Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.02.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, February 10, 1986 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the January 27, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved with the following corrections: Item #1, page 2, first paragraph, second line - insert after the findings C. Leahy's motion for approval with the two conditions listed in the staff report; page 11, insert "Items for Study" prior to Item #8. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. CONTINUED ACTION ON SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE AT 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB -AREA A Reference staff report, 2/10/86, with attachments. C. Taylor stated he would abstain due to conflict of interest. C. Giomi who had been absent at the January 27, 1986 meeting at which time the public hearing was held stated she had read the minutes and listened to the tapes of this item. CA advised she could act on the item this evening. CP Monroe briefly reviewed the request and noted two letters in support and two in opposition received after the public hearing was closed. Chm. Garcia acknowledged Councilman Lembi in the audience. Commission comments/concerns: overlapping of vehicle trips during lunch hour peak, applicant's figures of 16 spaces required or 32 trip ends did not address overlapping, a business cannot survive without available parking; regarding applicant handling the problem of double parking, this is the authority of the Police Department; number of employees at the existing restaurant compared to the much larger number projected for this business; similar applications have been rejected because of parking impacts on the city's congested downtown areas, applicants should be made aware of the city's concern, applicants presented data which indicated fast food restaurants impact an area more than any other use, this is a good business in the wrong place. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1986 Further comment: applicant -projects 750 customers per day going up to about 1,000 in five years, impact would increase in future years; do not feel the applicant's one day traffic survey has validity, other retail businesses in the area rely on parking for their customers, if this application is allowed the city will be doing a disservice to the other retail outlets on the Avenue. C. Graham moved to deny this special permit. His statements: parking is not available in the area between 11:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M.; using applicant's figures of 32 vehicle trips per hour during this period, these vehicles would be traveling around the block three times to find space (96 trips); garbage pickup is not available in the building, garbage would be put on the street at night and that area not cleaned up until 10:30 the next morning when the restaurant opens; this is essentially a change in use from a dinner hour peak (existing) to lunch hour peak (proposed). Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 705 SF ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOME AT 1804 LOYOLA DRIVE WHICH WILL EXTEND 7'-0" INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD AREA, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/10/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, applicant's letter, letters of consent submitted by the applicant, staff review, Planning staff comment. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: when did the original nonconformity occur; stability of underlying fill at the back of the lot; plans submitted show only two bedrooms; detail on letters of consent submitted by the applicant and discussed in paragraph four of the staff report. James Barientos, applicant, was present. He advised there were changes in the floor plan of the plans submitted. He intends to add a third bedroom, the existing dining room on the plans will become the third bedroom, the existing family room will become the dining room and the new construction will be a family room; the house now has 2-1/2 baths; there will be a fireplace and portable bar in the new addition; there is an existing two car garage and he can comfortably park four cars in the circular driveway; a closet will be included in the proposed new bedroom (shown on the present plans as a dining room). It was determined Commission could act this evening adding a condition to cover the changes in the submitted plans. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Graham found this nonconformity would fill the void between the existing nonconformity at the rear of the house and the rest of the house, that the variance was necessary for the applicant's enjoyment of the home, that it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1986 city nor be detrimental or injurious to the neighbors. C. Jacobs added a finding of exceptional circumstances in that the lot is irregular in shape and the variance is necessary to make the structure livable. C. Graham moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the location of the rear property line be established by survey; (2) that a licensed soils engineer shall review the condition of underlying fill at the back of this lot and any recommendations that he shall make to protect from soil slippage or erosion of the bank shall be followed by the applicant; (3) that lot coverage shall not exceed 40% and the following floor plan changes to the submitted plans be allowed: dining room to become a bedroom, family room to become a dining room and the new construction will be a family room; and (4) that the applicant shall comply with all Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code requirements. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND MODIFICATION OF THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON LOT 5 OF THE RECENT 5 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 2720 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/10/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, background of the city's action on this subdivision, staff review, applicants' letters, Planning staff comment. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: preservation of view corridors, Commission/Council establishment of height restrictions on the subdivision map, it had been assumed construction of houses on each lot would be on the pads shown on the subdivision map; not all homes in that area have 3,000 SF living area which is being requested by the applicant; applicant has changed the design of the house and created the problem himself; how can 1/2 foot in height make a big difference in design of the house. Michael Monte, Donald Bennett Properties, developer and Nicholas Delis, applicant were present. Mr. Monte discussed his projections to establish view corridors and not interfere with any of the neighbors, staff had requested an estimate for each house and this was done; the reason for the additional 6" in height is to keep the roof line as low as possible on this single story home; he did not have specific house designs at the time the subdivision map was approved, span determines the height of the roof, his projection was based on a span slightly less than this design. Concern was expressed that the developer was back before Commission. Mr. Monte commented the design of the house requires the 6", the applicant has a young family and needs the requested space with 48% lot coverage. A Commissioner pointed out the developer was aware of the limitations when the subdivision map was approved. Mr. Delis, applicant, discussed his justification for the variance: this is the smallest of the one story lots in the subdivision, they Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 10, 1986 wish to move to Burlingame.and can afford this smaller lot, a larger lot would not be financially feasible, the site is surrounded by three streets, they are within the setback requirements, it is not a safety issue; they do not want to impact the neighbors, cannot go up and block views so must go out with more lot coverage. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. ' Commission discussion: net lot area and living area measurements; difficult to make findings for variance approval, the house could be built in another design; cannot make a finding of hardship if applicant does not yet own the property; with respect to giving the developer a variance, either the house is too big for the lot or the subdivision should have been for four lots, not five, developer was aware of the limitations. Concern was expressed that Commission will be holding hearings on every lot in this subdivision; Mr. Monte advised the other lots have not been sold. Further Commission comment: at the time of subdivision map approval it seemed the limitations were acceptable to everyone, developer should have assured the lots were buildable; could the applicant build the house he wants on one of the other lots. Mr. Monte stated at that time he did not have house plans, only projections; all houses are designed to the shape of the lots. He did not know if another house could be designed to meet the applicant's needs. C. Giomi found this is an above standard sized lot in Burlingame, the city was particularly careful in approving this subdivision, if the variance is approved it will set a precedent for future prospective buyers, it is a buildable lot and a good sized home could be built within 40% lot coverage. C. Giomi moved to deny the variance request for 48% lot coverage; second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: it may seem inconsistent to limit height and then handicap someone in building a proper sized house, but this should have been considered at the time of subdivision; financial hardship is not grounds for a variance; have heard no testimony to support findings as required by law, the reason the restrictions were placed on the property was to prevent this development from being detrimental and injurious to other property owners, the city reached consensus with the developer himself previously, now he is asking the city to ignore it. Motion to deny the variance for 48% lot coverage passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. With the same findings, C. Giomi moved to recommend to City Council denial of the request for modification of the height restriction on Lot 5 on the final subdivision map. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Staff will forward this recommendation to Council. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 10, 1986 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA FOR A PROPOSED AUTO SALES/SERVICE FACILITY AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHICH WILL CAUSE BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 35' (43' PROPOSED), ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 2/10/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff concerns expressed at the study meeting, applicant's letters. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: Phases 1 and 2 of this project; height and location of the parking structure which abuts the rear of the parcels that front on Highland; concern that businesses in this area move often and a parking impact could occur with some change; staff advised any new business would be required to provide parking to code; negative declaration was prepared prior to determining the height at 43', this will not be the only taller building on the street; concern that other dealers will now ask for more height; parking on the mezzanine meets backup standards, this will be confirmed with the final plans. George Avanessian, architect representing the applicant, was present. His statements: believe all staff's concerns have been addressed, the three story structure is less than 17% of the total development, three stories are needed because the site is limited and the applicant needs open storage for car display, the first floor will be drive-through, project is actually two floor occupancy, no employees will be added. He did not feel the character of the area would be changed by this proposal, the closest structure is 100' away, tandem parking provided is not for required parking but strictly for storage, in future two compact car spaces could be out between the columns although this would exceed the compact parking ratio for the site; a five unit apartment building is immediately adjacent to the west with a parking lot behind it. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Diane Roth, 854 Jefferson Court, San Mateo; Donald Dix, 866 Jefferson Court, San Mateo; Carl Curtis, 872 Jefferson Court, San Mateo; Ross Bowling, 852 Jefferson Court, San Mateo; Sheri Albert, 862 Jefferson Court, San Mateo. (Jefferson Court is located directly across Peninsula Avenue from the existing building on the site.) Their comments and concerns: this proposal will adversely impact the surrounding residential area; none of the existing buildings from Peninsula to Burlingame Avenue have three stories nor do those on San Mateo Drive; existing building on the site is 19' high; this development will be a change in the character of the area, will impact property values; the building will overlook backyards on Jefferson Court; have recently added a rear yard deck and with a three story structure people will be looking into the yard from offices across the street; concern about increased customer parking, street is impacted now, will employees actually use the parking provided on site; concern about glare from lights on the parapet of the building and noise, especially in summer when windows are open. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1986 Mr. Avanessian spoke in rebuttal: less than 17% of the structure is at the 43' height; do not believe there are windows looking west from the third floor; there are no lights on the building which would shine into backyards across the street, only lights for the site itself; the building which stands between parking/outdoor show area and homes will buffer outdoor noise, display and test driving will take place on the California Drive side; the service shop is completely enclosed; on-site parking complies with the code, there are actually 91 parking stalls instead of the required 69 some of which will be used for display; do not feel an extension of the second floor would produce a hardship on anyone. Commission comment/discussion: height of existing structure is approximately 201; agree the development will have an impact but it will be a positive impact, an attractive, modern building with on-site parking provided; can appreciate the concerns of those speaking this evening, but this is not a change in use, it is a permitted use, the 43' height is only a small portion of the building; if the applicant had only two stories he could build it without coming to Commission; concerns expressed by the neighbors are unrelated to this application for height, they seem to be directed to the use, proposed application is far better than what is there now. Further Commission comment: do have a concern about height in Burlingame but this request for 43' involves only 17% of the structure; applicant is providing 3,750 SF of landscaping and has a 4' front setback neither of which are requirements in this area; this proposal would have far less impact than what could be put on the site. One Commissioner did not support the application, stating it is a change from what is on California Drive, buildings can be constructed 35' and under, it will set a precedent; she believed the applicant could work within the 35' limit and not change the character of the area. Additional comment: there are two apartment buildings on Highland taller than 431; if approval does set a precedent and others come in for 43' structures, trade-offs for landscaping, lot coverage, etc. will be taken into consideration. With the statement there would be more on-site parking than is provided now, the development will improve the area and it will be an asset to the city, C. Schwalm moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and Fire Inspector's memos of December 17, 1985 and January 22, 1986, the Building Inspector's memo of December 16, 1985 and the City Engineer's memo of January 22, 1986 shall be met; (2) that there shall be 28 employee parking stalls designated on site by notation on each space as shown in the plans submitted and date stamped February 4, 1986 and that this number of employee spaces shall be increased as the number of employees on site is increased and that none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided in a tandem configuration; and (3) that this third floor addition and parking structure as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 11, 1985, January 17, 1986 and January 29, 1986 as amended Ll Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 10, 1986 by the plans showing designated employee parking dated February 4, 1986. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 3 CALIFORNIA DR. (PTN. LOT 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 13, SUPP. TO TOWN OF BURLINGAME) Reference CE's agenda memo for Item #5. CE corrected description of these lots in his memo and recommended the map be forwarded to Council for approval subject to one condition. C. Giomi moved to recommend this map to City Council for approval with the following condition: (1) all curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site which is damaged or displaced be replaced by the owner. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1 voice vote, C. Jacobs voting no. Recess 9:18 P.M.; reconvene 9:23 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - AUTOMOBILE RESTORATION SERVICE - 50 STAR WAY 7. SPECIAL PERMIT - AUTO DETAILING SERVICE - 70 STAR WAY Requests: data on available parking; history of previous actions on this site. Items #6 and #7 were set for hearing February 24, 1986. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Planner's memo, 2/10/86, re: 1108 Edgehill Drive, Elderly Care Residence PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 3, 1986 regular meeting and February 5, 1986 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Garcia adjourned the meeting at 9:55 P.M. in memory of Commissioner Schwalm's granddaughter, Michelle Schwalm. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary