HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.03.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 12, 1990
• •��
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, March 12, 1990 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Presents Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs,
Kelly, Mink
Absents None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill
Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the February 26, 1990 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with Item #7 continued to
the meeting of March 26, 1990.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SIX
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AT 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Requests: will the guest parking spaces be marked; explain
applicant's comments in his letter of January 31, 1990 regarding
Unit #1 open space; referring to page Al, are fireplaces usable or
decorative, cannot find flue to the second story; there are small
windows on the east elevation which do not appear on the floor
plan, what are these; location of adjacent R-1 properties; is there
an intercom system. Item set for public hearing March 26, 1990.
2. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 1445 EL CAMINO REAL
Item set for public hearing March 26, 1990.
3. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1728 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1
Requests: type of business of two of the tenants, Midalux and ATX,
Inc.; drawing shows two of the signs together, one underneath the
other, are they proposed together, could they be considered a
single sign, discuss the proposal with regard to Code Sec.
22.04.440. Item set for public hearing March 26, 1990.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
March 12, 1990
4. PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A RESTAURANT
AT 1318 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
Requests: clarify number of parking spaces required; does applicant
intend to have the second floor open during lunch time or just
during evening hours; parking count of available parking in the
evening; better description of why this restaurant is unique
compared to other restaurants on Broadway; projection of maximum
number of patrons in five years; concern about applicantis
discussion of findings for the variance, in (a) he states parking
would not be a problem since most other businesses on Broadway are
closed in the evening and then in (c) states his expansion will not
be detrimental to businesses in this area but will draw more people
to these businesses, what is exceptional or extraordinary with
regard to this property. Item set for public hearing March 26,
1990 if the additional parking figures can be compiled in time.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ON THE SECOND
FLOOR AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B-1,
BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA
Requests: parking available and will it be designated under the
building; existing use of this space on the second floor; tenant
make-up of the building, how is parking allocated for the whole
building; clarify how the business will operate with only one
client expected on the site per day. Item set for public hearing
March 26, 1990.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
6. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE TO STORAGE.USE AT 824 ALPINE AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 3/12/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter.
One condition was suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. CP clarified that applicant is requesting an extension of
what was granted in 1989, raising the floor was part of this
approval.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Tony De Angelis, applicant,
requested 90 days rather than 60 days for completion of the
project. There were no audience comments and the _public hearing
was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain since he drew the
original plans for this project.
Commissioner Giomi stated she had no problem with granting the
extension and that 90 days for completion of the project was
acceptable. She found that this building has been there for many I
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
March 12, 1990
years and will not be injurious to the neighbors, there will be no
change to the zoning, it will not be used for additional living
area and is in accord with the general plan. C. Giomi moved for
approval of this special permit extension with the following
condition: (1) that the conditions of the February 23, 1989 action
by the city on this request including the removal and plugging of
plumbing to the accessory structure shall be met; a building permit
for the correction shall be secured within 30 days (April 18, 1990)
and construction/utility removal completed with final inspection 60
days thereafter (June 18, 1990).
Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 5-1-1 roll call
vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures
were advised.
7. PARKING AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT
3205 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Item continued to the meeting of March 26, 1990.
8. -NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDOMINIUM
.PERMIT FOR A NINE UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 518 ALMER
ROAD, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 3/12/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters,
required findings, study meeting questions. Letters in opposition
from the following were noted: Virginia Meitz, 500 Almer Road #307;
Sanford Schindler, 500 Almer Road; Gertrude Waskawiak, 500 Almer
Road; Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; Eunice O'Reilly, 500 Almer Road
#209; J. A. Sarrail, San Mateo; Mr. and Mrs. R. Rapagnani, 500
Almer Road, #306. Six conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public -hearing.
Commission/staff discussed at length staffs determination of the
front setback requirement, code wording and staff's interpretation
of it, the intersecting streets used, why the front yard of 501
Primrose (City Hall) was used in the calculations, 1477 Floribunda
was not included since its side setback faces onto Almer.
Variation between applicants numbers and staff's was noted.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Peter Bogatsky, applicant
and property owner, was present. Regarding front setback, he
stated their calculations were from Floribunda to Bellevue, 501
Primrose is more than three times the average setback of the other
buildings, if City Hall were not included there would be no need
for a variance. Responding to Commission questions, applicant
stated meeting the front setback requirement would affect size of
the units, they are limited in height and want to optimize living
space of each unit, if front setback requirement were met the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
March 12, 1990
design would be cut back substantially in terms of living space. A
Commissioner commented exceptional circumstances might be that the
site is located in a block which has the City Hall 66' front
setback. Applicant advised one of his partners signed the March 1,
1990 letter regarding security; he had no problem with any of the
suggested conditions of approval.
Mrs. McKean, 1345 Drake Avenue commented: she wondered why this
condominium could not meet setback requirements, open space in the
city seems to be disappearing, there are more and more units where
single family houses once were located, beauty of the city is being
lost. A Commissioner pointed out six to nine buildings on that
street have setbacks that are less than the applicant is asking
for, even an 181-6" setback (applicant's previous request) is
greater than the majority of buildings on this street; open space
is not being encroached upon by this project. There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs complimented the applicant on increasing the front
setback for the project, City Hall setback is affecting front
setback measurements for all these buildings, the project will not
be detrimental to the area, it conforms to the general plan and
zoning. She could understand the concern about open space but
noted this area has been zoned R-3 for many years.
C. Jacobs moved to approve Negative Declaration ND -433P with the
finding that on the basis of the initial study and comments
received there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. She then moved for
approval of the front setback variance and condominium permit with
the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City
Engineers February 21, 1990 memo shall be met; (2) that the
project shall include a gate to secure the on-site parking area and
a security/ intercom system shall be provided at the gate to each
unit so that the residents are able to provide guests access to the
designated guest parking behind the gate; (3) that one guest
parking space shall be designated on site and shall not be assigned
to a unit but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium
association; (4) that the structure shall be built with a minimum
front setback of 211-0" and that the plans date stamped February 9,
1990 as revised March 2, 1990 shall be redrawn to scale and
resubmitted to the Planning Department for confirmation of
dimensions and appropriate adjustments to unit sizes and other
aspects of the structure before the city will accept them for a
building permit and that the structure as submitted shall conform
to all other requirements of the Burlingame Municipal Code except
front setback; (5) that final inspection shall be completed and a
certificate of occupancy shall be issued before the close of escrow
on the sale of each unit; and (6) that the developer shall provide
to each initial purchaser of a unit and to the board of directors 3
of the condominium association an owner -purchaser manual which
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
March 12, 1990
shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed
work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of
appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all
depreciable component parts of the project, including but not
limited to roof, painting and common area carpets, drapes and
furniture.
Motion was seconded by C. Graham. Comment on the motion: will
support this irregardless of the definition of what block is, but
think it is not the intention of the code to include a building
such as City Hall.
Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP
FOR NINE UNITS - PTN. LOT 7, BLOCK 9, MAP NO. 2 BURLINGAME
LAND CO. - 518 ALMER ROAD
Reference CE's March 6, 1990 memo with attached map. C. Giomi
moved to recommend the tentative and final parcel map and tentative
condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Graham
and approved unanimously on voice vote. Staff will forward to
Council.
10. VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING AND CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1109
BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4
Reference staff report, 3/12/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request., staff review, CA's comment on the
CC&R's, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions, Park Director's comment on neighboring trees, required
findings. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
During discussion CA clarified his remarks regarding bylaws for an
unincorporated association; CP advised compact spaces are allowed
only in commercial development and clarified what is counted in lot
coverage; CE stated building code provides for a special structural
inspector plus `-the city's regular inspectors. A further comment:
Sheet A3 exceeds the footprint of the building as shown on Sheet
A2, the decks on A3 are a structure above grade and counted in lot
coverage.
Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Ellen Hartog, representing
Robert Lyon and Associates, was present. Her comments: footprint
would be less if deck and stairs were at grade level, the problem
was due to lot size, because of length and slope of the ramp it
could not be put all underground, so it had to be included as part
of building coverage; she did enlarge one side setback to 51, that
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
March 12, 1990
side setback ranges from 41 to 61. Regarding the one foot in the
two substandard parking stalls, she could distribute this one foot
loss over all the stalls. Responding to Commissioner questions,
they did not consider putting parking completely underground
because of the depth of the garage; it was noted that by going
completely underground they could go lot line to lot line.
Applicant stated maximum slope of the ramp is 15%. Staff comment:
with a deeper or wider lot there would be more flexibility; if
applicant went completely below grade she couldn't get more parking
spaces and the area would extend to the rear property line,
allowing for the longer ramp.
In response to questions regarding notes on the plans, applicant
said appliances would be provided, either gas or electric; there
will be waterproof foundation walls adjacent to areas of usable
space, some type of waterproof membrane so it wont leak.
Applicant stated an exceptional circumstance with the property
itself is the depth of the lot, they could not go totally
underground, need a 7' clearance for the garage.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement this is too much on one lot, units are too big,
the project could be designed so it did not exceed lot coverage, C.
Graham moved for denial of the variances for lot coverage and
parking and the condominium permit. Motion as seconded by C.
Jacobs. Comment on the motion: will support denial, am sensitive
to applicants comments about depth of the lot but think there are
ways to decrease the lot coverage. Motion to deny was approved on
a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
11. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP
FOR THREE UNITS - PTN. LOTS 10 AND 11, BLOCK 9, POLO FIELD
SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF BURLINGAME - 1109 BAYSWATER AVENUE
Reference CE's March 6, 1990 memo with attached map. C. Graham
moved to recommend denial of the tentative and final parcel map and
tentative condominium map, seconded by C. Kelly, approved
unanimously on voice vote.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
The Chair thanked City Council for a fine Commissioners dinner on
Friday, March 2, 1990 and congratulated C. Giomi on the birth of
her first grandchild, Terrence Joseph Giomi III.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
March 12, 1990
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its March- 5, 1990
regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick J. Kelly
Secretary