Loading...
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