Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.11.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 1993 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, November 22, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, 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 November 8, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item 16 was moved to precede Item 13 as the first action item and order of the agenda then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXPAND AN EXISTING EATING ESTABLISHMENT AT 224 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Requests: number of exits for the existing restaurant; what is unusual about the property to support the variance request; do not understand how rear exit relates to the variance application; name of this restaurant should appear in staff report; provide plans showing seating arrangement; more information on the easement, will it be recorded.; will stairway be wide enough. Item set for public hearing December 13,; 1993. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TESTING SERVICE AT 1200 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B Requests: what kind of testing occurs; why is a parking variance not required. Item set for public hearing December 13, 1993. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 22, 1993 ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT SPLIT - LOTS 25 THROUGH 30 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY 60 FEET OF LOTS 5, 6 AND -7, BLOCK 2, UNIT NO. 1 EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK (819-845 COWAN ROAD) Reference staff report, 11/22/93, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, review criteria, Planning Department comments, study meeting questions. If recommended to Council for approval, five conditions were suggested. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Larry Weinstein, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this proposal meets all the review criteria of the subdivision regulations, it is compatible in size with existing lots in the neighborhood, accessibility requirements will be met with the suggested conditions. C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval with the following conditions: (1) that new sidewalk (per city standards) be installed fronting this site; any damaged curb and gutter shall also be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; (2) that each of the existing buildings shall have separate utility connections independent of one another; (3) that a covenant shall be placed on the final map to create the access, drainage and utilities easements shown on the tentative map; (4) that all conditions of the Planning Department memo dated October 13, 1993 shall be satisfied; and (5) that no site development is approved by approval of this map. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved unanimously on voice vote. Staff will forward to City Council. 3. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A HOME OCCUPATION USE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS AT 1304 MILLS AVENUE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of use of this property, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner questioned condition 16 and revocation of the special permits if the main dwelling is removed or enlarged by more than 50% of the existing gross floor area, would this. action by implication revoke the variances; CA advised he would prefer "review" rather than "revoke". CP commented the concept to revoke the use aspect of the proposal is to remove the office portion of the accessory structure, the front part of the garage also requires the variances. C. Graham Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 22, 1993 advised because she was within the noticing area she would abstain from discussion and voting. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Marianna Nunes, applicant and property owner, was present. She is a cancer survivor and -travels a great deal on an extensive speaking schedule, she needs a place to work when at home; she does not park her car in the garage at present, they are still unpacking. Eugene Condon, 1308 Mills Avenue (next door neighbor.) spoke in support: the accessory building has been there for a long time and does offer his privacy, his only concern was if the property, were sold in five years and this structure were used for a service use, he would like to see the property improved and noted there is plenty of parking, there are long driveways on _this street. CP commented this is a home occupation permit for an office use, not related to service use, another office use could have another home occupation permit. Elliott Saxe, applicant and property owner, advised the driveway is long enough to park three cars, with the garage they could park four cars. Responding to Commissioner question he advised there is no plumbing in the accessory structure. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion/comment: how can continuing office use be limited since the permit cannot be limited to the specific person; staff suggested it could be limited in terms of time, if approved this action with its conditions will be recorded with the county, if the property were sold the next owner would be allowed to use the structure for an office use, home occupation requirements limit the type of office and do not allow employees/ clients to come to the site; CP enumerated businesses which are prohibited home occupations. In further discussion a Commissioner referred to condition 13 and suggested eliminating the word "second" before "dwelling unit" since the intent is that this accessory structure never be: used as a dwelling unit. Another Commissioner suggested in condition 16 that the word "revoked" be replaced with "reviewed". Comment continued: do not have a problem with the office use, Building Department: requirements will make this a new building, the present structure will have to be almost entirely replaced and made habitable. Expressing concern that this will be an office forever and a future busy office could move in, C. Jacobs moved to deny the application. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Galligan found the existing accessory structure will be replaced, property owners are trying to address their needs within the parameters of what.is currently existing, there have been no objections from the neighbors, if the house were to change substantially the accessory structure should be required to meet code. He found this is a reasonable request, an economic request, in view of the longevity of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 :November 22, 1993 the structure it is not a grant of special privilege, there are exceptional circumstances with this property, it has been allowed to stay in its present state for a long time and is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the owners' property rights. C. Galligan moved to approve the special permits and variances by resolution with the conditions in the staff report, eliminating the 'word "second" in condition 13. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly with a suggestion the word "revoked" be changed to "reviewed" in condition 16. Discussion on the motion included placing a time limit for review. C. Galligan amended his motion to state in condition #6 that the project " . . . be reviewed in f ive years . . . " which was accepted by the seconder, C. Kelly. Comment: the long discussion this evening leads one to believe the application should not be approved, Commission would be granting side and rear setback variances which will last as long as the building exists, cannot support that, it is inappropriate for the city. Motion failed on a 3-3-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Mink and Deal voting no, Cer Graham abstaining. C. Galligan then moved for approval of the special permits and variances by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be .built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 20, 1993 Sheet. A-1 Existing Plot Plan, Sheet A-2 Demolition and Proposed Plans, Sheet A-3 Sections and Elevations, Sheet A-4 Details, Sheet A-5 Details, Sheets A-6 and A-7 General Notes; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 25, 1993 memo, Chief Building Inspector's October 25, 1993 memo and Fire Marshal's October 25, 1993 memo shall be met; (3) that the garage or offices in the accessory structure shall never be used or rented as a dwelling unit; (4) that one temporary/part time employee for the home occupation use shall park his/her vehicle on the property in the required parking areas (uncovered parking in the driveway and covered parking for one stall in the garage); (5) that this special use permit shall be for one home occupation and if another home occupation is required the special permit shall be amended; (6) that the use permit 'for the home occupation shall be reviewed every five years; and (7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 4-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Mink voting no, C. Graham abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 22, 1993 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS AND TWO VARIANCES FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL) AT 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 11/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions, criteria for reviewing a residential condominium, required findings for a negative declaration and variance. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question about turning radius, CE advised the city uses a larger stall to provide flexibility, people do still drive big cars. CP responded to a question about square footage of the project, residential condominium and retail, commercial area is about 25% of the project. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect representing the developer, introduced Steve Clark, project architect. Mr. Clark addressed the Commission: intent of the project is to design an attractive structure which will meet all ordinances and codes of the city; he was surprised at the number of variances/exceptions required and felt this was a problem of interpretation, especially when dealing with mixed use development. He discussed at length his reading of the code, the lot coverage variance, the exception to the condominium criteria for front setback landscaping, the variance required for parking maneuvers for two of the four commercial parking spaces at grade. He commented only two automobiles manufactured today would not fit in the spaces provided, all other parking spaces comply with the city's radius requirements. He acknowledged his error in calculating common open space because he had counted area that staff does not count because of the limitations on useable space, they could eliminate the extra parking stall to add 48 SF of common open space but he would prefer to keep that stall, stipulating it as a compact parking space. All portions of the project would be metered separately, if a tenant were to use both first and second floors the meters could be combined. Regarding the study meeting question about affordable housing, developer's numbers come close to the moderate income price range requirements. Commission asked how some landscaping can be provided, spirit of the condominium ordinance is to have some, there is not that much retail' in this project; architect replied the ground floor is all commercial, landscaping is not required there; there is a huge walnut tree in the front, he doubted landscaping would survive underneath this tree. They have tried to design a structure which will be a bridge between commercial and residential, it is set back from property line, the facade will blend with both worlds, they have tried to provide some landscaping between back of the sidewalk and the structure itself., They needed to provide two driveways, one to the basement and one to the main level parking. In a mixed use project it is normal for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 22, 1993 commercial stalls to be used as party stalls in the evenings, sometimes part of the commercial is owned by the residential. commission/ architect discussion: lack of 60% front: landscaping was a concern, in a mixed use project if a developer wants to reap the benefits of a condominium he should use the most stringent standards, those of the condominium guidelines. Architect staged the ordinance is not clear, a mixed use is completely different :from a residential condominium. One Commissioner said she works in a commercial condominium and it meets the condominium guidelines. Further comment: can understand architect's dilemma, perhaps the condominium guidelines should be expanded, but at present the code says use the regulations of the respective district. Commission comment: compliment architect on the facade but support staff's interpretation, the problem seems to be that the building appears stark because of the lack of front landscaping, more landscaping would soften the appearance. Can agree with architect on some things, the two commercial uses should be metered separately; property could be developed commercially by one set of rules, developer chose to develop with a mixed condominium use so it is a new set of rules and he must comply under the condominium guidelines. It was stated that the office areas will be sold as condominiums, there will be no separate commercial owners association, only one owners association for the whole building. Architect advised there is a common garbage area, he had no idea how this expense would be allocated; water is proposed to be separately metered. CE said one meter would be given to the building with private water meters to each unit; regarding the large walnut tree, probably the root system will extend into the lot,- building may have to be moved back if an arborist's report determines the root system will. be affected. CP stated only one parking space at the rear is required, if the other space is retained applicant had suggested it can be made compact. CE's concern from a traffic standpoint was that these two stalls at the rear in this configuration without good backing and turn around area will encourage people to back out onto this narrow street. CP commented that in discussion this evening architect had noted a number of ways to adjust the project, she asked him to recap. Architect replied: regarding lot coverage they could narrow the building by 135 SF (about 11), could not do anything about the front landscaping other than relocate the structure, they cannot get 60% front landscaping with the two driveways; regarding parking maneuvers, small cars can turn around in three maneuvers and exit the site in a forward direction, they could eliminate the extra parking space and use the _area for landscaping or make it a compact space which would add 20 SF common open space, but would still lack 28 SF. Commission noted applicant had not contacted an arborist regarding the walnut tree in front, conceivably setbacks would have to be adjusted, there is no answer to this until the tree is investigated. Architect Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 November 22, 1993 said they would still be able to use these: plans with some modification, would accept a condition regarding arborist Is report. A Commissioner commented it seems this is an attempt to do too much with not enough information, architect has Commission's comments/concerns, front landscaping is an issue which needs to be addressed, building may have to be redesigned, a report on the walnut tree is necessary, suggest the best solution is to bring this proposal back after the additional information is obtained. Architect Gumbinger commented on discussions with staff during the project review/design period and architects feeling the code is not absolutely clear, he asked for a continuance. Commission discussed its concerns/comments this evening, architect's awareness of codes and understanding of an exception or variance. Mr. Gumbinger again asked for a continuance, they have heard the comments/concerns, understand them and will go back to their client. A Commissioner had a further comment: he could not.get very concerned about one parking space that does not meet the city's template when all other spaces do. Gene Klein, president of Barker Blue, 1127 Chula Vista Avenue, representing Suzanne Klein,`property owner, spoke in opposition: he presented the view of business people who have been located on this street for years, there is a lot of traffic on Chula Vista, this proposal is a classic case of overbuilding a lot, people will back onto Chula Vista, the street cannot accommodate any more traffic. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission continued,its discussion: would go along with the request for a continuance, making sure it is understood granting a continuance does not imply approval of the project in any way, shape or form. They enumerated their concerns with direction to the applicant: an arborist's report on the walnut tree and what it will do to the project design is needed; with all residential condominiums Commission has been very reluctant to grant variances, would like applicant to meet all the provisions of the condominium ordinance; regarding open space and landscaping, this is a difficult lot to get landscaping in the front setback, but since applicant chose to have a residential condominium this is an important factor, landscaping is more important than a parking space; would be willing to give a little bit on maneuvering for the landscaping. C. Jacobs moved to deny the application without prejudice and to deny the negative declaration for the reasons stated this evening, seconded by C. Graham. In comment on the motion the Chair added direction to the architect and complimented him on the design, stating he would be willing to give a little on front landscaping to get landscaping somewhere else, on the south side of the driveway there is a tall wall which blocks view of the sidewalk, this should be modified; he was pleased with the provision for the storage units; there is no gate for the walkway into the garage although the driveway has a gate; he would like to see separation between commercial and residential on the second Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 22, 1993 floor so people will not be free to walk into the residential area; regarding the use,.. he firmly supported the concept of mixed commercial/residential. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM (SEVEN UNITS), FIVE RESIDENTIAL AND TWO COMMERCIAL, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 20, BLOCK 1, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 1 - 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE Reference City Engineer's staff memo, 11/22/93. C. Galligan moved to recommend denial of the tentative condominium map to City Council, seconded by C. Mink, motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES AT 1366 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE. ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 11/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Stephen Wu, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved for approval of this special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 19, 1993; (2) that application for building permit for the required second exit be made within 45 days from the effective date of this application, a building permit is also required before the hydraulic lifts are installed; and (3) that the project shall meet all requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. Fire Marshal confirmed plans have already been submitted for the second exit. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Planner Gomery's report - "1221-1291 Whitethorn Way - Parking Review of Private Street" Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 November 22, 1993 PLANNER REPORT CP reviewed City Council actions/ discussion at its November 15, 1993 regular meeting and November 17, 1993 study session. D 0 The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary