Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.06.25CALL TO ORDER A regular was called 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 25, 1990 meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, June 25, 1990 at Commissioners None Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Larry Lautenschlager, Zoning Technician; Carol Mille, Acting City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal The Chair welcomed Carol Mille, Acting City Attorney this evening. MINUTES - The minutes of the June 11, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Regarding Item #9, remodel of the house at 233 Chapin Lane, CP Monroe noted applicant has withdrawn his request for a side setback variance, the variance for number of stories remains. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH STORAGE AT 2525 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: how is the height of the garage measured; provide minutes of the September 25, 1989 meeting at which time a variance to declining height envelope was approved and parking variance denied; why does this accessory structure need to be so tall. Item set for public hearing July 9, 1990. 2. FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, PARKING VARIANCE AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT AT 313 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 Requests: what is the significance of the Coast Redwood tree being designated a Heritage Tree; dimensions of the carport do not scale 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 25, 1990 out to written dimensions on the drawings; plans indicate a 41 separation between the carport and the house, will that variance be needed; there will be a sewer lateral which runs under the carport, what protection will be given, how deep, pipe material. Item set for public hearing July 9, 1990. 3. SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES, SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SIX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Requests: height of existing structures on the same side of the street from Carol to the end of the block; is applicant aware structure referred to on Peninsula is in San Mateo, the structure on Bayswater and Park is a senior citizens housing project and not comparable; address findings other than profit for the special permit for height; has applicant considered five units instead of six, would this make a difference in number of exceptions to the code requested; applicant has listed 1440 E1 Camino for comparison, this is a two story building, was he referring to some other building; address size of parking spaces. Item set for public heating July 9, 1990 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 51 EL CAMINO REAL Set for public hearing July 9, 1990. 5. PARKING VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, FRONT LANDSCAPING VARIANCE, COMMON OPEN SPACE VARIANCE, COMMON OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING VARIANCE, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1273 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Requests: what is unique about this property other than the easement to justify the request for so many variances; CE comment on possible use of the easement other than for drainage; regarding front landscaping variance, applicant expand his comments on how the easement is a problem; height of existing structures between Easton and Sherman on both sides of the street; site plan indicates 'removable balcony', why, how; why a basement laundry room when each unit has a laundry facility; is there a security gate; has applicant considered reducing the number of units, would this reduce the number of variances requested; could common open space and common open space landscaping variances be addressed with open space over the easement area. Item set for public hearing July 9, 1990,or as soon as all information can be obtained. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 25, 1990 6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 1273 EL CAMINO REAL Set for public hearing July 9, 1990 or at the time of the public hearing for the project. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTOMOBILE SALES AT 1330 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: there are 14 parking spaces, assuming average use for the other units in the building what will the remaining units require in terms of parking; regarding brokering for other dealers, how will this work, where will cars be stored on site, for how long; note applicants letter is from a P.O. box in Montara, is he in business there now; applicant states most of the business is done by appointment, how is the appointment system arranged, he indicates the number of visitors per day is quite small; will there be only six customers per day as stated in the application; would like parking layout for 15-20 classic cars, with visitors and employees where will they be parked during the day and at night, will they all fit into the building at night. Item set for public hearing July 9, 1990. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A RETAIL USE AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Requests: what striking window displays does applicant propose, does he have trucks, how are the existing on-site parking spaces used; with only 13-14 customers per day how can applicant survive; applicant states he wishes to turn a vacant rundown building into a showplace, what is vacant; definition of part time, present request is two full time and one part time employees, previous use permit was granted for three full time and three part time, would like applicant to be aware the new special permit would supersede the old permit; what signage would applicant be allowed. Item set for public hearing July 9, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION 9. VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF. STORIES IN ORDER TO REMODEL THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 233 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 Commissioner Galligan asked to leave the podium in order to represent this application as the property owner. He noted to the Commission and public that he was acting in this matter as an applicant, not as a Commissioner. Reference staff report, 6/25/90, with -attachments. CP Monroe noted applicant's letter of June 20, 1990 withdrawing his request for a side setback variance for replacement of the existing garage. She reviewed the staff report Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 25, 1990 as it related only to the variance for number of stories, details of the request, staff review, applicants, letters. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Michael Galligan, applicant, stated the basement area is from base grade to 7" below, at the front of the house where windowsills might be an issue the basement is actually at grade level. Regarding enclosing the pool equipment, this has been enclosed by a lean-to attached to the garage for approximately 15 years, at present their intention is to leave it as is, they had no problem with the CBI's requirement that bedroom windows cannot have a sill higher than 44" from the floor. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this property has been used below code requirements for many years, it does have parking for the added bedrooms, it will not affect the neighborhood nor be detrimental to the property or improvements in the vicinity. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 4, 1990, except that the new garage and breezeway connecting the garage to the house shall be deleted as a part of this action and from all plans submitted for subsequent building permits; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Officials June 4, 1990 memo shall be met; and (3) that no portion of the house shall be used as a second living unit. Motion was seconded by C. Mink with the comment that a statement is made several places in the general plan that attempts should be made to bring up to code and rejuvenate older houses, this is a charming older home, if applicant can save it and give it new life itis a good idea. Further comment: this project will not affect the exterior of the house, height of the structure will not change, applicant is merely bringing a substandard home up to code. Motion was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Galligan absent. Appeal procedures were advised,. 10. SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, FRONT LANDSCAPE VARIANCE AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SIX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1346 EL CAMINO REAL ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 6/25/90, with attachments. ZT Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants letter, study meeting Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 25, 1990 questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Arkady Massarsky, applicant and property owner and Val Rabichev, architect were present. Applicant said he and his architect have tried to design an attractive structure for the city, without the variances they could not build six units on this property. Architect responded to Commission questions and commented: they are short only a few square feet of the front landscaping requirement and have added planters on the second and third floor balconies which would provide a perception of landscaping, with the ramp angle and walks they could not meet 600 SF, did the best they could. Commission/staff/architect discussed the rear setback variance, roof of the garage extends above finished grade, encroaches into the rear yard, roof then becomes part of the structure which meets rear setback requirements; slope of driveway and number of parking spaces; site drainage; alternative of filling in the back of the lot which slopes down to the rear; property to the north slopes to the rear, they put in a sump pump, there are ways around this problem without a variance. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Janine Poimiroo, 1404 Grove Avenue, was concerned about a serious on -street parking problem in the Grove Avenue area; her driveway has been blocked, some days there is no more than one on -street space available, it is a continuing problem on Grove, with no parking on E1 Camino Real these residents go to the side streets; she has noticed very few cars have overnight parking permits; she felt two guest parking stalls were not enough for a six unit building. Architect had a further comment: there is more advantage to having parking underground rather than at grade, for safety, aesthetics, people not parking in the driveway. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff comment: with only a 5' rear yard setback and garage roof elevations as they are, even with a 71 fence, people at the picnic table in the rear of the condominium would be clearly visible to the property behind the project site; applicant could demolish, fill the property and come back for another permit to build a structure inside the fill; if it were filled previously it would be existing grade. CP noted the matter of sloping lots and below grade garages has been an issue for many years, perhaps it should be discussed. With the statement that the property directly north has six units and does have an above grade garage, apparently they did not need a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 25, 1990 variance, and he would be comfortable with the proposal if applicant would build up the rear of the lot and eliminate this problem, C. Galligan moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Jacobs. Supporting comment: development on property next door makes it clear a developer can build a project which meets the requirements; applicant has not demonstrated excep tional circumstances or hardship to justify granting the request; height could be reduced to 351, there are other lots that slope away from the street and can be built upon; do not see this project responding to the needs of the community for housing, would prefer to see fewer units, realize it is difficult profitwise but Commission cannot continue to grant variances just because the real estate market is flat; compliment the architect for exceeding private and common open space requirements, front landscaping is very close to the requirement and meeting this would be for the good of the community, think they could have done something to the garage to avoid the rear yard variance; the only exceptional circumstance is trying to put too much on a small lot.; Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOT 12, BLOCK 6, MAP OF BURLINGAME GROVE - 1346 EL CAMINO REAL Since Commission denied the project application CE recommended a negative action on this mapping request. C. Galligan moved to recommend denial to City Council, seconded by C. Ellis and approved unanimously on voice vote. 12. SIGN EXCEPTIONS TO AMEND A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 1070 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/25/90, with attachments and Michael R. Harvey's letter of June 18, 1990 received after preparation of staff report. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, comments of applicant's representative in the sign application request, study meeting questions. CP also commented on her investigation of Miller Chevrolet signage (1025 Rollins Road) from which site the message board sign requested in this application will be transferred. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: figures in the tables of auto row signage; what will the sign look like, what will it say; it will be programmed; staff's review of signage at 1025 Rollins Road, this site does not have a master signage program. .Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 25, 1990 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Michael R. Harvey, property owner, was present. He discussed approvals for the time/temperature sign and message center sign. Staff stated there was no documentation of this and staff was unable to determine how the sign got to be what it is. Mr. Harvey continued: they are not adding to the number of approved signs at 1070 Broadway, will reduce the height of the approved sign to 22' and in doing so will be removing the 42' sign at Miller Chevrolet; in essence while increasing signage on Broadway they are removing it at 1025 Rollins Road. Commission/applicant discussion: dimensions on the plans for the message center sign include the new cabinet mentioned in Mike Harvey's letter of June 18, 1990, it will have fluorescent illumination, black with green letters; top of the readerboard now is about 291, they will drop it to 22' in the new location; addressing the message board sign as directed at impulse buyers, applicant stated pass -by traffic is extremely important in his business, since this is a new location it is important to capitalize on it; is every five minutes copy change (staff's suggested condition) too long from an impulse buyer standpoint, applicant said the machine will not change more frequently than every 15 minutes, one message will be there for 15 minutes, when it changes it doesn't flash but blacks out and bleeds across. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: basically the size of the frontage matches with Rector, this is equivalent to Rector with a lower pole sign and probably a necessity for his business; would compliment the applicant for what he has done to the Bekins building; if applicant were purchasing this sign now for this property would probably object to the size because of slower traffic and one is closer to the sign, but with the economics of owning a sign, it is not that much larger to be a detriment to the area. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the sign exception to amend the master signage program by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the 280 SF, double faced pole sign shall have a maximum height of 22'-0" and neither face shall be larger than 140 SF; (2) that the pole sign shall be placed at the location shown as Sign A Acura Pole Sign on the plans date stamped November 22, 1988 used as the basis for the master signage program; and (3) that this message board sign shall change copy at a maximum frequency of every five minutes. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 June 25, 1990 FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS - EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE TO PARKING STANDARDS FOR A NEW BUILDING AT 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 6/25/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request and suggested one condition for consideration. C. Ellis moved for approval of the variance extension by resolution with the following condition: (1) that the project shall comply with all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes in effect at the time the extension was granted (July 18, 1990). Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 6-1 on roll call vote,. C. Jacobs voting no. - CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its June 18, 1990 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary