiling height of 6' so that it could not Che back of this room was the back of the -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1994 garage and there were no gas or water lines coming inside the structure. A tool shed was later added at the rear of the garage by a previous owner. Bernice Rosekrans, 702 Farringdon Lane informed the commission she painted the garage door when the previous owners installed it with a garage door opener and there was no wall, just a garage with exposed studs. Ron Biggs, 761 Farringdon Lane expressed an opinion that this type of business that uses chemicals is not appropriate in a R-1 zone. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted that for the reasons indicated this variance and the special permits would have an adverse impact on the area, she then moved to deny this application with the exception of the skylights and sliding glass door which will have no real effect on the neighbors or storage use and should be considered separately. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and the denial was approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Graham absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Mink then noted that for the reasons discussed previously the portion of the application for a special permit for a skylight and sliding glass door will not have an impact on the area; he then moved to approve this use permit, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that all interior walls shall be removed and the parking area restored to its original tandem configuration of 14' by 34' and all plumbing shall be removed and capped: all drains shall be plugged with cement or similar material; 2) that all improvements noted in the Chief Building Inspector's memos of February 28, 1994 and November 22, 1993 shall be met in order to restore the structure to a safe condition; 3) that retroactive building permits be obtained for the retention of the skylights and sliding glass door and that the installation be properly inspected by the building department; 4) that the structure shall not be used for a home occupation without Planning Commission review and issuance of the.appropriate use permit; 5) that the accessory structure shall never be converted to a secondary living unit and shall never contain any toilet or bathing facilities or cooking element or kitchen; and 6) that the nonconforming structure shall be allowed to remain subject to abiding with all the requirements of the zoning code regarding nonconforming structures. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly approved on a 5-1-1 (C. Galligan dissenting and C. Graham absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 10:05 P.M. and reconvened at 10:15 P.M. -5- zurlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1994 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 1327 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (FLORENCE QUILICI, PROPERTY OWNER AND GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 4/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. The applicant was not present. C. Kelly noted that for reasons cited in the staff report this satellite dish antenna at its new location in the center of the roof will not have an impact on the area, he then moved to approve the application with the following conditions; 1) that the satellite dish antenna shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 10, 1994, General Roof Plan; 2) that the conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 14, 1994 shall be met: (that installation of this satellite dish required a separate application to the Building Department, with proper plans and calculations, as required for a Building Permit); 3) that the dish antenna installed shall not have a iiameter greater than 10'-011, nor rise more than 9'-0" above the surface of the roof and shall be painted with a non -reflective paint to match the roof; 4) that the applicant or property owner shall be responsible for an amendment to this use permit if future construction on any adjacent property requires relocation of the dish antenna, removal and reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant and/of property owner; 5) that the applicant shall permanently maintain the non -reflective surface of the dish and its support structure, or remove all of the equipment and support structure; 6) that the installed satellite dish antenna shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the city, including connections from the antenna inside the building to the television equipment; 7) that the satellite dish antenna shall be removed at the time this tenant leaves this premiss and if the new tenant wishes to install any type of antenna the new tenant shall comply with all the code requirements in effect'at that time; 8) that the current antenna shall be removed from its proposed location within 30 days of the approval date of this application; and 9) that any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Graham absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. qurlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1994 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE SIZE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AT 330 PRIMROSE ROAD, #610 AND 1611, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUBAREA A (EDWARD A. KEITH, PROPERTY OWNER AND ROBERT H. O'CONNOR, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 4/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The applicant was not present. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that for the reasons cited in the previous review and the lower density at this particular office use, this special permit amendment to extend the office space of this tenant will not have an impact on the area, he then moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the loan brokerage business shall be limited to 1,705 SF in Suites #610 and #611, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 10, 1994; 2) that the loan brokerage business will be open 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with a maximum of ten employees at any one time; 3) that any changes i.n operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceed the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 4) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance in six months (October, 1994) or upon complaint; and 5) 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 seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Graham absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER'S REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council actions/discussion at its April 4, 1994 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT MIN4.11 The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. -7- Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary