Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.03.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 26, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, March 26, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Giomi, Graham (arrived 8:10 P.M.), Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 12, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FQR §TUDY 1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 2205 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: will there be any storage area in this structure; why is window 5' from property line needed when a skylight might serve the same purpose; distance between new accessory structure and existing residence, will there be any heating in the accessory structure, request accurate construction drawings, confirm habitable area with the building department; drawing should read "anodized windows, not "ionized". Item set for public hearing April 9, 1990. 2. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 115 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: why is plate line higher than 10' needed; will there be a fence on property line next to the building; is there a sewer easement on this property, if so where. Item set for public hearing April 9, 1990. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 26, 1990 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. 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 Reference staff report, 3/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, .applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to Commission questions, staff advised there is need for a survey to document a precise measurement establishing the front property line and location of the building, the plans submitted with the application will be the final plans assuming their dimensions are correct; the application has been reviewed for declining height envelope and meets the requirement. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Lydia Derugin, 3205 Hillside Drive, commented on their application: they have worked closely with their neighbors to ensure the structure would have their approval and be a positive contribution to the neighborhood; it has been confusing for them as well because of the shape of the lot and front setback being on Hillside Lane, they are requesting an extension of the existing wall to the second floor, with the change to the garage they still can park two cars comfortably in the driveway, 17' is adequate. Denise Nasey, 1500 Los Altos Drive, spoke in favor of the application: she has lived across the street for 18 years, the construction applicants are proposing would enhance and upgrade the neighborhood, it would not change the aesthetics of the area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found this to be a carefully thought out solution to a difficult lot problem, in support of the variance request there are exceptional circumstances based primarily on the lot configuration, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right.. of the owners, it will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity and will be compatible with the existing uses in the neighborhood. C. Mink moved for approval of this application with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 1, 1990; (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (3) that a site survey establishing the front property line and location of the building shall be provided to document that the proposal will not encroach into the front setback. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 26, 1990 Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs with the finding for the hillside area construction permit that there would be no blockage of view. Motion approved 6-0-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXPAND A FAMILY ROOM AT 2319 EASTON DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Maria Concepcion, property owner, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in the placement of the house and width of the lot, this is the logical place for an addition, it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 26, 1990; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: architect has done a beautiful job with the plans but have a problem finding exceptional circumstances which relate to the property, presently there is no ordinance which allows extension of an existing first floor, the required setback must be met unless a finding of exceptional circumstances can be made. Motion was approved on a 5-1-1 roll call vote, C. Deal voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. Variance - 2327 Hale Drive. The Chair moved this item to later in the meeting. 6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 3/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe noted CE's 3/20 and 3/22/90 memos as well as 3/23/90 letter from the applicant stating he wished to proceed with consideration of the plans of the original submittal. She reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions, Planning Commission action. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussed a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 26, 1990 security gate, private open space provided for Unit #1, intent of private open space. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Renan Dominguez, representing Mohsen Najafi, applicant, advised Dr. Najafi has decided against providing a security gate, it is difficult to install, almost impossible to support the gate within the 4' setback; regarding windows on the second floor, they are a mistake, final plans will eliminate them. Considerable discussion followed concerning Commission's desire for a security gate and the problems involved in its installation. Responding to another question, Mr. Dominguez advised there are no windows on the front of the building because there are no rooms/uses there which need a window, they could relocate these rooms but they were also trying to avoid street noise. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of the condominium permit by resolution with staff's seven suggested conditions and found on the basis of the initial study and comments received there is no substantial evidence that the negative declaration will have a significant effect on the environment. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Discussion on the motion: it would seem with fewer units there might be fewer problems; security gate is in the best interests of the city and future owners of the units; possibility of putting guest parking in front of the gate. Staff and Commission discussed this issue at length, the desire for security, especially on El Camino, redesign possibilities. Staff pointed out security system/gate requirement is already in the suggested conditions, with conditions as they stand applicant must put in a security gate, conditions do not require location of gate, Commission could approve this application on the condition that plans come back to Commission for approval of the location of the security gate, in this way Commission could ensure all residential parking was secured. C. Giomi withdrew her motion, C. Mink withdrew his second. C. Giomi moved to continue this application for 30 days in order to allow the applicant time to submit, along with his plans, a plan for a security :gate for Commission's approval which would include securing all parking for residents. Motion was seconded by C. Graham with the comment she would prefer to see all parking behind the security gate. Comment on the motion: would also like to see the private open space for Unit #1 redesigned so that it is truly usable open space. Motion to continue was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 26, 1990 7. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - LOT 9, BLOCK 50, EASTON ADDITION #4, 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 C. Jacobs moved to continue consideration of the tentative condominium map for 30 days, seconded by C. Graham, approved 7-0 on voice vote. 5. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SERVICE/LAUNDRY ROOM AT 2327 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Jan Barlow, applicant, addressed Commission: they want to stay in Burlingame, need to remodel what they have, the corner lot made it difficult, addition of this space will make the house more livable, it will enhance the neighborhood and is consistent with the original structure. Mr. Norling, 2325 Hale Drive, wanted to be sure the new addition would fit the design of the present house, he had not seen the plans but had no problem with the addition if it blends with the original design. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain. C. Graham had no problem with this application, she found there were exceptional circumstances in that it is a corner lot, applicants are extremely limited in what they can do, the addition will enhance the neighborhood, it will not be injurious to the neighbors and is compatible with existing residences. C. Graham moved for approval of this variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 19, 1990; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as' amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: will support the motion, a good reason for approval is that this is on a corner with front of the lot not what was considered the front when the structure was originally built. Motion was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. A recess was called at 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 26, 1990 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION USE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUB AREA B-1 Reference staff report, 3/26/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the application, staff review, applicants request, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The Chair noted letter received from Thomas Eastham, 1457 Bellevue Avenue, #2 (March 19, 1990) which was concerned primarily with more clear wording of public notices. Commission/staff discussed parking, on-site designated spaces, how management of this building controls parking, visitor parking, conditioning of permits so that expansion of a business requires amendment of its use permit. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Carter Bravmann, Patson Development Co., was present. He stated they had read and were satisfied with the staff report. A current employee of this financial institution in Palo Alto will become branch manager in Burlingame. During discussion it was determined secured spaces in this building are allotted to tenants who use a plastic card to gain entry; Mr. Bravmann stated the floor plan shows 32 parking spaces at grade all of which are visitor spaces, three of these are reserved for Jenny Craig, three reserved for the chiropractor, five are handicapped spaces. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham stated she had no problem with this application, parking is a major concern, this business does not seem to be the classic finance business with many employees and visitors. She found it would not be detrimental to neighboring businesses and is in conformance with the general plan and zoning for the area. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that 1,250 SF of the second floor office area shall be used by a financial institution providing consumer lending services; (2) that the business shall employ two persons and have, on average, one customer/client visit to the site each day; (3) that the business shall be open from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday; (4) that any change to the square footage leased in the building by this use, the number of employees, average number of clients visiting the site each day, or hours of operation shall require an amendment to this use permit prior to the change in operation; (5) that three entry cards to the below grade secured parking shall be issued to this business; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (April, 1991) and annually thereafter or upon complaint. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 26, 1990 Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - City Attorney's memo re the Brown Act. PLANNER REPORTS - Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Proposed date and possible discussion issues. Cers Kelly and Deal reported on their attendance at the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Institute. They felt it was a very worthwhile meeting for all Planning Commissioners. CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its March 19, 1990 regular meeting and March 21, 1990 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary