Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.08.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, August 12, 1991 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly Absent: Commissioners Ellis, Graham, Mink Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Phil Monaghan, Associate Civil Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the July 22, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - CP noted Item #7, temporary address 970 David Road, has been continued and Item #8, 445 Chatham Road, has been withdrawn. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND REAL ESTATE OFFICES AT 400 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B Requests: who owns and uses parking to the right of this site; parking study of the area other than Tuesday at 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 Noon, preferably on the day of their weekly meeting; applicant mentions there are 40 people in this office, who are they, if more than sales agents maximum number of existing employees; referring to applicant's letter stating two real estate agencies have moved out of the area and two have expanded, who moved out of the area and which two expanded, what type of expansion; clarify figures for number of people on site at one time. Item set for public hearing August 26, 1991. ITEMS FOR ACTION The Chair advised appeal procedures and noted the City Council meeting of August 19, 1991 has been canceled, therefore the appeal period will end September 4, 1991 (Wednesday). 2. REAR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES, PARKING VARIANCE FOR COVERED STALL AND DIMENSION OF UNCOVERED STALL AT 1003 CHULA VISTA AVENUE. ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 8/12/91, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 12, 1991 questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Verne Freer, designer, representing Noriko Yui, property owner, was present. His comments: the addition as proposed is well within the limit of existing lot coverage, it is in the rear of the structure and although higher it will not be visible from the street, side view is blocked by duplexes on either side, the reason for the 12' rear setback on the second floor rather than 15' is floor framing, it would require putting in a beam and then it would exceed height limitations. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: the 47.3% lot coverage appears greater on this lot; the rear setback variance would not be required if the second floor addition were set back 151, if the lot coverage variance were granted this property would be entitled to 47.3% lot coverage thereafter and would no longer be nonconforming; do not have a problem continuing this nonconforming use but Commission is not required to grant the variance in order to approve the project; with a new project an applicant could make a good case for excessive lot coverage because of the width of the lot, it is 34' wide, have no problem with the lot coverage variance at 47.3%; do have a problem with the rear setback at 121, it already encroaches 3' into the required 15' setback; the proposed second floor will be the most visible part of the structure, would be in favor of a 12' setback for the first floor but requiring 15' for the second floor addition, otherwise the properties on each side will be adversely affected with reduction of light and air. Comment continued: could accept the 12' setback in view of the applicant's remarks about cost if 15' were required; the span is not that great, would perhaps add $500 to the cost. With the statement she had a concern about increasing a nonconforming structure, there is,a lot on the site for an R-2 property, once approved it will be legal, Commission would be sending the wrong message to an R-2 street, cost is not an issue, there is nothing exceptional about this property, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: the 34' width of the lot is exceptional and with the setbacks area is more limited; the site does not seem to have a parking problem nor does the neighborhood; did have a concern about lot coverage but what's there is there, it will not get any larger in terms of lot coverage, let's see what the impact would be of adding living space to this unit; over the years people on this street have complained about parking, adding a bedroom and bath will result in adding a larger family. Staff advised there would not be enough on- site parking to add another bedroom after the proposed addition, this would require a variance. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 12, 1991 Application was denied on a 2-2 roll call vote, Cers Deal and Galligan dissenting, Cers Ellis, Graham and Mink absent, four votes are required to pass a motion. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR AN EIGHT UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1103 DOUGLAS AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 8/12/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. John Lee, architect representing the property owner, Herb Strange was present. Responding to a question about furnaces and water heaters being illegally located in a bedroom closet in the upper units, Mr. Lee advised he would redesign so that these closet doors would open from the outside, this would solve the problem. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke of their concerns and/or opposition. Juliette Lenkert, 1137 Douglas Avenue: there are many multiple family dwellings on Douglas, everyone has two cars, there is an on -street parking problem; she was concerned about another sump pump on the street, will it bring more water out to the street; the pump is continuous and very noisy for adjacent property owners; concern about noise generated by the security gate; where will the garbage collection and recycling cans be located. Staff advised the sump pump and garbage room will be below grade in the garage. Herman Katz, owner of 1110 Douglas Avenue: he objected to eight units, Douglas is one of the busiest streets in the city, with a small market and the Red House Antiques shop at the corner, Fire Department uses this block frequently for access between California Drive and E1 Camino Real; this development will bring at least 16 more cars to the area, there is no on -street parking now. A Commissioner advised this area is zoned for condominiums and the general plan designation is multiple family. Mr. Katz did not believe this lot in this area at this intersection was appropriate for an eight unit condominium. W. D. Weaver, 1101 Douglas Avenue, owner of the Red House Antiques: he will be the victim of this development next door, he was hoping to go solar with his house but the proposed structure will put him in shadow; proposed driveway will be next to his living space, auto lights will be a problem; the proposed height is excessive, the structure will be overbuilt for the area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan pointed out that this application is for a condominium permit, that is the only reason it is before Commission this evening, an apartment building could be constructed with a building permit with no permit from the Planning Commission if it met zoning code Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 12, 1991 requirements; the proposed condominium meets all zoning code regulations for the area. C. Galligan moved for acceptance of the negative declaration and approval of the condominium permit by resolution subject to the eight conditions in the staff report. Commission discussed the condition regarding parking which included a stipulation that no spaces in the garage shall' be leased separately to any off-site user. One Commissioner objected to this requirement, she noted some people do not have cars or have only one car, how can Commission require this of this building when it doesn't require it for other buildings in other zones, question if this is the city's business. Another Commissioner said his concern was the parking formula and meeting critical parking needs, this parking must be for the development itself, he did not want to prohibit any reasonable use of the parking but did not want local residents in the area to be adversely impacted if someone wanted to rent these spaces, he hoped the condominium association could work this out. Further comment: the difference between an apartment house parking and a condominium is that apartment spaces are often unassigned, condominiums have specifically assigned spaces, it is clear the city has an on -street parking problem, at least in this condominium complex with the condition that spaces shall not be leased separately to off- site users the owners will recognize they have an obligation to the neighbors. A Commissioner did not believe this type of condition should start with a condominium on Douglas, she could agree to a condition that the three guest spaces never be rented, parking for the units is owned by the property owners, they should have the right to rent that space if they wish. C. Deal seconded the motion and suggested two additional conditions: that the furnaces and water heaters be placed in a legal compartment before a building permit is issued, and that a silent auto warning system be installed at the access ramp. Maker of the motion had no objection to these additional conditions and, in view of a Commissioner's feeling about the condition regarding parking, he would be willing to eliminate the part of Condition #5 stating that parking spaces shall not be leased separately to any off-site users. The seconder agreed with amendment of Condition #5. Conditions of the motion follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 2, 1991 Sheets A-1 through A-5 and Tentative Map Sheet 1 date stamped August 1, 1991; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 5, 1991 memo, the City Engineer's August 2, 1991 memo and the Director of Parks' August 5, 1991 memo shall be met; (3) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided at a location approved by the City Engineer and provide access to the designated guest parking in the garage; (4) that the three guest parking stalls shall be designated and marked on the plans and tentative map and not assigned to a unit, but shall be owned and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 12, 1991 maintained by the condominium association; (5) that the below grade parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners and their guests, and no portion of the parking area and aisles shall be converted to any other use than parking; (6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (7) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association an owner purchaser manual which 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 property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; (8) that the project including access requirements shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (9) that the furnaces and water heaters shall be shown to be placed in a legal compartment before a building permit is issued; and (10) that a silent auto warning system shall be installed at the access ramp. Motion was approved on a 4-0 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME LAND CO. NO. 2. 1103 AND 1105 DOUGLAS AVENUE Reference staff memo, 8/12/91, with attached map. C. Galligan moved to recommend this tentative condominium map to City Council for approval with the following conditions: (1) that a parcel map to combine the two lots be brought before Planning Commission and Council and be filed prior to issuance of the building permit; and (2) that at least one of the existing dwelling structures be removed prior to the filing of the lot combination parcel map. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 4-0 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and Mink absent. Staff will forward to Council. 5. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AND AREA TO CHANGE THE COPY ON AN EXISTING SIGN AT 1095 ROLLINS ROAD. ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 8/12/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Donald Olsen, architect representing Celtic Restaurant Group, Inc., was present. He presented a photograph showing other large signs in the area and advised the Velvet Turtle spent considerable money maintaining this sign before Vanessi's took over the site, they are upgrading the restaurant, painting the building a taupe color, background of the sign will be the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 12, 1991 darker taupe. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this sign has been there for many years and it is in an area which has other large signs, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 19, 1991 and only the face of the sign shall be changed; and (2) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion as seconded by C. Galligan and approved 4-0 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FOUR STORY COMMERCIAL RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING WITH TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW GRADE AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 8/12/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of projects proposed for this site from the early 1980's on, environmental review, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Fifteen conditions including environmental mitigations were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner suggested the 4' solid fence might be better at 51. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Merrill Jew, architect representing Mitzi Lee, property owner, was present. He advised they have been working with Chevron for the past year and a half to clean up the toxic conditions on the site, this is about completed and they want to proceed with the project. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff confirmed parking requirement for medical offices is 1:250, regular office requirement is 1:300. Commission discussion/comment: see no problem with the variance for parking aisle widths, this site has exceptional circumstances, without the variance they could get very little parking into that area; would like more Commission discussion regarding the variance for compact stalls, they are using. them to justify a larger building. Regarding the wall, 2-1/2' tall with 1' planter isn't very tall, they will have a maintenance problem, would suggest a 5' tall wall with some type of planting growing on it, perhaps a vine growing from the ground on the other side, they could put planter boxes on top or get permission from the next door property owner to plant on the other side. Would like to see a 5' wall and some type of landscaping that could grow up the wall, this would help to soften the impact and noise. Further comment: essentially this project was approved with parking variances in July, 1988, there are more and more projects which include a greater percentage of compact spaces as the number of compact cars Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 12, 1991 increases, am not concerned about allowing more compact stalls; there are not many cars today which can't fit into those spaces. C. Deal moved for approval of the special permit for height and parking variances with findings as stated in Commission discussion this evening by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and amendment of Condition 14 addressing the wall and vegetative screening. Conditions follow: (1) that, as built, the project shall conform with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 18, 1991; (2) that plans submitted to the Building Department shall include cross sections of the ramps and parking levels showing grade, building height, ramp slope and a minimum vertical clearance of 8'-6" to handicap vehicle stalls; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of July 11, 1991, the Fire Marshal's memo of June 24, 1991 and the City Engineer's memos of July 3, 1991 and June 28, 1988 shall be met; (4) that the applicant shall place a 5' concrete masonry wall on the property line adjacent to the convalescent hospital with vegetative screening, that approval be sought from the adjoining property owner so that this vegetative screening can grow through the wall to the other side, an irrigation system approved by the Parks Department shall be installed in the planting areas and maintained by the property owner; (5) that the roughest possible surface shall be placed on the floor of the parking garage and access ramps to reduce the squealing of car tires as they move around these areas; acceleration speeds up and down ramps shall also be regulated to reduce the noise of cars accelerating; speed enforcement shall be the responsibility of the project developer, property owner and on-site manager; (6) that as part of this project the developer shall make off- site improvements to the sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant as required by the Public Works Department and shall pay all city facility connection and improvement fees required; (7) that the developer shall provide a bus shelter and concrete pad adjacent or near the site at a location specified by SamTrans, CalTrans and the city and apply to remove on -street parking adjacent to the site as well as apply for on -street commercial and passenger loading zones adjacent to the site on the frontage road; (8) that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) commute alternatives recommended for employee population of up to 200 or city required Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program shall be implemented by the developer; the City Engineer shall approve the transition grade from the access ramps to the sidewalk and parking stalls shall be put under ramps only when legal clearances are met; (9) that, because of the noise sensitive adjacent site, during construction all engines shall be muffled to state standards, centralized saw and fabrication area shall be located on the site on the west side of the building, construction hours shall be coordinated with the convalescent hospital and city, and noisy activities shall not occur on the weekends; (10) that a "no hazard" determination shall be received from the Federal Aviation Administration; (11) that dust generated during construction shall be controlled by an effective watering or other program approved by the City Engineer; the vacant area behind the liquor store shall be used as Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 12, 1991 a staging area during construction; (12) that refuse for the project shall be placed in a trash enclosure on the E1 Camino Real side of the building and shall be picked up from the El Camino frontage road; (13) that the applicant shall submit a signed statement to the City of Burlingame indicating that he has reviewed the November, 1990 Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites list published by the State of California Office of Planning and Research and note that this site appears on this list; (14) that the San Mateo County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division, shall approve the plan for decontamination of the site and shall oversee its execution prior to commencement of construction and the Burlingame Fire Department shall approve both the cleanup plan and the execution of the plan; and (15) that the final plans as approved by the city shall address all requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as adopted by the city prior to commencement of construction. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 4-0 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR PARCEL APN 025-272-169 (TEMPORARY ADDRESS 970 DAVID ROAD) Continued to the meeting of August 26, 1991. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 445 CHATHAM ROAD Application has been withdrawn. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. Commissioners requested the matter of leasing required parking to off- site users and the issue of number of compact spaces be discussed at a later date. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its August 5, 1991 meeting. Proposed Revisions to Fence and Hedge Regulations Reference CA's memo of July 25, 1991. There was some discussion regarding regulation of multiple fences or hedges in the side and rear yard areas in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Discussion focused on a new section suggested by the CA in his memo. This matter was put over for discussion when a full Commission is present. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Site review - special permit - 1207 Capuchino Avenue Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 12, 1991 - Site review - special permit - 1550 Rollins Road Site review side setback variance - 120 Bancroft Road ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted Jerry L. Deal Secretary