Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.02.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 1997 Special Study Session - 6:00 P.M. Conference Room A A special study session of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Key on February 24, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Vice -Chairperson Key called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked City Planner to review the Council's charge and their study of neighborhood compatibility to date. Commissioners had asked three questions at their previous meeting and began their work by focusing on the first of these: why is the city concerned and what should the regulatory objective be? It was noted in the discussion that it seems that larger new and remodeled homes (something less than .32 plus 1500 SF) need to be reviewed; design review allows some flexibility to standard required dimensions; set criteria may be pleasing but they change the way a city looks, cannot build a victorian or colonial house in Burlingame today without a code exception, developers will not bother with the process for aesthetics, build what code allows instead; could have all standards changed to guidelines when a house gets to a given size, say 2500 SF excluding a detached garage; problem is that the citizens are concerned about the "rights of the individual," don't know how to educate the public to let design drive development rather than regulations; in past tried design guidelines with FAR committee, Council was not interested; could give a bonus for a project which includes certain architectural features such as detached garages which provide more open space from the street and between houses, use a carrot not a stick; don't penalize people give them an incentive; trying to quantify an art, some rules will not work for everything, cannot avoid confrontation in some number of cases; developers are building to limits of permitted envelope, go for bulk not creativity; have tried a number of progressing solutions short of design review, declining height envelope, FAR, varying setbacks for two car garages and second stories on corner lots, etc., people still complaining; better to look at what want ordinance to do, be flexible in addressing a structure's size, appearance, and do -dads; FAR and envelope seem OK problem is aesthetics; develop guidelines for unique design and give bonus for compliance. It was noted that the guidelines worked on the Bayfront because there was a pride in the product there; residential speculators seem to have little pride in product. Group directed staff to explore Palo Alto experience which resulted in the progressive relaxation of their FAR requirements. The consensus was that the group should meet again at 6:00 p.m. before the Planning Commission meeting on March 10, 1997. Burlingame Planning Conunission Minutes February 24, 1997 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Key on February 24, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the February 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - Acting Chairperson Key advised the applicants that 6 of the 7 Commission members were seated this evening. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes of the whole commission in order to pass a motion on action items. The Chair asked if any of tonight's applicants would like to delay their action until a full commission is seated, noting specifically that Item #7, 2649 Martinez Drive, would have only 5 Commission members acting on the project as C. Deal would be abstaining. There were no requests. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR Trudy Martin, 45 Powers Avenue, San Francisco stated that the Planning Commission should consider the issue of conflict of interest caused by the professions of the members and what occupations should be appropriate for commissioner employment. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR STUDY February 24, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT AT 1249 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JOHN & GALE DISERENS, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: is there any record of debris being caught under the deck on this site; who is responsible for maintaining the creek flow once this deck is in place. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 2829 TIBURON WAY, ZONED R-1, (EBERHARD WOERZ, APPLICANT AND KRISTINA WOERZ DOOMAN PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: would the applicant type his response to the variance findings, cannot read; plans do not indicate present surface under proposed patio cover, please indicate. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO A CHURCH AT 1500 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 AND R-3, (BOB DAVIDSON, APPLICANT AND ARTHUR D. GIMBEL, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: have there been any complaints from the neighbors during special events or church services; the applicants responses to the variance findings need to be clarified, item b is not adequately addressed, item c indicates parking being added when actually loosing spaces, clarify item d where church noted as a residential use, explain; will this classroom addition cause the Sunday school use to be expanded, i.e., increase the number of children in Sunday school or the number of families that are members of the church; provide new parking layout; how is the single family house owned by the church on Balboa used. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR FOOD SERVICE AT 1100 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, (THE ROAST BARON LLC, APPLICANTS AND KARP FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: will the restaurant have delivery service and/or a delivery vehicle; customer and employee numbers seem low given that there are 20 seats, could applicant take a second look at the number; does the number of employees include the owner; is this business a part of a chain/franchise or is it a start up; if the proposed business is a part of a franchise please provide pictures of other sites, a printed menu; how will the food be served, cafeteria style, at tables by waiters, etc. in what kind of containers; provide a layout of the floor plan of the restaurant showing kitchen, service area, seating area with tables, etc.; how will the business be viable with so few customers. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1609 TROUSDALI3 DRIVE, ZONED C-3, (BLEIER INDUSTRIES, APPLICANTS AND MAGNOLIA GARDENS CARE CENTER, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: include the minutes of the March 1986 minutes where the double-faced sign was approved; did the city require removal of the wall sign or did the applicant volunteer to remove it; applicant indicates that the state has specific identification signage requirements for this type of use, please provide a copy of these regulations to the city; provide sample of the colors to be used on the sign, since two possible companies are noted, provide a set of samples from each. This item was set for action on March 10, 1997. ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL PERMITS AT 2735 SUMMIT, ZONED R-1, (GAIL FRIEDMAN-BECK, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report 2.24.97 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the request, staff and planning department comments and study meeting questions. Four Conditions were suggested for approval. Vice -Chairperson Key opened the public hearing. Gail Friedman -Beck, 2735 Summit Avenue, the applicant was present and explained the purpose was not to live in the structure but to build a storage shed that did not look like a "shed" so it would appear to be a part of their property. The gravel path was originally dog run, dog died but that part of the yard is not too useable so kept the gravel. Estimate of SF of house given was in error when initially applied since based calculation on quote from a roof replacement. Pictures of other shed in the neighborhood were presented to the commission. Clifford Semmler, 2734 Summit Drive and Steven Raike, 2721 Summit Drive, spoke in favor of the application both noting that the shed creates no obstruction of distant views from inside their houses. Donald W.Kuno, 2741 Summit Drive and Peter Koras, 2853 Mariposa Drive, spoke in opposition to the application. They expressed concerns that the new structure looks like a room not a shed; had a previous problem with applicants wanting to build two storage structures without building permit, then the dimensions of the structure given at the time of application were larger than actual house size causing a discrepancy since the 10 % storage limit that the direct sight line from the small window 9 feet from property line is directly into master bedroom on their property. Issue is that structure is very large, will allow others to do same; visible from the street and out of keeping with neighborhood; looks like a detached structure; cannot see from house but offensive from street and side of house. Both were asked if the structure blocked their -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 distant views; both said no. There were no other comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion and comment on motion: a skylight could be substituted for the 1'x 2' window or it could be conditioned to be opaque; based on the conditions the room should never be used for recreational purposes; the addition 1.5 to 4 feet does not really make a difference in this case since it does not affect anyone's distant view; structure looks nice on the outside but is not so nice on the inside; concern about how the height of the structure was measured, since foundation is included the plate should be 8'-1" from existing grade and conditions should reflect this. Commissioner Deal moved to grant the hillside area construction permit and special permits for the storage shed based on earlier discussion and noting that the use proposed is compatible with the neighborhood and the obstruction of distant views is not an issue, with the conditions amended to reflect that the new window 9' from property lines shall be glazed with opaque glass, the structure shall not be used for recreational purposes and the plate height shall be 8'-1" as measured from finished floor and by resolution, with the following; amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the ]Planning Department and date stamped January 23, 1997, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Building Elevations (1 V x 17") with the exception that the window 9' from property line (not shown on the plans) shall be opaque and shall be no larger than 1' x 2"; 2) that the plate line of the accessory structure shall be not more than eight (8) feet, one (1) inch above the finished floor ; 3) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes, shall never include a kitchen or sleeping area and shall not be used for recreational purposes or any home occupation use as defined in C.S. 25.68.010 without an amendment to this special permit; and 4) that the accessory structure shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford. Comment on motion: in light of testimony and concerns about future use would a condition never allowing the interior to be sheet rocked or heated be appropriate; sheet rock would reduce dampness but not allowing heat in future would limit future living use; it would be very expensive to heat this area with electricity, cost would deter property owner; concerned with history with applicant in this case, city needs to be specific about what they need to do, in that context window within 9' of property line should be required to have opaque glass so serve no purpose but light; could put in skylight and avoid looking into neighbors property at all; 9' window looks into shrubs; suggested add conditions requiring window to be opaque; maker and seconder of motion agree to amendment to conditions. The motion was then approved 5-1-1 (C. Galligan dissenting and C. Ellis absent) by roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 Acting -Chairman again noted for the record that only 5 of the 7 Commission members will act on this application. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes of the whole commission in order to pass a motion on action items. Commissioner Deal stated he would be abstaining since he has a business relationship with the applicant. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND MINOR MODIFICATION FOR UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE AT 2641) MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND AL AND JUNE BAGGIANI, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report 2.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the request, staff and planning department comments, study meeting questions, Four conditions were suggested for approval. Commissioners inquired if building permits had been acquired when the patio was built. Commissioner Deal abstained from discussion and action because of a business relationship with the applicant. Vice -Chairperson Key opened the public hearing. Albert Baggiani, property owner, spoke noting that he has owned the property since 1958; he wishes to add a bedroom because there is now a family of 5 living in the house, his daughter and her 2 children and he and his wife; when they began considering an addition he went to speak to the Martins next door, he hired JD and Associates to prepare plans, he removed vegetation and ivy to open lap the Martins view; he noted that the Martin's concern was height, they redesigned twice finally excavating to lower the roof ridge below the top of the fence so Martins able to look over top of new roof ridge; when his house was built put basket weave fence along Martin side and rear property lines, the then owner of Martins house put in decorative fence on his side, basket weave fence was higher than decorative fence with open slats; basket weave fence deteriorated and he removed it years ago, did not replace because decorative fence served purpose even though it was shorter than his fence; he is trying to satisfy Martins but would like to make addition. Speaking in opposition was Trudy Martin, 45 Powers Avenue, San Francisco, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Martin who are 30 year owners of the house at 2653 Martinez. Their concerns are set out in their February 3, 1997 letter; they have a copy of the building permit (Q948) for the patio cover done in 1968, it shows a downstairs laundry not a second story which was added, was not described as a view obstructing structure at that time, Martins see this application in that historic context; when discussed in September it was a higher addition, two stories the length of the property line fence, expressed concern since their house has big windows along that side property line; submitted picture from standing position in living room, can see over standing but from sitting position will remove half the light from that northern exposure; there appears to be a discrepancy between elevations shown on the plans and referred to in the conditions; the top elevation of the ridge is critical to them and it needs to be clearly set out. Another issue is the stability of the soil, three years ago her parents had a water problem, they needed to sump pump under the east side of their living room, at time were told there are significant underground streams throughout the area; the property at 2645 Martinez had the same problem; the applicant la Burlingame Planning Conunission Minutes February 24, 1997 should do a soils analysis to determine the soil stability, it could require a bigger foundation and thus raise the height of the ridge and affect their view; the entire area is built on cut and fill. Noted in conclusion that they feel that the applicant is reluctant to address their concerns; felt that they were tested when gave them the two story addition to review; now uncertain if will have a higher roof ridge because they will need a bigger foundation than now anticipated or they will see a sea of roof top when seated in their living room which would block more than 50 percent of the light and air coming into their house which is key to the enjoyment of their property. Commissioner asked how lowering the construction would block their light and air, Ms. Martin noted that the roof ridge could be higher than shown and when seated the long distant view is gone, just see roof top and trees. Commissioner noted. that controls for as built height included in conditions, even if patio is removed in grading will be able to work from elevations; applicant noted that exact elevation in staff report not shown on plans. Commission asked City Engineer about what protection is required with a building permit when unstable soils are found, he described a number of requirements depending upon what was found; applicant noted that the neighbor needed to do an actual survey to confirm dimensions and that it would be prudent to do soils analysis before they begin construction since there is a history of problems in the area. There were no further comments from the audience and Vice -Chairperson Key closed the public hearing. Vice -Chair reopened the public hearing in order to clarify some previous testimony regarding the height of the woven fence which was been removed in the past. The applicant noted that the woven fence was 4 to 6 inches higher than the decorative fence built by the previous owner of the Martin's property; the woven fence was opaque, blocked all air and light and there was lots of vegetation after it was removed blocking light. Ms. Martin noted that the fence was never higher, but there was a lot of vegetation planted by the Baggianii's which sometimes they or Baggiani's trimmed. The vegetation however was open, not a solid wall. Commissioner asked if the Martins had read the requirements for a hillside area construction permit, would the proposed addition obstruct distant views; Ms. Martin noted that the view below the top of the story poles would be blocked. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mink moved on the hillside area construction permit request that based on testimony addition will block view of nearby neighbor, thus meet criteria for denial; moved to deny. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner discussion: asked CE how drainage would work, he noted that 2.5 foot slope on a lot with drain at low end would address surface drainage, roof drainage would need to gravity flow or be pumped to street; plans submitted are schematic and include concepts which working drawings submitted for building permit will have to address specifically; most of view blocked is into neighbor's yard, not distant view; project provided low sloped, shingled roof, preferable to see, than a lower flat, tar and graveled roof; if find a problem will need to do survey, would be a good measure to undertake to improve comfort level. Discussed including a condition to require a soils report as determined to be necessary by the Building or Engineering departments, -7- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 can be a considerable cost, applicant has facts need to deal with consequences, construction techniques exist to be able to address; code addresses "significant" distant views, in this case the impact is property to property not on significant distant views such as airport; after looking at the photo submitted by the neighbor, C. Mink noted that view being blocked is small and only if sitting down. Commissioner Wellford moved to approve the hillside area construction permit and minor modification for uncovered parking stall length based on testimony given and the finding that the proposed project does not block distant views with conditions as stated in the staff report and by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 3, 1997 (sheets 1-4); 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 6, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that the ridge of the proposed addition shall not rise above elevation 114.29' (10.91' above the average top of curb (103.38')) or elevation 115.07' above the existing patio level (elevation 102.6') and that the foundation shall be surveyed and accepted by the City Engineer before the form and steel inspection for the foundation is signed off by the Building Department for pouring and that the plate line and roof ridge of the addition shall also be surveyed and found acceptable to the City Engineer before the framing inspection for each is accepted by the Building Department; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California :Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. The motion was approved on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining, C. Ellis absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were given. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE, PARKING AND FRONT SETBACK AT 111 CENTRAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (HOWARD G. PAGE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 2.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. A commissioner asked the City Attorney if the condition referring to approval of plans of a given date meant that the applicant could not change the architectural features as shown on the plans, i.e., tudor with board and bat exterior. The CA responded that if the commission has a concern that when built a specific architectural detail or aspect of design should be fixed, the conditions of approval should reflect that so there is no issue about permissible changes within the code at a later time. It was also clarified that the dimensions for determining the point of departure which were of concern were the elevations at the corners of the lot, in this case the lot is flat so the elevations shown are substantially accurate but the need for documenting the corners is noted. CP Monroe noted that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the gable roofs at the rear and east side be changed to hip roofs. am Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 Vice -Chairperson Key opened the public hearing. Howard Page, property owner at 111 Central Avenue explained he has lived in the house for 4 years, he has recently married and his wife has a child, they need more room for their family; he noted that there were other two story houses in the neighborhood, even one three story; he went to the neighbors and most were supportive, adjacent neighbors are concerned, met with the neighbors to the east and the suggestion for the change to hip roofs came from that meeting; not able to work with the neighbors to the west, he is sorry for that; he responded to the commission that he intended to build the style shown on the plans and that it could be made a part of the conditions. David Howell, designer, 2825 Hillside Drive, spoke. He noted that the lot is essentially flat but he would add the elevations at the corners of the property; he commented on the garage that the driveway width was about a foot too narrow at the chimney, but otherwise met the 9.5' requirement; new construction would not make the parking access worse, cannot maneuver into second parking space now; clients want to carry out detail of design and do a quality job; could avoid variance and put a box on top of the existing house; the lot is 42 feet wide, most houses in area have lots 50' wide, if this house were on a 50' lot it would meet lot coverage (40 %). Is there a basement in the house, just a utility area with a 6'-8" ceiling height for hot water heater and furnace. Colleen McGuire -Page, 111 Central, also spoke in favor. Likes the neighborhood and town; wants to have a family there. The following spoke in opposition: Lisa Murphy, 115 Central Avenue, Tom Mirades, 115 Central Avenue, Christopher Andrews, 1544 Cypress Avenue and Joe Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue. They noted the addition would go up 29, twice height of her house, and crowd view, block sunlight; her lot would face 66' of roof much greater than now; 8 new second story windows face her property, many of these looking into her rear yard would be eliminated if project complied with the code; if the project complied with the code it would be smaller and in better proportion with the existing houses; showed plans to neighbors and implied that the project would be built with attributes shown on plans, genuine half timber, leaded glass windows, he indicated later that his budget was limited and he may not be able to afford these design features; happy with size of lot when bought it, sell now and buy house on larger lot; unreasonable to remove all windows but if variances are not granted must reduce scale of development to match garage, about half as much second floor and fewer windows; recently moved into neighborhood after long search for house bought because appreciate light in their turn of the century house and nice neighbors; agreed to change to gables at rear of house to accommodate them; project will still obscure afternoon light (submitted diagram) which is a severe loss to them; block view of sky from kitchen and sunroom off kitchen; 10 houses face Central 6 are one story, 2 split level/story and a half, 1 new 2 story, one 2 story with attic looks like a tower built in 1910, concern about the change in pattern in the neighborhood; they do not want to add a second story and do not want to be the only small house left in the neighborhood; asking for garage variance and there is a parking problem from this lot now, always uses street cannot get into garage, guests some times block his driveway; more people who live in house bigger the parking problem is going to be, garage requirement should be upheld; would like same number of upstairs windows as are in the illegal upstairs area now; will not get any 0 Burlingame Planning Conunission Minutes February 24, 1997 summer sun until after noon if addition is made; we need to enforce the code, it is too generous and has too much flexibility now; no reason for any variances they could add less, it is and always has been a substandard lot. Commissioners discussed with applicant and designer: proposed project complies with declining height envelope, city does not have design review nor does it insure light and air; if added less than 50 % some of the variances requested would not be required; if smaller would have less imposing roof line; lot coverage increase on first floor small; project as submitted does not address/improve parking problems on site; physically impossible to get second car into to garage now without addition; lot of windows on Murphy side, how meet privacy when apply for declining height exception with 9'x 6' window; how have you considered neighbors problem of feeling as if they are being looked at, what window treatment will you use; items not addressed and could be in conditions. Does the structure need to be 29 feet tall; yes, to retain tudor appearance; could second floor be treated as a dormer; yes, but would increase cost of construction a lot, probably increase cost of roof two times, would eliminate vaulted ceiling in upstairs master bedroom. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: do not feel that the front setback variance is a problem, the existing house has been at that location for a long time, it is a small lot, there would be no advantage to require removal; substandard lot, not reasonable to have a big garage that cannot be used for parking, but has big impact on lot coverage on a substandard lot; a single car garage to code requirements 10'x 20' is achievable, could also reduce deck area and meet lot coverage; driveway is 80 feet long, can park more than one car; like the tudor style, putting up less house than could if demolished and began again; variance for parking dimension for single covered space is not acceptable; variance for one covered space is acceptable because the property cannot support two covered parking spaces; neighbors privacy is important, if resubmit should address better. Commissioner Galligan moved to deny without prejudice because the project does not demonstrate, based on the comments made, the need for a lot coverage: variance or variance for the substandard dimension for the one covered parking space. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford. Comment on the motion: to clarify direction: the front setback is all right, the lot coverage variance is unnecessary because the new single car garage and other changes to deck could address and one covered parking space is all right. Commissioners noted that they wanted this project to return for review because of the proposed changes to the roof from gable to hip and the impact of the design on the neighbors; want to review as a whole including the design of the garage to fit the style and character of the house; the house is too big for the existing substandard lot, concerned about the impact on the immediate neighbors and on the neighborhood. -10- Burlingame Planning Conunission Minutes February 24, 1997 Vice -Chair Key called for the vote. The motion to deny without prejudice passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Deal dissenting, C. Ellis absent) roil call vote. The applicant was informed of his right to appeal by the end of the council meeting on March 3, 1997; it was suggested that if he intends to resubmit to the Planning Commission he do it within 60 days. The Commission adjourned for a 5 minute break at 11:15 p.m. and reconvened at 11:20 p.m. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT TWO SECOND -STORY APARTMENTS TO REAL ESTATE OFFICE USE AT 251 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (BRUCE HERMAN, APPLICANT AND CLAY HERMAN, PROPERTY OWNER). CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 13, AND FEBRUARY 10, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Reference staff report, 2.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting question's. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chairperson Key opened the public hearing. Bruce Herman, 251 Park was present to answer questions. He explained the office use and that the number of persons occupying the area would be limited to 6 or 8 persons working within a conference room plus an occasional client. He noted a lot of real estate work is done at the client's house. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. In their discussion the commissioners noted that the business hours cited did not provide enough flexibility if they were to be rigorously enforced. Therefore they suggested they be revised to better reflect the operation of the business. The proposed hours should allow for those who may arrive before and stay after business hours and meet on site on week -ends. C. Wellford noted that there were a number of questions raised at the: previous review of this project, it now looks as if it will work based on additional information provided; the use is based on accommodating about a half dozen people on the site which is realistic given the code requirements and the occupancy makes the stairwell legal under the exception in the C.B.C.; The use will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood given the size of the parking exception and the intensity of the use based on occupancy requirements; therefore he moved to approve the application for a use permit, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 4, 1997, Site Plan and Floor Plan; 2) that the conditions of the Fire marshal's February 11, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that the real estate business may be open 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. seven days a week, with no more than eight meetings a month in the evenings and on weekends; there shall be a maximum of ten furl -time and 8 part-time employees; and there shall be a maximum of 5 to 8 people on the premises at any one time; and 4) that because of the change in use proposed for the second -floor area, any improvements for -11- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal and was approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO STORAGE, AT THE 1200 BLOCK OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE, ZONING UNCLASSIFIED, (RECTOR MOTOR CAR CO., APPLICANT AND PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS 13OARD AND CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 2.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chairperson Key opened the public hearing. Jim Hanney, 97 Tuscaloosa, Atherton, representing Rector Motor Company explained the fence will extend to, Broadway and that sales persons will not sell cars at the parking site. The possibility does exist that customers may be shown a car in that area however there will be no negotiations or business transactions on that site. Arlene Patton, 1250 San Carlos, representing the Peninsula Conador Joint Powers Board (JPB) commented that they are pleased to have the opportunity to clean up this area. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted this application for a special permit is a good solution and will not be detrimental to the area, has no adverse effect and is consistent with the General Plan, he then moved to approve this application, by resolution, with the following, conditions: 1) that the project shall be located and used as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 13, 1997, Vicinity Map, Sheet T-1 and date stamped February 18, 1997, Site Plan, Sheet T-2; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Street Department's January 14, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that the site shall be used for car storage only, no car sales or other auto related activity shall be permitted on this site; 4) that no lighting or loudspeakers shall be installed or used on this site; 5) that no cars shall be moved from this site between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; 6) that the site shall be leveled and covered with a 3" layer of gravel which will be maintained by the applicant for as long as the use continues on this site; 7) that should the access agreement from San Francisco Water Department expire, this use permit shall become void; 8) that the applicant shall place and maintain an 8' tall chain link fence between this storage area and the CalTrain right-of-way; 9) that the applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that this area is used for auto storage only for his business and any abuse by the public using this area for long term or short term parking shall be his responsibility to enforce; and 10) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. -12- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 The motion was seconded by C. Deal and was approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council meeting of February 19, 1997. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. in memory of Commissioner Ellis' mother, Willie Belle Ellis. MR4UTES2.24 corrected 3.05 -13- Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary