HomeMy WebLinkAbout1520 Ralston Avenue - Staff ReportITEM # 3
City of Burlingame
Foui Specia/ Permits
to Bcoi/d a One Story Detached Ga�age with Recieation Room
Address: 1520 Ralston Avenue
Meeting Date: 1/8/95
Request: A 791 SF detached accessory structure (one story garage with a recreation room and
bathroom) is proposed to be built between the main dwelling structure and the rear property line.
This is a new project in response to the Planning Commissions' denial without prejudice
(October 10, 1995 P.C. Minutes) of a two story garage at this same location. Four special
permits are required for this new project:
1) 791 SF proposed where the code allows a maximum of 600 SF;
2) a window within 5'-3" to 8'-3" of the property line where 10' is required;
3) a bath and toilet where the code allows water and sewer connections only with a
special permit; and
4) a recreation room in the accessory structure which requires a special permit for the
use (CS 25.60.010 b,i,j,m).
Applicant: Helmig Construction and James D. Valenti, designer APN: 028-285-050
Property Owner: Kevin and Jennifer Helmig
Lot Dimensions and Area: ± 50' x± 169' _± 8,028 SF
General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: adjacent properties are single family residential and multiple family
at 1516 Ralston Avenue, and along El Camino Real.
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction
and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (e) accessory
(appurtenant) structures such as garages.
Summary: The applicant is requesting four special permits to build a 791 SF (723 SF garage
and recreation room with 68 SF covered porch) one story, detached garage with recreation
room, at the rear of the lot at 1520 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-l. The garage portion at the front
of the accessory structure has parking for two cars. Proposed at the rear of the accessory
structure are a recreation room with full bath and covered porch facing the pool.
The main dwelling is a one story house with two bedrooms and a family room. There are no
changes proposed to the main dwelling. The 1,760 SF house requires one covered and one
uncovered parking spaces. With the proposed covered parking spaces (20' X 20' interior clear)
and the 9'-6" X± 136' long driveway, one uncovered and two covered stalls that meet code
requirements will be provided. This is one more covered stall than required by current zoning
code regulations. The existing nonconforming 18' X 18' �10' X 20' required) garage will be
removed with the new construction.
The accessory structure will be located in the rear northwest corner of the lot at the site of the
current garage. This locati�n is adjacent to an existing two story accessory structure (22'-6"
tall, 40' long) located on the neighboring lot at 1516 Ralston Avenue. A swimming pool is
located at the rear of the 1520 Ralston site next to the proposed accessory structure. Lot
SPECIAL PERMITS 1520 RALSTON AVENUE
coverage will be 32% (2,560 SF) with the new accessory structure and existing house (40% lot
coverage is allowed at 3,211 SF).
The proposed structure and use requires four special permits.
A. The total area for the new structure is 791 SF including a 68 SF covered porch,
where the maximum allowed for any single accessory structure is 600 SF. A special
permit is required for 191 SF over the amount allowed for a single accessory structure.
C. Windows are proposed along the side of the structure. There is one window located
from 5'-3" - 8'-3" (the width of the window) from the property line. This window is at
the ground floor and faces into the property, it does not face the rear property line. It
is located under the porch facing the pool. The pool will be required to be enclosed by
a 6'-0" fence along the rear property line. A special permit is required for a window
within 10'-0" of the property line.
D. A full bath including a tub, toilet, and sink, is proposed in the recreation room at the
rear of the structure. Any water and sewer connections to a bath and toilet in an
accessory structure require a special permit.
E. A recreation room is proposed at the rear of the structure. When any portion of an
accessory structure will be used for recreational purposes a special permit is required.
History: On October 10, 1995 the Planning Commission denied without prejudice an application
for seven special permits necessary to build a two story accessory structure at this same location
(October 17, 1995 letter to Mr. and Mrs. Helmig from M. Monroe and P. C. October 10, 1995
Minutes). The seven special permits were for accessory structure size (960 SF); size of all
accessory structures on the property (969 SF); windows within 10' of property line and 10'
above grade; a toilet; plate height (14'-6"); overall height (21'-0"); and recreation room use.
At that meeting the Planning Commission asked the applicant: to consider a two car garage; to
reduce the height of the structure to one story; and indicated that one story windows would have
less impact on the privacy of neighbors.
PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (NO CHANGE TO RESIDENCE)
5ide (north):
Rear:
Lot Coverage:
PROPOSED
0'-6" to acc. struc
4'-0" to acc. struc
32 %
(2,560 SF)
2
EXISTING
0'-6" to garage
4'-0" to garage
26%
(2,093 SF)
ALLOWED/REQ.
0'-0" with survey
0'-0" with survey
40 %
(3,211 SF)
SPECIAL PERMITS 1520 RALSTON AVENUE
(Continued) PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (NO CHANGE TO RESIDENCE)
PROPOSED
Parking:
Size: *
Size of all Acc. Structures: *
Windows in Acc. Structures: *
Water and Sewer Connections: *
Height:
Plate Height:
Use of Acc. Structure: *
2 covered
+ 1 uncovered
791 SF
EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ.
1 cov. (18'X18')
existing nonconforming
+ 1 uncovered
324 SF
800 SF
(including pool equipment structure)
5'-3' from property line
bath & toilet
14'- 4" acc. struc
:�:�
parking and
recreation room
This project meets all other zoning code requirements.
333 SF
none
1 covered +
1 uncovered
600 SF
800 SF
windows within
10' of P.L.
require a
special permit
none bath and toilet require
a special permit
± 10'-6" for garage
:
15'-0" max.
to ridge
10'
parking and storage recreation room
requires a sp. permit
* Special permits for size of structure; window within 5'-3" of property line; bath and toilet with water and
sewer connections; and recreational use in an accessory structure.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer indicates (November 27, 1995 memo) that a property line survey will
be required since the proposed structure is within one foot of the property line. The Chief Building Inspector
notes (November 27, 1995 memo) that the north wall will need to be of one hour fire resistant construction with
no openings including vents. He requests that the slope of the natural grade be shown on the building plans.
The Fire Marshal had no comments. The Parks Director indicated he had been contacted by the applicant to
inspect the 45" circumference, conifer in the back yard. This tree is proposed to be removed with the new
construction. Since the tree is smaller in size than the 48" circumference required for tree protection, it may
be removed without a city permit.
Study Meeting: Planning Commission reviewed this item at their December 11, 1995 meeting. The
commission asked about the need for the bathtub and whether the applicant would consider an exterior shower.
3
SPECIAL PERMITS 1520 RALSTON AVENUE
In their December 20, 1995 letter the applicant indicated that the 2'-6" X 4'-6" tub/shower is the smallest
standard product available for a shower base without custom work. An exterior shower would require extra
expense for supplying, venting and drainage at a remote location. No privacy is allowed with an exterior
shower. The only place for the exterior shower is in the 4'-0" rear setback, where the applicant is not
interested in providing an enclosed structure.
The applicant has indicated that the recreation room can not be used as a second unit because there are no
kitchen facilities or counters for food preparation. Also the size of the recreation room at 17' X 17' (289 SF)
is rather small for a living unit.
The commission asked about the placement of the windows that require a special permit. Only one window
requires the special permit for location. It is 5'-3" from the rear property line where 10'-0" is allowed. The
window is 3' wide so the entire glazed area is within 10' of the property line. It is placed perpendicular to the
property line so it faces into the yard.
Required Findings for a Special Permit:
In order to grant a Special Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on
the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c):
(a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare,
or convenience;
(b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan
and the purposes of this title; and
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and
should include findings. Tlle reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
Conditions:
l. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
November 22, 1995 Sheet l, Garage Floor Plan, Site and Roof Plan, and Elevations with the maximum
size of the recreation room at 289 SF (17' X 17') and the garage/recreation room shall never include
a kitchen area or cooking unit;
�
SPECIAL PERMITS
Conditions (continued):
1520 RALSTON AVENUE
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 1'-0" of the property line), and the Chief
Building Inspector 's November 27, 1995 memo (north wall to be of one hour iire 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; the area shall be used as an ofiice 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.
Jane Gomery
Planner
cc: Kevin and 7ennifer Helmig, property owner
A:\1520RAIS.SP 12/29/95
5
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANI�TING COMMISSION
December 11, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Acting Chairman Ellis on Tuesday, December 11, 1995 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink and
Wellfor{l
Absent: Commissioner Jacobs
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry
Coleman; Ci�y Engineer, Frank Erbacher and Fire
Marshal� Keith Marshall
MINLTTES - Tl��" minutes of the November 27, 1995 Planning
� ���ommission meeting were approved.
AGENDA, - The order of the agenda was approved.
FRO�I �THE FLOOR
� ,.
�iere were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. APPLICATION FOR FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A ONE STORY
6' DETACHED GARAGE WITH RECREATION ROOM AT 1520 RALSTON
AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (KEVIN AND JENNIFER HELMIG, PROPERTY
OWNERS AND HELMIG CONSTRUCTION AND 7AMES D. VALENTI,
DESIGNER, APPLICANT�.
Requests: why need a bathtub, shower sufficient for pool; would they consider an outdoor
shower; what makes this different from second unit with a full bath and the size of the
room; be more specific about location of window placement for exceptions, which
windows are 5'-3" and 8'-3"; Item set for public hearing January 8, 1996.
revised 1.2.95
-1-
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7"ES December 11, 1995
ACTION ITEMS
2. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMII�IIUM PERMIT
AND A LANDSCAPING VARIANCE FOR A NEW 12 UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM AT 550 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (STUART B.
ARONOFF, PROPERTY OWNERS AND GEORGE GANG YAO, APPLICANTI.
Reference staff report, 12.11.95, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request
and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirteen conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Acting Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect, 6 E. Third
Avenue, San Mateo, was present to answer questions. He noted the project was just as
it had been presented and approved 2 years ago. There were no other comments and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Deal noted the findings, the initial study and comments from the last review. This
project has no significant effect on the environment. He then moved approval of this
negative declaration.
Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Jacobs absent) voice vote.
C. Deal explained this is the same request approved before with no change, it meets the
intent of code. The landscape variance is a good solution because it provides driveway
access to the first floor for loading and unloading on a busy street, especially at this
location where the eucalyptus trees are placed so that sight lines can be difficult. He then
moved approval of this condominium permit and landscaping variance for a new 12 unit
residential condominium, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped November 17, 1995, Sheets DDI, DD2, DD3 & DD4; 2) that the conditions set
forth in the Fire Marshal's July 30, 1993 memo, the City Engineer's August 17, 1993
memo and the Park Director's July 30 and August 2, 1993 memo and the Senior Building
Ofiicial's November 20, 1995 memo shall be met; 3) that a security system with and
intercom to each unit shall be provided for access to the designated guest parking in the
garage and a mirror shall be installed half way down the garage ramp for vehicles exiting
the garage to see on coming cars; 4) that a total of 3 guest parking stalls shall be
designated and marked on the final map and plans, and not assigned to any unit, but shall
be owned and maintained by the condominium association; 5) that the iinal inspection shall
be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale
of each unit; 6) that the developer sha11 provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to
the board of directors of the condominium association , and owner purchaser manual which
-2-
Jc�mes D. T�r�lenti
ARCHITECT
December 18, 1995
Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Avenue
Burling�me, CA 94010
Re: New garage and recreation room, 1520 Ralston Avenue
��������
DEC 2 0 1995
:;fT'r UF BilRLIRi�,q�ViE
PlA1��fd�iV� +�EF'%
Answers to Planning Commissioners questions, during the December 11, 1995 study
session.
Q. Why is there a bathtub?
A. The minimum bathroom width to accommodate a"water-saver" toilet and the 24"
front clearance required is 4'-6". The 2'-6" x 4'-6" tublshower unit is the smallest standard
product to install as a shower base with no custom work required.
Q. Why not and exterior shower?
A. An exterior shower would rec�uire extra expense for supplying, venting and drainage
pipes at a remote location as well as designing-in future maintenance and vandalism
problems. An exterior shower would have no privacy unless more walls were built for a
shower stall and changing area. There is no room for and exterior shower unless it were
placed in the 4'-0" rear setback, an area we wish not to enclose.
Q. What makes this different from a second unit?
�° �-� � ��. �
� � �: , � ��� � �. ��
DEC 2 0 1995
CI7-�Y ui�� E3ii����<;i�;�,��)��
i'LRi�IVPIVf� f.'�.€�I.
A. The recreation room has no kitchen or counters for food preparation. The width
required for the two-car garage has been reduced by incorporating a porch area into the
volume of the recreation room, ther�by reducing the area of the recreation room that a
s�mpler building form would have provfded.
�. �Which windows r���re the special permit #2.
A. T�e recre�tion room w�dow which requires a spe�i�1 permit is shown on the "Left
��(��uth) �id� E�evatio�" lefi �f t�e doub� �ench doors. Althou�h the orientation of th�s
window is parallel to the rear �prn�erty %e i� is �laced �Vit�i� ten ��et of the rear property
line.
(`���e f�i�� �a# ��xrltz���xme
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Te�� (ai5) 696-7250
PLANNING OEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 r�x� (a�5) 342-8386
October 17, 1995
Kevin and Jennifer Helmig
1520 Ralston Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. and Ms. Helmig,
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the October 10, 1995 Planning
Commission action to deny your special permits application without prejudice became effective
October 16, 1995. This application was to allow you to build a two story detached garage with
recreation room and toilet at 1520 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-l.
A denial without prejudice allows you to return to the Planning Commission with a revised
project within a reasonable time (60 days, i.e., December 18, 1995) as determined by Planning
staff.
Sincerely yours,
�IG �
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
is2oRa,Ls.aw�
c: James D. Valenti, Designer
Chief Building Inspector
�
�,^��, x�� tJ
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
��_-
2. PARKING VARIANCE FOR r�1�IBER OF ST.
ACADEMY FOR CHILDRF�'xAT 701 CALI�
October 10, 1995
FOR A DANCE/GYMNASTICS/MUSIC
� DRIVE, ZONED C-2�.:(W.7. BRITTON
Requests: September 7,. etter is unsi ed who is author do the {
�� , y meanRthey will drop children at
front door in traffic t�signalized ' ersection; civil engineer's l�c,-e se stamp on plans shows that it
expired in 1993, i, at stamp valid; applicant will use s,gaz;e� differently than originally shown,
submit plans sh ing desir layout; resubmit variance f�iings form with justification for 17 cars;
,..
expand on '`for sale ' n on the property and how�� at may affect this project; how is ro'ect
addressin e poten ;' noise impact of the use in the' adjacent and nearby apartment buildingspin�the
area zo�,�R-3. all information is received, �tein set for October 23, 1995. �"�
.�
�'1'he a licants were advised that 5;�`fn7 Commission members were,� sent. The rules of procedure
for e Commission require a c�:uoium (4) afiirmative votes to ,p�ss a motion on action items. The
air asked if any of tonigY�t's � applicants would like to delay' their action until a full commission is
seated. No applicants asl��d for a continuance. _
,� ,
3. SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A TWO STORY DETACHED GARAGE WITH RECREATION
ROOM AND TOILET AT 1520 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (KEVIN AND JEI�TNIFER
HELMIG, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS AND JAMES D. VALENTI,
DESIGNER).
Reference staff report, 10.10.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chm. 7acobs opened the public hearing. Jim Valenti, the designer and Kevin Helmet, property owner,
1520 Ralston Avenue, were present to address the commission.They noted they would be willing to
lower the ceiling height in the garage to lower the plate and roof ridge 1 foot. The space in the rear
near the pool has limited deck area because of the lip on the pool, however there is enough room
within the house to remodel without changing the footprint of the house. There were no other
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Galligan noted the height of the accessory structure next door does not qualify as findings for this
application. Commissioners asked if they considered a 2 car garage since present dimension is almost
there, applicant noted could widen but would affect useable deck area next to pool which is minimal
now; discussed fact that the parking place and storage area on grade in the garage are divided by a
wall which will make it difficult to park a car in the narrower portion of the garage and insure that
it will be used for workshop or storage not parking; discussed moving garage forward since lot is deep
and rear 30% almost 50'; applicant wanted to off set mass of building next door; when iinish garage
will begin on house, dry rot is superficial applicant contractor and intends to expand porch, fix
shingles and convert bedroom at rear to master bedroom with bath all within existing footprint of the
house. He then moved denial of this project without prejudice noting; the garage should be within the
-2-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October I0, I995
permitted height (1 story); if 1' were added there would be a legitimate 2 car garage to support this
property for the long term, the recreation room could be extended at the end of the garage structure
and the pool equipment could be incorporateti into the gazage structure thereby making only 1 structure
and reducing noise exposure for the neighbors; if one story windows would have much less impact on
privacy. The applicant was asked to come back to the commission with revised plans.
Motion was seconded by C. Deal and passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Ellis and Key absent) voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Deal noted a request for this many special permits indicates a project probably goes beyond the
intentions of the zoning code.
4. HILLSIDE
CHURCH
Reference staff report, 10.10.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the
critena, Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for
l�tters in opposition, only�referring to on street pazking impacts of-#tie use were
tf�)
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Ectgar Rodrigues, the erigineer for the�,�f
San Jose, explained the project noting.;the purpose of the pr`oject is to enhar�ce
upgrade and m�ice the building AD�4�;�ccessible. Mr. Gre�val, next door ��ighb
Drive t ld th
est, reviewed
;ration. Two
to the record.
iject, 15190 Cooper,
exterior, do seismic
>r at 2846 Trousdale
, o; e commission he has�;�no problem with enclosing the patia�it is the impact on the view
from his rear bedroom caused t�y� the pitched roof that he is resistin ``��Mr. Rodrigues explained the
�; �; .,
mock up' shows the roof will have minimal impact on the view, it ��' at a 3:12 pitch to keep it as low
as possible. Additionally, the present flat roof �leaks and the ar�,�io in to address that problem by
Y ,,, P g
pitching the roof enough to have proper drain�ge, also to allow :rtiechanical duct work for central air
conditioning and heat in.the attic. A number of inembers of�the congregation were present to show
support. There were no other comments. and the public he�ing was closed.
�,�µ
C. Galligan commented that this
the roof 3'-8" at the ma�cimum
�ation to extend
less in most
impact to the house next door but;;f�'e effect is �
there is a structural problem associated with the
and the h d h' b
h'e''structure one foot toward.tlie side and raise
s seems benign. There would be some view
not a living room;
eeds to be addressed
Zd on a bedroom at the r, ,ear
yW. ;
roof of the church whic�i n
y ave one t is y being sensitive to tn�4 neighbor and keeping th�F�roof as low as possible.
He then moved approval of this Hillside Area C�o`nstruction Permit and Sp�cial Permit application, by
resolution, with the following conditions: 1�,}+'�that the project shall be :built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Plannin De artment and ``�
g; p c�ate stamped August 24, 1995, sheets A-1, A-4, A-5 and
sheets A-2 and A-3 date stamped October �; 1995; 2) that the conditions stated in the Fire Marshal's
August 28, 1995 and Chief building Insp�tor's August 28, 1995 memos shall be met; 3) that as built
the three new roof ridges added over tlle patio area shall not exceed elevation 22'-8" (face rear of
lot), 23'-2" (face west side of lot), and 23'-8' (face Trousdale frontage) and that after framing, before
attaching the roof, the roof ridge lines shall be surveyed by a licensed Engineer or surveyor to coniirm
����:UNSTRUCTION�r:�ERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A
2828 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED ` R-1 (NORTH BURLINGAME
[v OF JEHOVP,i�i'S WITNESSES, PROPERTY OWNER AND PAUL K.
�PPLICANT� _'':
-3-
� ,J
James D. V�rlenti NOV 2 2 1995
ARCHITECT CITY OF BURLIf�GAfV��
PLANNINU I�L�'7.
November 21, 1995
Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: New garage and recreation room, 1520 Ralston Avenue
Project narrative for revised design, special permit requests.
Honorable Commissioners,
The revised design for a new garage and recreation room is a single story, 723sq. ft.
14'-4" tall building to be constructed on the site of existing garage and driveway areas.
A new 434sq. ft., two car garage faces the driveway in front of the 289sq. ft. recreation
room which is pulled 4ft. back from the pool to create a 68sq. ft. covered porch and
maintain some of the pool deck area. The length of the new design is equal to the length
of the existing structure on the adjacent property.
The form of the proposed builc�ing is broken-up into smaller components by the separate
articulation of each of the spaces within. This massing mimics the existing main house as
do the pitched roofs, antique style mouldings, vents, unique shingle patterns and
architectural details of the new design. The revised plan also fits into the existing
development pattern of the entire block and respects the privacy of neighboring lots.
On behalf of the owners and myself, I would like to thank the commissioners for this
opportunity to revise our design and re-submit our project for consideration. We
appreciate your design suggestions pertaining to neighborhood context. They helped
reduce the number of special permits required from seven to three. We hope the revised
design is in accord with the Planning Commission's urban design goals for this
neighborhood and meets with your approval.
Respectful� Submitted,
� �� � 7 �,.
. . f
�;
,;�--' � - = -'
James D. Valenti, Architect
�'
Type of Application:�ecial Permit Variance Other
/�r� ciT �
�R�N�.Mi CITY OF BITRLINGAME
�,.�°�� APPLICATION TO 1'�� PLA►NNING CONIlVIISSION
�...e
Project Address: 15Z.� �L-ST`o�f �u�� v-�
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): O Z- �- 2-�3� — O� o
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
Name: H E�r�1. S� G O N ST Name: K�vw �-�I �1v N 1 F�K iE �G-N11 Gi
Address: � O� �ox I 03 � Address: lS.Z-O �a�.,.s`R�nl ���.
City/State/Zip: N1� �AE, G� �4fl3o City/State/Zip: �v rz �! n[ �,cL�'-'� � G>
Phone (w) : S�t- 8- I-4-- S f-3
(h):
fa�c: ..��-' 48 - O �-9- �o
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:-.��n�� p V�l.�l�C7-1
Address: �1" l D C� S. "�,�.., �vi � iV c�
Phone (w):
�n�: 5-�- 8 -- � 8 .� c�
fa�c:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
City/State/Zip��l ,�'�o. �9�-40 3
Phone (w): S 74- -� 4 J 4 0
(h):
fax: .� 5 8-�i' 8 Z--�--
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��Nl� • C�-� . ��� - G��l �C�t�J`si 1 l�f �-t , .3Z�j-�
, �
R�-�1�. `(t7 � �-T�RC-Ft �p GA� ��r� � Gc.7�S i�c�-"T �
CN ) �-8 c� � G��� w/ � �- G. . 1�t . ���
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
,,
_ .� ..
r'�` � f ✓,�,,�M�� �' ,.�r ._ , � r u �
_ - i
Applicant's Signature Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
,-
.
.
- _.^J� __._.
/.�_.,. -P/' �� .y�"y� ��� 4,r :�- %,�y
Property Owner's Signature ` Date
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -----------------------------------------
� ,,� ` �' -
Date Filed: ` �'�� �e� > Fee: '' o �- " '�
Planning Commission: Study Date:
Action Date:
��� ciTr o� Ir
.� BURLJNGAME ��� �u ������`�+����
i � o=-: � � � �_� :. ��r�c�o�� r����o o� ��r��o��a�r o��� F � � � �" � �
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined byd�� i' dinance
(Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will ass� ��e�lanning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be r��T�'��d�u�pt�c;�est.
Piease type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for �������th these
questions.
1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or. fnjurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
convenience.
� �-{ �s �� ��-- i� ��-�P�-�G--.� TH��- �,>c lsTl �G�
1�1��1 - C'.c�i �'o �M i h..�, G�i�Ct � c.�c T�-t .4 G-,��--
T �'� ' <� � C'�4�z�L'� f /vl �t2C�J C S (� (> P�G--! � C�L -
t/�t l�-avG.�. w 1 T� M��� ��� �Ti����' �.K--
1 N� • �th�- l�C�.TI ca�l �- Us.� �`T�} �- t��w
%(, l G-�/ /�Gr I S Gg'Yt �'cT�B�--� w( TH TH�- ���'S
�� u'�G-��1 �n��T' ���f-T�=-�l�� � � l G-�-- � o-�--
��� �'�� Tt� � `�c�F�l.-� G. � �f-�L-_T�-J S�� �Z"`� c�.
� �1.�`� w�U=�.�. o� Sc>��cjrv�/ivGr
�'-�oF�=-�7" 1 �--�5 •
2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame
Genera/ P/an and Zoning Ordinance7
I N�- �-c�r�o.S �-C' �`�hJ�-�T' l � /-�. �f��� �
`� f� �:.-G�.�/�,T � �/�( fZ�/Yi � l Cl�'�i��. ���
t�� c?T`�- I� ��� � N T� � �- � ��r rN.c
�D �STiz, t �T �, <�1 � , w ( T�-i `_r�-fi�--
�jV F�. l N G4 -4N�. Gt�-N F._.-�.�, �t-�1 .
3. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
Tt�� 'Pr2c� �oS�-D F.�v i L� � �v �, ��P�c-�� .�I
� l�Tl �! G, S�T�v��'C���. � I TT //�! G � NT�% TH �-
i'3�.��'�f�'S �T i �2/�J c�F ���2 `7'o°��P, �7��c-t-� �L�
GA����S �5 � �T' 1 �I �-p -i� -t�'�ov � � � � � vr�,c`Y
Fo� .��G H. ��� Y�2Z� • �(�'+t� J�l �-w 51 t�l C'a L.� S�-Y
UV I(��7 f I�G W l L,(�. L-��.- C�'1 �'�T�� t�c� tTt-� �� Nl,���
� L�vL.._.K o F N� i�� �I�i N�t '�"���TI �--5. �`�S
, 2�ss G�i A��C�T.�� � P��ZTt-i �TI �-s w r�L- (�l��T"C�-i-}
ap.irm
T�t� �-x i STl NG Nov��. �. ���-R�`� �s � �t ��
��N �-��- v i�r r�l � T`1'
1. Exp/ain why
p�operty or
convenience.
2.
3.
,zres
w•�++
the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to
Improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighborinp properties or structures on those
properties7 If neighboring p�operties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving,
landscapin� sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfaret
Public health includes such things as sanitation (�arba�e), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems,
water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks,
storape of chemicals, situations which encourape the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Pub/ic safeiv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? �II alarm systems
or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structu�e or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services
(i.e., noise, unruiy gatherings, ioitering, traiFiici or iire services (i.e., sto�age or use fiammabie or hazardous materiais,
or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
Genera/ welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the p�oposal consistent with the city's policy and
goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit7
�onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for
this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or
handicappedl
How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/
P/an and Zoning Ordinance7
Ask the Planninp Department for the general plan designation and zoninp district for the proposed project site. Also
ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated
designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would "fiY accordingly.
How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the
existing neighborhood and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
How does the p�oposed structure or use compa�e aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect
a�sthe�i��, sxate why, 1# ch�nQes tQ thQ �tr���t+�r� �irt rrnp��sd, was the ad��t6on dssipnsd to �at�h ex3st9�:g
architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If a use will affect the way a
neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area
and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no change
to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of character as
the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more
traffic or less parking available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change,
state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existin� and potential uses in the peneral vicinity? Compare your
�sroject with existin� uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state
why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
�
ROUTING FORM
DATE: �
TO: � CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIItECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
� i � w i�-�i �
SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: � V
THANKS,
FROM: CITY PLANNERlPLA1VNER
SUB7ECT: REQUF.,ST FOR �� -Q>C.�, C�'�,
� �� ������
AT 1 �2� � �� ri� � ,
(�
�����
Jane/Sheri/I.eah
� � —� � - � _�i Date of Comments
,;�- � ,�,,,—� .r _..}Z�,,�;�,,�,�,,o� :�. � � " �"
v' j/�, � � �' ✓`�'e'` �f �i ���2°�1..e/�,2_. i �..
r. �
�:� w�-�--�� -�z �-��-� .
��
-�
7 d
���.-�� <.�-��.
M ,
ROUTING FORM
DATE: �
TO: CITY ENGINEER
,� '� CHIEF BUII,DING INSPECTOR
�" FIItE MARSHAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNERJPLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR �J �-�� �� ��/{rjll'1( �
c � � �S �j-1/L�-���� � ,C�� � � w l �-�i �
AT
� c,��:t� `�
SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: C,�V
THANKS ,
�
Jane/Sheri/Leah � Date of Comments
�'� �r������� G/�� �/�� ���� �-d�� _ ���.
/�
��%��/�jdr�/ �i��,l/d �������� �i����i�'� ,G��
����"��=����� �����r�/ � �� �=�� ,
�� o�;��� � �1��.� .,�% �'�� ����� .
�,�
� ��� �o�� �� /1��r����'� ����'�� ��� �y���
2. � �
����� ��a� ���-����-�. i� ��� ����
��j /t/�� � ����� ������ ,���1� �a� 7�����
�, , �r��G 6�'���'� � �
�
-�
�
ROUTING FORM
DATE: � �
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUII,DING INSPECTOR
��� FIRE MARSHAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB7ECT: REQUEST FOR
� �c , �S 1
n
�,
�e �u cc�,
�����,
� �j`1"� ,
(�
I �l (.� f =
<.:,
� c.,�.�:�C `�
SCHEDULED PLANTTING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: (..�, Ir
THANKS,
Jane/Sheri/Leah
1 '�� ����' 1,iL�1�1 �
/ , ! ( ��
�_—���v ;�� e
��--
_ � � ��-� Date of Comments
.
�
e
�" '
p �_
�� ,.�, � e., . � , _ � � . -�
a v �
u
� - �� ��� �
y�
� �
;
�� ��. �
������'��
�qlY •q„ <+'�' � . • �' �.
1 F*�i d
, �. �+, � ` } .
_ . ;. �.. �. a,-*^` . � � fi�
�� " � '� .�� � �� �wk . �
� .
� �'
.�,� �p � � .. .
4 ` � �l ,� �. ���
. "
ua�
� � ... �i�'1 '�t� ' 1 ` ��°Y
.��.y � �� :� � `,r V� �� J�
� 'i ySi ��. . . �� C � , �`"ni`� �� ... ... p{�
,
_ <,' a v � �
,�• _ � , . � � � i� � �
�' �� � 1�t3 �
_ ..
�� E �
� F3JRt� 6RM � x �
� ti � ,
_ � a
��� : , �l � �5y, � �,. - � � � � � �x
.
�;� � �� �. � �v , �ti
� �. "�
�:
. �- n �
� '
, �.�. �� � , ���
� � u �, � � � �
.�� � � v, � #
.� �
� x
� ._. � .. � � ,� � �
.
� � �. �
- � "' +j,
. ., .., .ks l � '
�
� ,. �� � � �,.���'�'.�� ��y,
� § ° � � '�r ��� � y� �.
� � r �. _ �.� � ����
.
,� ,� � �
� A
�
� � '� �
�a• . � �e,�
. ' _;,.. � �� �.. .
,
� �� �w � � � .
. � , � �� .��.
�
,. � J
� � � �..
� � �
h � � ��
,. , � �
� ... ",;f .. *.: � ; .. `�,� � ,
-, -
. �
. ` s
. .. F - �., , _
,��s, �� s � ,. .. �.
.. ' .,,��'a` . ..
� .:
E �� s 4
u. �
����� x � � . . 11�'� ��I . Mt�:: . � \L
w
� ��� T � r
v
, � � u„ : .
� ,� N
r
�
5}
� �k -�.
. ,ti �,� ; ,�
. � �.
� '�. � �� � � � . -. , . _
� � �� °
� w= , � � � �,� r►'� �` � � �, �
. � � � � �� �
4` ►�
� � ,,
� ��� RA�..STOt�1 � �ti�525 15� u , _ � � �
� ����
�
,� �
, . �` �
< m: � �
�., � . � �, :
, � . —«,..� d�� � �
�� �
� � �.a �
�`� � �
��
. r• � ,
i•
4 _ • _ �
� ,��'� ;�c � u . +,� � .
� . �. � i � � �
� � � � �
111 '
« > ,
�; � ��, �
�. °
. � ;� �
, Q � ' � � � "
� w 5 R
��, � .
� ti
. � � � �° �
� � F�� �� �.�
. ,
x
. . . v„
:
�
�,�
,
< .
, ,
�
, ,
� _d
_
rt �. .� � , �r� ,.. r„
a ,. r,.. � t �
, .
� �
y � , A ~� .: '�� �;`,rt.
r
g L �
� _ `"_ � a
��. C . . ...n �a�
�
.t', ... 'S q,.� .�. . ... � � � �.e .... �..: ...
m . . �a� e' , .a . , .
, #ui. . ... . � � ... .
a t*. �� . . ., � . .
� �� � o.e � �
— .. � ;
, n+ . �
- , - �,, ����p� :. ��� ��.
_ � �� �
,� �� � � .�„� �� __ � �,� P �
� J �.
, � , � � ,� �.
. � ��
� � � ��- ��-d
a�r � ° � ' �
� � �
, � �~
� �, ,�, � _ � .�
. � � ;� � ,.
.
Ot � � � � � � ' '� � � "� �
�Y
&_ .
. m�
� �pwAf� � r . �
� � e ,�� � .� �
. .. ,�
� �,,
N
�
_��. � ,� ��, �� � �,� � � �
�-� r,
• s� �
.� � — � �
� +�: '�� � '"�
� ,. _ `�� � �� �� " '" '�
�. �
x � �. %���� f �.
� �= x A �r �'
� � ,� ��' �' � �
� ,�.; �
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
(415) 696-7250
NOTICE OF HEARING
The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 1996 at 7:30 P.M.
in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be
reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
1520 RALSTON AVENUE APN: 028-285-050
AN APPLICATION FOR FOUR SPECIAL PERMIT3 FOR A 791 3F
DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1520 RALSTON AVENUE,
ZONED R-l.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in the notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public
hearing.
The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for
informing their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice
in a public place on your property. Thank you
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
FRIDAY DECEMBER 29 1995
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for four
(41 special �ermits to build a one story detached gara�e with recreation room at 1520 Ralston Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-285-050 ;�ro�erty owner: 7ennifer and Kevin Helmig, 1520 Ralston Avenue
; and
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
January 8, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that
the project set forth above will have a signiiicant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption
per Article 19, Section: 15303 - Existing Facilities, Class 3(e), construction and location of limited
numbers of new, sma11 facilities or structures including (e) accessory (appurtenant) structures such as
garages is hereby approved.
2. Said special permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such special permits are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, Karen Kev , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 8th day of January , 1996 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval categorical exemption and four special permits
1520 RALSTON AVENUE
effective JANiJARY 17, 1996
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 17') 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 1'-0" of the
property line), and the Chief Building Inspector's November 27, 1995 memo (north wall
to be of one hour iire 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; the area sha11 be used as an ofiice 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.
m
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996
2. AP�L'�CATION���`OR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR WHOLESALE AUTOMOBILE
SALES AT $08 BURLWAY ROAD, UIVIT #2, ZONED O-M, (NICHOLAS AND
�'�STELLA .��2ISAFI, PROPERTY OWNER(S) AND LYNN DALEY, APPLICANT).
� �
Reques�'" where will `employees park since 2 spaces designated and three e�rployees in
busi ss? how wi�-'�designated spaces be used; explain how auto sales bu�iness could be
��
9 o wholesale��`Item set for public hearing January 22, 1996.
�-
f
�`
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 JEN1vIFER 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
l, Garage Floor Plan, Site and Roof Plan, and Elevations with the maximum size of the
recreation room at 289 sf (17' x 17') and the garage/recreation room shall never include
a kitchen area or co�king 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 1'-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 sha11 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 structure. 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 MINI/TES
January 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. APPb�ATION FOR A TAKE OUT P�RRMIT FOR A RESTAURANT AT 1318
BURLING�1 E AVENUE, ZONED �, SUBAREA A, (KING FAMILY
IRREVOCABL TRUST, PROPERTY �`�WNERS AND MATT BLAIR,
REPRESENTI WORLD WRAPPS APPLI NT .
Reference staff r�
reviewed criteria
consideration.
, 1.8.96, with attachments. CP Moni�ie summarized the request and
Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for
�
Chm. Jacobs opened the''p blic hearing. There was no one pres�nt to represent the
applicant, to speak in favor o, r opposed to, this project. There were ri`°� other comments
and the public hearing was close .
°�,
Commission discussed the trash issu` on Burlingame Avenue and the importance of having
the applicant present for the discussi n and public hearing portion of the meeting;
� -
C. Galligan moved continuance on the�public hearing of this application to the Januar�' ,
', 1996 meeting.
'� .
1V�otion was seconded by C. Key and proved on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) voice vote. ��'�`
�
Ag�eal procedures were advised. �.
�.,
5. A'1?PLICATION FOR A ONE AR EXTENSION FOR A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM RMIT, TENTATIVE MAP, SPECIAL
PERl�1IT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIA FOR UNDERGROUND GARAGE '
EXTEN'LZING ABOVE NATURAL GRAD �'�'OR AN 18 UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM AT 601 ANSEL ROAD, ZO�IED R-3, (FLORIBUNDA LTD.,
PROPERTY''OWNER AND J. DAVID KNUDSEI�:.�APPLICANTI.
°���
Reference staff report;�1.8.96, with attachments. CP Monroe�ummarized the request and
reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four coi'�ditions were suggested for
consideration. �'��
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Knudsen, 26855
Altos Hills, the applicant was present. There were no comments �
was closed.
�ara Way, Los
public hearing
-4-