Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.09.26MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Tuesday, September 26, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Key, Mink and Wellford Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner; Margaret Monroe, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, and Fire Marshall; Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the August 14, 1995 and September 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was amended to continue Item #12, 150 Anza Boulevard, Zoned C-4, to the October 10, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A TWO STORY DETACHED GARAGE WITH RECREATION ROOM AND TOILET AT 1520 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (KEVIN AND JENNIFER HELMIG, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS AND JAMES D. VALENTI, DESIGNER). Requests: why do they need both a recreation room and a family room; provide rationale showing the need for a higher plate line than allowed; will the front porch and the roof of the main house be repaired; will damaged shingles on face of house be replaced; applicant should find examples of other garages in vicinity with 20' - 22' height; large dog on site, please arrange for time for site visit; Item set for public hearing October 10 1995. 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A CHURCH AT 2828 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (NORTH BURLINGAME CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES, PROPERTY OWNER AND PAUL K. YAMAGUCHI, APPLICANTI. .equests: applicant has revised window placement eliminating the need for sprinklers, show which windows; place frame on existing patio roof to show outline of new roof ridges; has applicant discussed proposal with neighbors; number of employees on-site; who supervises maintenance; what is causing the volume of parking on ;urlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 Trousdale on Thursday night, how many attend, why don't they park in the church lot; how many people attend; Item set for public hearing October 10, 1995. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES INCIDENTAL TO RETAIL USE AT 1354 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A (THOMAS AND DIANE AYOOB, PROPERTY OWNERS AND CAROL HORN-DAVIS OF GYMBOREE CORPORATION, APPLICANT). Requests: classes are not retail, why then does this use not need a parking variance; number of people at special parties; answer staff questions in report; schedule included shows proposed play class scheduled 9:00 a. m. to 1:00 pm.; traffic study shows parking difficult between 10:00 am - 3:00 p.m., will there be classes between 12:00 Noon and 2:00 p.m.; number of retail employees; do they have a periods during the year when classes are not offered; 3 locations (San Mateo, Hillsdale and Redwood City) list experience at those sites, i.e., parking, congestion, traffic; why is the 14' wide space not marked handicapped; how many sites with classes currently in Subarea A; would they consider 15 minutes between classes rather than 5 minutes; If all information can be brought forward, item set for public hearing October 10, 1995. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUS PERMITS AT 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B-1 (DAY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER AND RANDALL DELUE, APPLICANT). Requests: financial reasons not applicable for findings; what solution is planned to abate the noise; list sequence/timeframe of first application for Donnelly Square, Ecco Restaurant and the space currently occupied by Il Fornaio; number of contract personnel and/or leased space; actual number of classes now at this site, number of people; list all classes offered, times and length of classes, here and off-site; time/length/days and locations of all classes; length of lease and terms of any sub tenants; are there any male instructors, if so, how are bathrooms handled; should get another air condition bid; how will noise be addressed; If all information is available the item will be set for public hearing October 10, 1995. It was stipulated that until this matter is resolved the applicant is to operate under the conditions of the current Use Permit. 5. PARKING VARIANCE AT 1215 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PARKING AREA IN THE R-3 ZONE AT 1109 RHINETTE AVENUE (DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER AND ARDIS JEROME OF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES. APPLICANT). Requests: will there be any changes to the appearance, roof line or elevation; how will 11 spaces be identified for shoppers to use; where will employees park; do they plan to update the existing cyclone fence; will the trailer at back be manned; does this use permit for off-site parking eliminate the need for an 11 space variance; is site clean of contamination; how do trainees get to work, where do they park; how will large truck maneuver on Rhinette and at California/Rhinette intersection then turn left. Item set for public hearing October 10, 1995. 519 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CANNING OPERATION AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AT 1333 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (STEVE REEDY AND GROVE HOOVER, PROPERTY OWNERS AND STEVE REEDY, APPLICANT). Requests: what is city's definition of canning operation; what other agencies might be involved because of the use, and what are their applicable regulations; what are the health and safety issues; at site inspection Rollins Road frontage is full of storage, how will parking be accomplished; who is responsible for trash against the south fence between this property and next property; what use was at this site before, how did parking work for them; CBO's comments regarding handicapped spaces, what does code require; Item set for public hearing October 10, 1995. ACTION ITEMS 7. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE AND OFFICE WITH A TOILET AND SHOWER) AT 400 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (TERRY EARLYWINE, PROPERTY OWNER AND TERRY EARLYWINE AND DON SNIDER, APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 9/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and noticing requirements. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. A communication from Nina Leinenweber, in opposition, was read into the record. hm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Don Snider, designer, and the property owners were present. Mr. Snider explained the project asking that they be allowed to replace the improperly sited garage structure built in 1930's, with permits. Commissioners clarified that existing tandem garage attached to house within 2' of property line would be converted, in future, to living space; related issue is that dwelling unit living area would then extend to 2' of property line when required side setback is greater; would this increase bedroom count to require two covered parking spaces (one being requested). Applicant noted maximum bedrooms would be 4 with conversion requiring one covered and one uncovered space. Applicant noted project with relocation of garage would result in providing one covered and one uncovered in drive where now have one covered and no uncovered off-street parking. Discussed utility convenience and access to bath in detached structure; if add to house would reduce exposure of dwelling to rear yard area. Applicant did not want distraction of working within house. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: issue not one car garage, site would meet covered and uncovered requirement where it does not now; if accessory structure were not being used as office and had no shower or toilet to be used as storage could build without special permit; see convenience of toilet and sink do not see need for shower in an office, concern about next owners use and possible dwelling unit; understand desirability of detached office but do not like to see proliferation of this use in R-1 zone; current tandem garage could be converted to two bedrooms increasing total to 4; would prefer new garage to provide 2 covered parking spaces which is consistent with city policy to encourage more off-street parking with new construction; have held to this standard with others, should here; does this detached office count as bedroom for parking calculations; current garage 27' or 28' long, only really accommodate one car. -3- ';urlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 C. Deal noted there are many 2 bedroom houses in the area with single car garages and uncovered parking that are not a problem, he then moved approval of the application without the shower in the detached accessory structure, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 4, 1995 sheet 1 Site Plan and Elevations with a maximum size of 255 SF for the office portion of the structure, except that there shall be no shower in the detached structure and there shall never be a kitchen area or cooking unit in the accessory structure; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's August 7, 1995 memo (the minimum waste line size from the bathroom in the office shall be 3", and a sewer lateral test shall be required per City ordinance); 3) that the 543 SF accessory structure shall be used for vehicle storage (288 SF) and as an office (255 SF) only, and shall not be expanded without another special permit, any change in use or facilities other than vehicle storage or office shall require application to the Planning Commission for a special permit; 4) that the detached garage with office, toilet and sink shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit; 5) that there shall be no encroachment of any structures, equipment, or appliances into the 10' X 20' required vehicle parking area; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and passed on a 5-2 (C. Galligan and Wellford dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Tt was noted that if there is another addition on this site it will need 2 covered spaces and this property could apport 2 covered spaces. The two foot side setback was also felt to be perpetuated by this action and is inconsistent with city policy standards. 8. VARIANCE FOR BACKING OUT ONTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 15 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4 (ALEX NOVELL, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Julie Erreca, P. O. Box H-2, Felton, the designer representing Mr. Novell, was present and asked that the item be continued to study at the October 10, 1995 meeting so that they could present a revised project with a different code exception. The commission discussed the length of time this code enforcement issue has been before the city, the safety issues present on the site including exposed wiring, debris, lack of progress and the reality that this unit needs to be abated or replaced. C. Jacobs moved the commission continue this item to the October 10, 1995 meeting as an action item. The motion died for lack of a second. C. Deal moved to hear this item as advertised and agendized. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and passed on a 4-3 (C. Galligan, Key and Jacobs dissenting) roll call vote. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 Reference staff report, 9/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and noticing requirements. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Julie Erreca, the designer representing Mr. Novell, was present to answer the commissions questions. Ms. Erreca asked that they be allowed to reconfigure the parking allowing a 3 point turn to exit in the forward direction. They want to bring this property up to UCB and UFC codes. She noted that they would remove the fiberglass patio cover installed without building permit; she noted zoning required two parking spaces for the fourth unit but only one had to be covered; Commission pointed out given present on-site parking use and nonconforming parking issues (3 units with one substandard stall each) the site clearly has less parking now than it should; plans do not represent presently useable driveway width, encumbered by utility box and refuse; should meet minimum city standard for width; why has property owner ignored the city? Alex Novell, property owner spoke, he noted the tenant was responsible for the debris and that tenant was to be evicted tomorrow; after tenant's departure he would begin to fix the problems on-site; he noted if no kitchen it was not a unit, he could lease area as part of third unit; problem if person leaving unit 3 into the driveway and not being seen by a backing car was discussed; asked why removed unit about 2 years ago as a part of code enforcement and subsequently reinstalled; applicant did not answer question; appears additional parking cannot be safely added because of the limited space and size of lot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that with the alternative addressing the back up only one parking space could be provided where wo are needed, access to the existing parking is difficult, egress consistent with needs of property have not been addressed, plus the fact and reasons noted in the previous discussion and staff report support a motion for denial with the directions that the property owner shall return the number of residential units on-site to three within 15 days and shall correct and have inspected and finalled all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code violations on the site within 60 days. The motion was amended with the provisions that the fiberglass roofed structure, built without permits at the rear of the property, shall also be removed within 60 days. The maker of the motion and the second accepted the amendment. The commissioners voted 7-0, roll call vote, to approve the motion to deny with accompanying directions. Appeal rights were reviewed by the Chairman. The Commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE (ATM) AT 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B (WEIMAN SYNDICATE, PROPERTY OWNER AND LUCKY STORES, INC.. APPLICANT), Reference staff report, 9/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and noticing requirements. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 Commissioners noted that the hours of operation of Lucky had varied over the years from 24 hours to present. ATM should be available to customers when store is open; directional signage to ATM should be available to customers when store is open; directional signage to ATM inside the store is not subject to city regulations, need sign permit if signage added outside. C. Mink moved approval of the ATM, by resolution, with a modification to condition #3, allowing ATM to be available when store is open, with the following conditions: 1) that the ATM project shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 10, 1995, Grocery Store Floor Plan (11" X 17"), Grocery Store Plot Plan (11" X 17"), Front Elevation of ATM (81WX 11"), Left and Right Elevation of ATM (81/2"X 11"). and Plan view of ATM (81/2"X 11"); 2) that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo dated August 21, 1995 (provide disabled access and use of the ATM) shall be met; 3) that the ATM shall be available during the days and hours the grocery store is open and shall be located inside the store at the front entrance; 4) that any exterior signs for the ATM shall require separate application for a sign permit and possible sign exception; 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. Key and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF SNACK FOODS AND BEVERAGES AT AN EXISTING GAS STATION/CAR WASH AT 177 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D (PETER LEE, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 9/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and noticing requirements. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. Lopez, 2395 So. Bascom, Campbell, was present representing the applicant. There will be no changes other than to add the snack area, the waiting area will remain the same. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Key moved approval of this special permit application, by resolution, with an addition to condition # 2 denying the sale of alcoholic beverages. The amended conditions are as follows: 1) that the tenant improvements for the snack shop shall be installed as shown on the plans date stamped August 24, 1995, Site Plan and Floor Plan; 2) that no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the site or the snack area; 3) that the hours of operation shall be from 7:00 AM to Midnight seven days per week and there shall be 5 full time and 2 part time employees; 4) that the property owner shall be responsible for policing the site and adjacent sidewalks for litter and that adequate trash receptacles shall be placed inside the building and around the site for use by the customers; 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. Deal and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES/TUTORING AT 1860 EL CAMINO REAL #308, ZONED C-1 MARCO CHAVEZ, PROPERTY OWNER AND JOHN C. LUONG, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 9/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and noticing requirements. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. Luong, 30 Chatwick Court, Millbrae, the applicant, was present to present his project to the commission. He purchased this business in 1994 and does not know what occurred before. His business does not have a big impact on the area since he has few students at a time. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner noted that in the past he had a child who attended this program, the number of participants at one time was small, he had no problem for drop off and pick up, the use appears to be low intensity and a community service. C. Galligan moved approval of this special permit, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the business shall occupy 600 GSF in Suite #308, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning department and date stamped August 14, 1995, Third Floor Plan (8'/i" X 11") and Site Plan and Parking Plan (8'/z" X 14"); 2) that the business shall be open 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with some occasional weekday, evening classes from 5:00 p. m. to 7:00 p. m., with a maximum of three employees including the proprietor, on site, at any one time; 3) that there will be no more than two (2) teachers and eight(8) students at any one time and that an amendment to this special permit shall be necessary if any change in the number of students, number of teachers, size of area occupied, or any other expansion occurs; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall receive a retroactive building permit and 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. Ellis and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 (SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HOMETEL LTD., PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) . CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 109 1995 MEETING PERMIT EXTENSION 13. SPECIAL PERMIT EXTENSION FOR SNACK BAR AT 601 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 SUBAREA B (ROGER AND BETH SPERRING TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND LON DAVIS, APPLICANT, Reference staff report, 9/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and noticing requirements. Three conditions, incorporating the conditions from the September 19, 1994 approval, were suggested for consideration. -7- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 -ommission asked about the number of cars on site and parked on California in front of neighboring properties. Noted they present a problem; applicant said remodel of site will resolve this problem. C. Ellis moved approval of this permit extension request with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall meet all the conditions of approval from the September 19, 1994 approval as stated in the September 20, 1994 letter to Roger and Beth Sperring from M. Monroe (Conditions #1 through #7); 2) that the project shall meet all current Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the date of the Special Permit extension; and 3) that the project shall receive a building permit before September 19, 1996. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council regular meeting of September 18, 1995 - CP discussed Commissions preferences on the method of procedure for the review of the Draft M-1 District Regulations. Commission discussed and directed staff; 1) to review ordinance a section at a time; 2) to agendize review of sections of proposed M-1 revisions at the end of regular Planning Commission meetings when the agenda is short; 3) ask committee to organize a tour including each type of land use/structure to familiarize the committee with the existing conditions in the area; 4) set aside some separate time on a Saturday for the Commission to discuss the revised regulations; 5) Procedure: Use the Committee members as a resource to answer specific questions during PC discussions and invite them to comment if they wish on topics discussed by PC at the end of each meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary MINUTES9.26