Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.01.08MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION January 8, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Tuesday, January 8, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Key and Wellford Absent: Commissioner Mink Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher and Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the December 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting were approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT 1212 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (JACK KLEIN, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Requests: shared easement, should a survey be required; will new carport affect the light and air to the units behind the structure; Item set for public hearing January 22, 1996. -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 2. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR WHOLESALE AUTOMOBILE SALES AT 808 BURLWAY ROAD, UNIT #2, ZONED O-M, (NICHOLAS AND STELLA CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNER(S) AND LYNN DALEY APPLICANT) Requests: where will employees park since 2 spaces designated and three employees in business? how will designated spaces be used; explain how auto sales business could be 90% wholesale; Item set for public hearing January 22, 1996. ACTION ITEMS 3. APPLICATION FOR FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A ONE STORY DETACHED GARAGE WITH RECREATION ROOM AT 1520 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (KEVIN AND JENNIFER HELMIG, PROPERTY OWNERS AND HELMIG CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES D. VALENTI, DESIGNER, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 1.8.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Kevin Helmig, 1520 Ralston Avenue and James Valenti, the designer were present. Commission questioned use of a tub/shower and asked if the applicant would be agreeable to having only a shower making it a half bath. Mr. Valenti explained that the tub/shower is more cost effective, creates less. possibility of dry rot, the dimensions are 2"-6" X 4'-6", shower with pan would be 3' X 3', would need to make the bathroom larger to accommodate shape. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted this project is not detrimental to the neighborhood, he then moved approval of this project with the following conditions; 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 22, 1995 Sheet 1, Garage Floor Plan, Site and Roof Plan, and Elevations with the maximum size of the recreation room at 289 sf (17' x IT) and the garage/recreation room shall never include a kitchen area or cooking unit; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 27, 1995 memo (a property line survey of at least three corners shall be required since the structure is within V-0" of the property line), and the Chief Building Inspector's November 27, 1995 memo (north wall to be of one hour fire resistant construction with no openings and the natural slope of the site for roof drainage to the street shall be shown on the building permit plans) shall be met; 3) that the detached garage with recreation room and bathroom shall never be used, rented or converted into a second dwelling unit; -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 the area shall be used as an office for a home occupation only if a separate conditional use permit has .been granted; 4) that there shall be no encroachment of any structures, equipment, or appliances into the 10' X 20' required single vehicle parking area; 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. Galligan and after discussion on the condition (3) concerning the bathtub/shower, C. Deal choose to withdraw the motion, the second agreed. In discussion on the motion commissioners noted that they did not have a problem with the structure and windows as now designed, however the tub/shower commenced to make this a viable second unit for someone else in the future. C. Deal then noted this application is not detrimental to the neighborhood and then moved approval of this project with 4 special permits, by resolution, with amended conditions. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Again there was discussion regarding the fixtures in the water closet. C. Jacobs moved amendment of the motion, eliminating the tub/shower enclosure. Motion to amend was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) roll call vote. Commission then voted on the amended motion which was approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioners discussed concerns regarding the bathtub/shower and the possibility of the accessory structure with this feature becoming a second unit. It was noted that a tub/shower is more waterproof for a larger period of time. It was noted that the proposed 4'-6" tub was smaller than standard and 6" narrower than typical as well, so it would not be comfortable for an adult to use as a tub; a tub is substantially cheaper to install and maintain than a shower stall;'a tub is the best way to keep the water contained and off the slab; therefore no real advantage to this tub except that it is more water tight than a shower stall. Applicant could provide a pool shower which does not look a lot like a studio apartment, could be a code enforcement item later. C. Deal then made a motion to approve a tub/shower in this accessory stricture. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and failed 2-4-1 roll call vote. (Cmsrs. Ellis, Key, Wellford and Jacobs dissenting and C. Mink absent) roll call/voice vote. C. Galligan then made a motion to approve a stall shower, not to exceed 3' X 3' in bathroom area. -3- -- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Janumy 8, 1996 Motion was seconded by C. Deal and failed to pass on a 3-3-1 roll call vote. (Cmsrs. Key, Wellford and Jacobs dissenting and C. Mink absent) Appeal procedures were advised. 4. APPLICATION FOR A TAKE OUT PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT AT 1318 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (KING FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST, PROPERTY OWNERS AND MATT BLAIR, REPRESENTING WORLD WRAPPS APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 1.8.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There was no one present to represent the applicant, to speak in favor of, or opposed to, this project. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed the trash issue on Burlingame Avenue and the importance of having the applicant present for the discussion and public hearing portion of the meeting. C. Galligan moved continuance on the public hearing of this application to the January 22, 1996 meeting. Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. APPLICATION FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE MAP, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIANCE FOR UNDERGROUND GARAGE EXTENDING ABOVE NATURAL GRADE FOR AN 18 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 601 ANSEL ROAD, ZONED R-3, (FLORIBUNDA LTD., PROPERTY OWNER AND J. DAVID KNUDSEN APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 1.8.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Knudsen, 26855 DeZahara Way, Los Altos Hills, the applicant was present. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed, N CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 C. Ellis moved for the extension noting this request for a one year extension is for the negative declaration, condominium permit, tentative map, special permit for height and variance for underground garage extending above natural grade for an 18 unit residential condominium and is the same as the last review. This project has no significant effect on the environment. The approval of this application would be with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 21, 1994, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, L-1 and Tentative Map dated March 7, 1994 as amended by Sheet A-7 and Tentative Map dated November 10, 1994 and Sheets A-1, RA2 and A-4 dated November 28, 1994; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo dated November 28, 1994, and the Chief Building Official's memo of November 29, 1994 shall be met; 3) that all conditions of approval specified in the April 5, 1994 letter from M. Monroe to Jerry Yates shall be met; and 4) 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. Galligan and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) voice vote. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council regular meeting of December 4, 1995. and January 2, 1996 meeting; - Commission discussed the proposed revised Draft M-1 District Regulations. They discussed the future review procedure deciding to meet with the council appointed committee in Conference Room A after their next meeting, to hold a public hearing on the revised draft during their meeting on February 12 and to finalize their revisions at the meeting on February 26, 1996. this way the draft will be ready for discussion at the Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study meeting in April. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. MUME81.8 -5- Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary