HomeMy WebLinkAbout100 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff ReportP.C. 9/8/86
Item # 3
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BATHROOM ATTACHED TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
AT 100 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Cheryl Feldman, the applicant, is requesting a special permit to allow a 56 SF bathroom
to remain attached to an existing 290 SF detached structure in the rear yard of the
property at 100 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1 (Code Sec. 25.60.010). The bathroom
was installed within the last year without a building permit or zoning review. A
complaint brought the item to the attention of the City Building Department.
The existing structure is identified in old city records as "a room" which the
applicant states her son is sleeping in. The existing structure is within the rear
30% of the lot and complies with all the criteria of the accessory structure portion
of the code except for the presence of a toilet.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed the request. The Fire Marshal (August 11, 1986 memo) had
no comments. The Chief Building Inspector (August l, 1986 memo) notes the need for
a property line survey to determine the distance to property line (if within 3' of
property line, one hour construction would be required and no openings would be
allowed in walls parallel to the property line). Requirements of the Uniform Building
Code regarding dwelling units for light, sanitation, heat, waterproofing, electrical
and insulation shall be met. Sewer connection shall be exposed, examined and possibly
corrected. The City Engineer (August 18, 1986 memo) comments on usual concerns about
multiple units in R-1 zones. He notes that this structure will probably be used as
a second unit sometime in the future.
The Planner's memo (July 18, 1986) addresses the history of the code enforcement on
this property. The Building Department received a complaint about installation of
the bathroom without a permit. The owner, Cheryl Feldman, came in and said that
she had put in the bathroom without a permit after she had inquired some time ago
about putting in a bath attached to the room and the city had told her that a building
permit would not be approved. She indicated to the Planner that she did not understand
that a permit would not be granted because the bath was in an accessory structure.
So she saved the money and had a friend install the bathroom. Although there is
no kitchen in the accessory structure her son is living in it. The old appraiser
reports show that there are three toilets in the main structure, one of which is in
the basement garage. The detached room appears to have been built when the house
was built and is about 290 SF (appraisal report).
Applicant's Letter
In her letter (July 25, 1986) the applicant states that she bought the house seven
years ago in part because of the cottage which she thought her son could live in
when he became a teenager. She also likes the proximity to downtown. Her son has
been living in the cottage for four years without a bathroom and needs one desperately.
Her second son would like to move out of the main house to the cottage, so there is
even more need for a bathroom. There is no room in the main house with only two
bedrooms for both boys. Her elderly aunt who lives in Burlingame will also need a
place to live in the next few years when she can't be on her own any longer. The
cottage will be ideal for her. Thus the cottage is vital to the family's well-being.
0
-2-
Attached is a letter (July 27, 1986) from Mrs. Feldman's aunt, Patricia Patterson.
In the letter she states that poor health and financial problems plus her desire
to be near Mrs. Feldman and the boys make the use of the cottage a necessity to her.
Study Questions
The Planning Commission asked a number of questions to be followed up during their
study of the project on August 25, 1986 (Planning Commission Minutes, August 25, 1986).
The applicant told the Planner that the person who installed the bathroom was not a
licensed contractor (Williams memo, August 27, 1986). In addition staff marked the
lot dimensions on the plans more clearly for Commission use. The lot is 50' x 150' or
7,500 SF (minimum lot size in the city is 5,Ob0 SF).
Planninq Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken
by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. If granting the
use permit is to be considered, the following conditions should be considered at the
public hearing:
1. that the conditions listed in the Chief Building Inspector's memo of August 1,
1986 shall be met and that further human occupancy of the room shall not occur
until all the work required to comply with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform
Fire Code has been completed to the satisfaction of the Building Department and
an occupancy permit has been issued;
2. that the property owner shall apply for all appropriate building permits and pay
penalties as required by the city for all work done without a permit;
3. that this 290 SF detached room with bath shall be considered a residential
nonconforming use and nonconforming structure and its footprint shall not be
extended and the structure and use shall be subject to all the limitations of
Code Sec. 25.50;
4. that the second detached accessory structure on the property immediately adjacent
to the room and bath shall never be used for residential purposes; and
5. that the applicant shall have six months (March, 1987) to comply with the
requirements of the Building Department so long as no one lives in the room
during that period.
If the Commission denies this application the denial action should be taken by resolution
so that the action can be recorded with the property title and the following items
included:
1. that the illegal bathroom attached to the detached accessory structure shall be
removed within 30 days (October, 1986) and the structure returned to the use for
which it was originally designed, storage; and
2. that neither of the two detached accessory structures on site shall be used for
residential purposes.
'" � ' �C
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Cheryl Feldman
0
*Detached accessory
structures in the rear
30% of the lot may be
built to the side and/or
rear ro erty li es (Code
Sec. �5.�6.060-d�.
PROJECT APPLICATION ���"�" �� 100 COSTA RICA AVENUE
�r CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLINGpME project address
� �"' � project name - if any
Application received ( 7/29/86 ) '"n°"""`'�
Staff reviewJacceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Cheryl Fel dman 343-6595
name telephone no.
100 Costa Rica Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Same
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Perr�it (X) Variance* O Ccnc�orninium Pernit O Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SPECIAL PERMIT to allow a 56 SF bathroom to remain
which has been added to an existing 290 SF detached structure.
The structure is called a room in old city records; the applicant
states that it is already used as sleepinq quarters for her son.
ThP ttructure is located within the rear 30% of the lot; exact
distances to the propertv lines have not been verified. The
addition complies with zoninq requirements for plate line heiqht,
overall heiqht and lot coveraqe.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.60.010 ) (
4. PROPERTY IDEPITIFICATION
( 028-293-190 )
APN
( R-1 )
zoning district
Cheryl Feldman
land owner's name
( 19 ) ( � )
lot no. block no.
( 7,500 �
land area, square feet
Renuired Date received
�) (no) ( — )
�) (no) ( n�d )
5. EXISTIPlG SITE CONDITIONS
Existing home on corner
and detached "room"
Required Date received
(yes) (�s� ( 7/29/86 )
�Yes) f�8� i �� )
�Yes) ��ek � �� )
(other)(n�) ( 7/29/86j
�
(Burlingame Park No. 2 �
subdivision name
100 Costa Rica Avenue
address
Burlinqame, CA 94010
city zip code
Proof of o�anershi�
Owner's consent to apolication
lot with detached storage structure
Site plan shovaing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of use�on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Sjte cross s�ctionLs) (if relevant).
ietter 0 eXplanation
'`Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PP,np�SAL (ACCESSORY BUILDING ONLY)
Proposed censi:ruction, 6elov� orade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF)
gross floor area First floor ( 5( SF) Third floor ( - SF)
Project Code Project Code
Pr000sal Requirem�nt Proposal Requirement
Front setback n a _ Lot cover���e 3�% 40% max.
Side setback n�a _ Ruilr;ino hei�ht 10' 14' mdX.
Side yard 2' 0' * P1 ate �1 i ne ± 8' 10' max.
P.ear yard 4' Q'* �n-;ite �k�.snace;: 2 1 t0 2
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
Full tine emoloyees on site
Part tir�e employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on propert.y
Trin ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
EXISTING IM 2 YEARS
after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
_�
-_
�
• �
�__
�_
IP! 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
'Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Single family homes on all adjacent lots.
Required
{3�) (no)
�) (no)
Date received
( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
( - ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firr.is ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 (X ) Other application type, fee $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 ( X)
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 ( X)
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ()
TOTAL FEES $ 150.�� RECEIPT N0. 1335Z Received by C.Bare
STAFf USE OP1LY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
19
Categoricallv exempt: Reference Code
Sec. 15301, Existinq Facilities
_ V �G�'brl`p��.lh� C.i �. i -�'��
Sign ture of Processing Official itle Daie Si ned
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTI^!G DaS:e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I oosted a true copy of the above Negati��e Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th� Council Chambers.
Executed at 3urlingame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P;o
19
JUD TH A. MALFATTI, CITY CLERK, CITY CF oURLINGAPIE
I hereby certify under oenalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best of mv knowledae and belief.
STAFF REVI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIOtJ
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer ( 8/4/86 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( - ) (yes) (no)
City Atto m ey ( - ) (yes) (no)
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOD! MEASURES
Concerns Mitigation Measures
Do the plans meet all Fire Request comments from the Fire
and Building requirements? Marshal and Chief Building
Inspector.
Is this structure fit for use Review Building comments;
as additional sleeping area? review structure on site; make
determination; attach condition
as required.
3. CEQA REQUIREP4E�lTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
is the project subject to CEQA review? Categorically exempt.
IF APd EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comnleted
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
RFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR accepted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 7/29/86 )
Accepted as comolete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 8/25/86 )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) no) Recor.unended date (����('� )
/-
Date staff report mailed to aoplicant (�!�_ /y �) Date Cormiission hearing (�'1%�/l((v )
�
Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no)
Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
� � . ls'
signed date
Ke�.cl'r�u�
July 25,1986
Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
:,��. z� �s�
CiTV Of BURLINGAME
PtANNING DEPf•
Hello. I was born in San Mateo and have lived in Burlingame all
my life.
Seven years ago this September, I purchased a home at 100 Costa Rica,
Burlingame. I especially liked this home, because it has a cottage
which I knew my son could live in when he became a teenager. Also,
I like the proximity to downtown for the children. I am a single
mother and was concerned that the children could walk to schools,
shops, library, etc.
For the past 6� years I have been saving money so that I could add a
bathroom to the cottage. Todd, my eldest son has been living in the
cottage for four years and desperately needed a bathroom for his
personal needs. My other son lives in the main house with me.
Eventually, Michael wants to live in the cottage, though he may have
a long wait, since Todd has plans to stay in the cottage through
High School and College.
The cottage has been a haven for my son, Todd. He writes movie
scripts and he needs quiet and solitude. I don't have room in the
main house for both boys, since there are only two bedrooms in the
main house.
Also, both boys emotionally need separate quarters. The divorce
has hurt both of them very much. Years ago, both requested their
own rooms.
I have another problem, too. My elderly aun� who has lived in
Burlingame most of her life, will have to be cared for in the next
few years. Since I'm the only relative with a home, I will be
taking care of her. She is currently 83 years old and refuses to
go to a retirement home. The cottage willbe ideal for her, as it
will give her the privacy she wishes and the security of having
someone close by should an emergency arise.
In view of my sons' present needs and the knowledge that in the
future I will be taking care of my aunt, the cottage, as it stands
now, is vital to my family's well being, mentally as well as
physically.
Sincerely,
% �%�i�.���
t L L r� _ C_ t-.=
� � -
Cheryl Feldman
July 27, 1986
To Whom It May Concern:
I am Cheryl Feldman's aunt and was hoping to move into
the cottage on her property at 100 Costa Rica, Burlingame in
the near future. Ill health, and financial problems, plus the
fact I wish to be near her and the boys, have made this a
necessity for me.
Sincerely,
. -� �' '
` � Y _��1 �`�� 07J
: ;���:t,�:.i�-'
Patricia Patterson
�'C � �i 't I Y` C t�
JU� 2 y �9�6
GTY OF BURLfNGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
--- �
_ 1 ', /
� �1
!"�
1 : I
\Y '� � � �
c�'�� , �� ' �
� �, �; � �
� � :
,-o- �
.\' � �
�o��?, ' _
t? ,y —
���'�. �.
__ -� _- -- t r
I�j - 1 - �
�-_�_ ,:
.-��:.��_ _ - _ ��A -- �L
f _ - - - __ . _ .- -_ --.�
_ ' ` �
-� ~>i i - -
"� �1�1 y� j�, '=�
.' 9
:
4� !
♦
—1 i
_`
. �
` � o � j- �._.- --. �.
� ---- ���- ��
; - -- -- -- � �
� i ; �� , - - - - -
; ' _ � ' —
"� � � � -� 3� - - -
�5 � J � � � �
� p �-> � � Z�. � � � ��
,� � �� � � � a � � �,�, _� - _ - -- -
o --
�- � � ? � ' -� � - -
i � � c� -�-= -�,
c.� - --- -
— � ���
�^ � � �----�. , � - - - -
� � � �� � � `' � �fl - - ------ - -
, � �� 1 ,
3 � _ _ 1 -"
`j -- - - - - - -
� ;
'� � enlr��9N�� _ _ - -- — � x — - -
a,. ?---- � � �� !� — - — — �� _
?� 9� � � — R�CEIVED
s �
�; ; JUL 29 �
�� ' � G
� --- -- ��'-� — -s f � � p.wa�u+� �
% ��
----��__�_._.,__ t�
i
c i � l CX� Cc�TR �iCig --
�
�
� 5.0, - - - - -
-_ __ _ - - ---- - -- -
�����=h�r.� � ��f� - _ _
� +�1��'�4i�N��' �i 1/� - - _ ---
DATE: a��f<��(o
,�
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPEC?OR
�,f�RE MARSHAL
$���
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
S U B J E C T: �S,1f��,'� f a�-Yr, .� �o �-F,�.ei-J a ��-tc.�d�ii.�rrrv� ��.e.� �ii
� � . � .i
/
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for .S Tu,/��/
at tl�eir �/�� %� meeting. We would appreciate having
r
your comments by �,li �,p�,
Thank you.
Helen Williams
Planner
s / ��''e � � � `� � o � bJ-e�7o,�,tS
att. �
IIVTER-OFFICE MEMO
T0:
FROM
RE:
Planning Department
Building Division
100 Costa Rica
August l, 1986
Should the application be approved the Building Division would
require the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Survey to be made by a California License Surveyor to deter-
mine the distance from detached structure to rear and side
property lines. Should the distance be 3 feet or less there
shall be NO openings on those two walls and the walls shall
be 1-hour fire resistive construction. Table 5-A 1982 U.B.C.
Shall meet Section 1205 (a) of the U.B.C. on light and sanitation.
P�ust meet section 1211 of the U.B.C. (heating).
Every dwelling unit shall be provided with heating facilities
capable of maintaining a room temperature of 70 degrees F at
a point 3 feet above the floor.
Uniform Municipal Code Section 18.08.305 (b) membrane water
proofing required, acceptable to the Building Official under
the concrete slab.
Expose sewer or by other means varify to the Building Division
the size and direction of run of sewer.
Structure shall be insulated as per State of California Title 24.
Electrical shall be brought up to the 1984 National Electrical
Code requirements.
Pet ri r,
� ,� �t.E�Z
�� � .
Chief B ilding Inspector
PK/pa
0
DATE: ��f���lo
,�
MEMO T0: ITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
- — �
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
/
� /
b�n
W�
a�i e..� {a
An application has been received `or the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ST1�.p
at their �/� ��(Q meeting. We would appreciate having
� T
your comments by �/� �,��,
Thank you.
FROM
SUBJECT:
Helen Williams
Planner
5/
att.
�0 ! �G-A�n�tit1
/� �'� ����
�/%��
, /�'� � � �� �—�
�/ �,'//�' ,[y � ` e��` �-�/�,-�/�/
�� � /`�` `'C/�`'' / G� i%f�i�Y��it.C.� , r -��� / _-� 1
/c � /� ���cr/��
��:,,`-ri� � � � � 3r�`' � ,: �2;.n-,��u.����
������ � � � ,���� ��
����, �,�,� ���,� j
� �
���
�� ,
� �
�������
�
�
�� ��
— �' -
July 18, 1986
MEMO T0: FILE - 100 COSTA RICA
FROM; PLANNER WILLIAMS
SUBJECT: BATHROOM INSTALLED IN REAR "ROOM", A DETACHED STRUCTURE
Building received a complaint about a bathroom added without a permit
in the existing "room" at the rear of this lot. The owner, Cheryl
Feldman, came in to discuss it and was upset about the complaint. She
admitted to putting in the bathroom without a permit and said she had
talked to the city some time ago and was told that no permit would be
approved for it. She said that she didn't understand that the reason
w� a permit wouldn't be issued was that it was not permitted in an
accessory structure. So she said she saved up the money and had a
friend help her put it in. Her son is living in the building. She
said she has not put a;citchen in it. I gave her an application form
and discussed filing requirements and deadlines. She said she was too
busy to submit the application by July 30. I told her that it would be
best if she submit the application since we would be required to follow
up on the complaint and would have to proceed with requiring the
removal of the bathroom unless it was approved by the Planning
Commission.
^iGy
Helen Williams
Planner
HW/s
. APPRAISAL REPORT — ASSESSOR'S OFFICE — SAN MATEO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
- COOE NO, �- / APPRAISER !J( DATE APPRAISED / �. d.•...-.n OGCUPIED o w�/� �'
wND VALL�F !
��' � ZPec . e
� T 9 . . . . IMPROVEMENTS /�%°O'Jg�/[.�00. �T'/
�j° � � � ' PERSONAL PROPERTY i �
' I� VALUES LwND IM� ov[.w.[,'ni,f] ��[nSONwLI110HRTY
S/ .., . . . . �. . �'J��%�i ^ 9T� [T/�� '�T�,�,
' ' t f . J 4 . � ��fiTf � -r-7T-v f �
� -L� � INTERIOR
. USE-RESIDENTIAL s« � rE /
R _
. l � ! G.�rc-rc..r �_,/Yc `_ y
w0. M S . . :l SfoR r ��
. � a F,�..�
M _'._"
L � �o/<. e��c � w��s -. r . n
� e.. ^-� . i..... ,� ,..,, �:�...��..
t11T[nio11 wwl� I�H�[w . .. _. _ � , ��iHcs
F'/ r � _ �
� t�...ric . - ' -�.. oR5 �.
- �ui>C�� sG.rr/nrf ~�4oa 1 wiHsc _. � .
IOve1oAr�oH ..�.. T w T. ic . '
H[ s uH� . P . - , _ .,_...,.,-
� 5� o�T wi f f nS L T.,'. N,Ce.�
�i�pw Gwn�GE OwERS �
� ww[ R.n - -l� r � J,,..,.s.
�2^••..� - cniinG Fi
c so, rr. er s s G Sz %TA E .C> r
�wt[N[pT [ �w wTCD LCVEI -.. ea.n �ee ne ' NEwTiNG F.�e.,�`•./��� I
/ i Fv L so. n. wT f r i. sa s ' "
r... /� r �.... . �� sp. n r s s w[n n wi r,..
� awwwc� n ruccs �
o�w[Muoqs ?�I�" bn�c yp.n �.Hni�k
ww��i �OOF �FLOOn i .
t/�✓n �
o« �or..o. pf Sl,,,,.-, 9s c000 +S� s 11 'y I D
out��i�niera• ..I r19 f,.,� .., i, ,..�;c _ �
. _ %/vHcr oVccrs �
�/..� . Jrea. s. �-/,. ,. �....<..... � H w �
S/ 'At/NDER OVFMu+T
i!o L. F. . r 9'� .a// DCS�GN-GOOD -pppp pppR .
M01iiOn Ntw POON
� GO D Mea�r O �w�E NT{ .
v[w� ����i / ' •3�N] : /v� F/r , +
- �hrt r+o. Ht r c t. GA.b - 5Er ,P .rs -B- e�re �'J'
� � � AaeV� - �
�FF�� � 6ss[v� -���o/4�rcr.,..sv .v.ys' __ {
�
%
. . /fSL 9i. E .ncG
w� r - � Bu r ... e -.v., .�ar ..r._ - (. .,
B�/cT �•,. f iqcr .� � asr..r�n`- F=a..�. •i� .
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 12
August 25, 1986
on the two parcels, about 50% because it is not wholly church. Mr. Becker commented
again: there are about 15 parking spaces, he had no objection to the apartments,
the problem is the noise level at night. There were no further audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement that the noise problem is between those people who live in
the apartments, this is a less intense use than the previous use of the property,
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission
Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's August 15, 1986 memo shall be met;
(2) that the structure at 110 Lorton Avenue shall be used only for church
related activities including Sunday school, bible study, counseling, small group
meetings, youth and children's activities and occasional social events of church
members not to exceed a total of 55 persons in the structure at one time; (3) that
the basement of the building shall not be used except for mechanical equipment and
storage, no activities shall be held there; (4) that the majority of uses at
110 Lorton Avenue shall focus on the evening and weekend hours except for the
meditation room; and (5) that the city consider removing the white passenger
loading zone. Second C. Leahy.
C. Schwalm moved to amend the motion to limit nighttime activities to no later
than 9:45 P.M. Second C. Garcia; amendment failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers
Graham, Jacobs and Leahy dissenting. The original motion was approved on a 6-0
roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
CONSENT ITEM
12. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF MINOR P10DIFICATION GRANTED 8/12/85 AT
1905 RAY DRIVE
Item was not called up for review.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
13. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO VARIANCES TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING SPA ROOM
AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1255 BERNAL AVENUE
Item set for hearing September 8, 1986.
14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 56 SF BATHROOM TO REMAIN AT 100 COSTA RICA AVENUE
Requests: was this built by a licensed contractor; plot plan with proper dimensions;
how long has applicant lived here. Item set for hearing September 8, 1986.
15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A TAKE-OUT FOOD SERUICE AND CATERING OPERATION AT
1109 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Item set for hearing September 8, 1986.
16. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM - 1199 BROADWAY
Requests: status of the railing; where do signs hang. Item set for hearing
September 8, 1986
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
August 25, 1986
first floor; (3) that there shall be no interior signs oriented toward the street
frontage within three feet of a window or door facing these frontages; and
(4) that the limitations of this master sign permit and sign exception shall
be included in the tenants' lease agreements and enforced by the property owner
and manager. Second C. Schwalm. Responding to Commissioner request, CP stated
a master sign program replaces sign limitations for a site, this does not mean
they.cannot get temporary signs under the other provisions of the sign code.
Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR
CHURCH RELATED ACTIVITIES BY THREE CITIES ASSEMBLY OF GOD AT 110 LORTON
RVENUE, ZONED R-4
Reference staff report, 8/25/86, with attachments. CP reviewed deta9ls of the
request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
A time limit on evening activities was suggested. Chm. Giomi opened the public
hearing. Douglas Fairrington, Pastor of the church, stated that basically they
were asking to return to the uses of this building prior to its use as a day care
facility, they are upgrading the building inside, providing better access; if the
request is granted they would encourage the city to consider releasing the
white passenger zone which was required for the day care center, this would add
parking. Regarding a time limitation for activities, Pastor Fairrington said
that timewise the building would not be used any differently than their present
church use, all groups will be in conjunction with present activities, this
building will allow smaller groups.
Karl Becker, owner of the property at 120 Lorton, had no objection to the activities
in the building but expressed concern about people leaving the night meetings, his
tenants at 120 Lorton have complained about baseball games, people jumping over
the fence, it is a large parkirrg area and people talk loudly; there are about 50
families in the nearby area, some of themhave also complained. He felt there
should be a time limit to keep the noise down, all bedrooms in his building face
the church site. Pastor Fairrington explained the ball games are whiffle ball
played by tenants who rent apartments on church property, it has nothing to do
with church activities. The church would not object to a time limit if it were
imposed on all churches in Burlingame, they have no desire to disturb their
neighbors, most churches in the city are in residential areas. He advised staff
members and also private parties rent these apartments, there are four apartments
on the back of their property.
A Commissioner commented other churches have only a custodian living on the site.
She supported the application because it is a less intense use; since this
church has four tenants that other churches don't have, a time limitation seems
reasonable. Pastor Fairrington felt the matter of whiffle ball was not between
the church and nearby tenants, it is totally unrelated to the building in
question, neighbors should talk to each other; there is a gentleman's agreement
between the church and their tenants, the church can use those parking places
when having services or activities, when not being used the area is for the
tenants' use. Responding to a Commissioner, Pastor Fairrington agreed that
whether his application were granted or not the church has nothing to do with
the ball games and noise on the parking lot. The church pays county taxes
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME
TO � CITY PLAPdNER DATE: 8/27/86
FROM , PLANNER
SUBJECT� STUDY QUESTIONS REGARDING 100 COSTA RICA AVENUE
The Planning Commission asked for some additional
information at their 8/25/86 study meeting for this
application. I talked to Cheryl Feldman today:
1. The person who built the bathroom was not a
licensed contractor.
2. The lot dimensions have been added to the site
plan and other information made a little clearer.
��
Helen Williams
� . y- .� ; : °� � � � _.� '.�°.,�.�..`,_ ��:
IL- , :-: �i' + j �:,� ".._ ' R
- . %�'� % :. ' a .i �' •'�� Jy� :� \ � 'R �5/,R TR- 4 . ` i .'.
.� '��.' , ��� � � � � ..�� �
�' ,�,�, � � � - � � R� � �„ � . . .
s�� � � ��'�
� � � , � -r,� ���>- =a�r•�
¢ �_ ` �
`� �,, - � +*I'!� R� � � x ��
� , t � ���' .� � � . � �. 3.; '.�
� �:: ;k- �: �, _• � �� ; � "�,c;i ,� � �
�. ��,' � , � � � n . � ' , y �„� �' 6' . � �e, •
y2. �y,� . �. O � i,y:. •�� �:
� 5 �
�� . � N �� r:; ,� , 3�,.` � � �;.
� � J � � � � � ,.� ' 'c L ��
� * .k �- �. � ,. �
� `" , � ` ! � .� � � � ��,�
� �; y � � ' � �S � ,�;. �, �� �
� � A 9 � "� .. � ("� �. y�� •• '� �'` _ ,�1• 4�� _ / � � y i.• `
�`. � �'l� � \� ,--c� t . �t��"'�' \ T / i
� ' � �.. �; • e'. ` i ' � �
" ��1'� � / � � n i
�� �K;, � � � 6 , , � �:; . � � +- ` �/'1 • �.
.' ,��, C , � . (, I
�• �: r , r � � i� �t� ' \� \� '��
� . a ,,.�• � �, � �` , 1 �/
,�� �, " /
� �� � �- _ � . r � � ,.,� : � �,�
��. ' - � ��� :� � t m' 3� . � � � � � , .,v!� � .
� - � � ti� '`�'� � ti '� .. - 1(p� �� y .9�';
�4 �,p � � Q �� s ��� (,� '/ �
_ . .9 � �; , ` `� � � �
�' ° � � -� � � � ��* ������ � '
� " � ��`"� s i� I� • � � ,'''
,
. " ��' ' � � `� `_;� ���''a � u�i ".' � � � �-
. 3 .� „ . � ,
� .� � ,� A �.���,• �i� _ � ���✓-�
: . ,
t� �
�
A d � `• :� �� ; � i� � '� � -
�� �' � �#� �
�� �� � 4 � � �� � � � �� � �
� N� � ` � � � `� ,: �� � � . . ,; , �
�a �
� `�, � `, ,�t� �� = ��� .�: � � �� `,�,,�
� '�� �� � 1� i� � �` s � '' � �' ' �►�:�!�
'�,x ,� � 1 � "�`�" r. �� - � ;� ,�, . .
� �.,- `4� ` ,' n �� . �` �>� ��, �� .. � }�, �
� 1�r -s
''� � ,_Y _ •� '� � � �.,- �
�:�� f �'�'" $r= � � � � �� '�
.�
,a" � . ,� + �
r 4 � r
.
� �r�� `� � �� �-�� � y � ��� � . � -
, _ � � � _ -� �- : " .; _
� �
R�%► a � � �" �, � 4 �, - � _
$ �� � � �.
'�i� � � �" �� ,� ,�,.,� �, 4�,� � � '.
5"
, # � r� � 4 �M
� � •#� , 'b� �,� a�;
i �� , , c �� ,�, �
A {
� .� 5 �� a . � k°;� � � >;�� �,_.� 8 � � �
- �'�i, r.:. �,- , «� ' .t� �. �� .
r N
� � = �,; • _.
,
- � . , t-�
+�,� � � � ': � '�! � , .
.�: �: �� � �>; � � �
�I!' � o �� � � ` ��, . _.� • ��
� m �; �
� ' �� � ' '� ;;�" ; �+h:.
_ � ,�` : �...�• ,��� � � � •� �s,;.
� - � . �� � �- ' i ' �, y �: s�i � �
��� .�_v •�' - ��, �
'� �� ,� �► '
►oo rosT�} f� � c � . :� �'�"'
— _ _ � ��nw r�_
NOTICE OF ERROR: Meeting date is
9/8/86
C��tr Litu IIf �zuli�t��xrt��
�
SAN MATEO COUNTY
UTY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
NOTICE OF HEARING
Special Permit
TE��!415) 342-8931
m �' �%- g f��
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that T ay, the .3-t�Yi day of September, 1986
�
at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council C hambers , 501 Primrose
Road, Burlinqame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will
conduct a oublic hearing on the application to allow a bathroom, constructed
�thout permits, to remain in an existing detached structure at 100
Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1.
At the tir�e of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET P?OPJROE
CITY PLAr��1ER
. • •:.
,
�
;
j
RESOLUTIO:d �IO.
� I
� RESOLUTIOIV APPROVING SPECIAL PERh1ITS
- i
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of I
Burlingame that; i
�
I
i, WHEREF�S, application has been made for a special permit �
!, for a bathroom attached_to_ an accessory structure i
Ii ar 100 Costa Rica Avenue �APN 028-293-190 �,
and -
6
�� WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on September $ ,19p (
�� :]OW THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERA4INED by
this Planning Commission that said special permit is approved,
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this i
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of
I
San Mateo.
Nannette M. Giomi
Chairman
� I, ROBERT J. LEAHY, Secretary of the Planning �
Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that �
the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular I
I
' meeting of the Planning Commission held on the $th day of I
September ,1986 , bv the followina vote: I
AYES: CObSMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
� ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
11/2/84
Robert J. Leahv !
Secretary
L
RESOLUTI0:1 :IO.
xEsoLUTzorr �ENYING SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the Cit1 of
, Burlingame that;
WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit
! for a bathroom attached to an accessory structure
i at 100 Costa Rica Avenue (APN 028-293-190 �,
' and -
! WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on September 8 ,19II (
� L]OW THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERPIINED by
this Planning Commission that said special permit is denied�
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
i It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of
San t4ateo.
I'
Nannette M. Giomi
Chairman
I, ROBERT J. LEAHY, Secretary of the Planning �
Commission of the City of Surlingame, do hereby certify that �
the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular �
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the��day of
i
i
SPf1tPf11flPY' , 198�_, by the following vote: ,
AYES: COhSMISSIONERS: i
NOES: COMMISSIOtdERS: i
I
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i
Robert J. Leahv
11/2/84 Secretary