Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.08.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, August 23, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the August 9, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE FOUR LOTS INTO ONE 3.2 ACRE PARCEL - LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10 AND PORTION OF LOT 6, INGOLD/MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL CENTER, 30 INGOLD ROAD11701 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: how old is Ingold Road; what is the small piece of land (tail) on the Ingold side; status of Council study of these lands for change of zoning; are there other lots of this size in the area, would it be the largest; reason for the request to combine these lots. Item set for public hearing September 13, 1993. 2. .SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MICRO BREWERY CAFE WITH BILLIARDS AT 321-333 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-2 SUB AREA B Requests: how much more parking could be provided on site if the proposed outdoor seating area were used for parking; applicant is proposing approximately 37 tables for the eating establishment, how does this compare with number of tables provided in nearby restaurants; is the traffic study updated or is it the same one received for the previous application for this site; advise applicant it will be difficult to act favorably on this project unless Commission has statements from him to support a finding of exceptional circumstances relating to the property; where will waste from the brewing process be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 23, 1993 discharged, does city believe this is a proper use of the sanitary sewer; when considering the comedy theater Commission was concerned about people crossing California Drive, the previous project for this site provided valet parking, should that be considered here, has applicant considered any other alternatives for parking;_ applicant proposes no off-site sale of beer, who regulates this; what mitigation is applicant proposing/ considering for the variance. Item set for public hearing September 13, 1993 if all requested information is provided in time. ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR A 12 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 550 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 8/23/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, study meeting questions, residential condominium criteria, required findings. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/ staff discussed width of the circular driveway in front, slope on the drive and safety when making a right turn coming out of the garage onto the circular drive, provision of guest parking spaces and handicap stall. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect, was present. He felt the staff report was quite complete and noted applicant's traffic engineer and landscape architect were present this evening. A Commissioner wondered if the proposed dense planting in front would impact sight distances on El Camino Real. Rochelle Nyquist, landscape architect, advised the center mound will be planted to screen the building but will not block sight lines; there will be no soft landscaping around the building, most trees will be in pots over the garage, on the northwest side there is a small strip where trees could be put in the ground, most planting will be in the rear, over the garage and in the front. Staff confirmed fewer complaints about parking have been received from recent condominiums than from older apartment buildings which were built with one space per unit. Further comment: the plans do not show additional storage above the hood of parked vehicles, parking standards require 7' minimum clear; if storage were added later it would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Architect advised they originally planned storage over the hood of automobiles but staff advised of concerns; if Commission wishes this storage he could add it. CE advised the code does not state how handicap' spaces shall be assigned. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 23, 1993 Mr. Gumbinger advised they are aware of the problem of noise transmission on property line from vents, this will be addressed in the final plans; circular driveway is 12' in width, their purpose was to provide a dropoff location since no parking is allowed on El Camino Real; all 24 parking spaces will be behind a security gate. CE advised it would take an extra exit from the garage area to provide the three guest spaces outside the security gate. It was noted this site has an El Camino Real address, deliveries will be made to that address, will all deliveries have to go downstairs; architect said they could go downstairs but could be dropped off in the driveway; he noted automobiles could come straight out of the garage and turn right without going through the circular driveway if they needed to. He also noted they are providing more than the required front setback. There were no audience comments in support. The residents of apartments 12, 13 and 14 of the existing 4 unit building on this site spoke in opposition. They wanted to know who the property owner was, thhy pay their rent to someone other than the listed property owner. They commented: have lived here for almost 18 years, does the Planning Commission ever look at the city and see the number of condominiums there are versus the number of apartments, Burlingame needs apartments, the charm of Burlingame is rapidly disappearing. Rented an apartment in this building six months ago, work in Burlingame and am very happy living and working here, part of the beauty of the city is its lovely housing. They could not find notices for this meeting on the two adjacent parcels and urged a second notice be posted so medical building tenants are aware of the proposed plan. The first they knew of this proposal was when the notice was posted on their building, no one had the courtesy to advise them previously, construction of more condos will spoil the beauty of the city; this project will crowd the area, they can hear their neighbors now, what impact will a 12 unit condominium have. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. A Commissioner asked that the present residents' question regarding property owner be responded to. The Chair reopened the public hearing. Architect introduced the applicant/property owner, Stuart Aronoff and Enrique Fainchtein, real estate broker. Mr. Fainchtein stated he manages this building for Mr. Aronoff. He was asked what kind of relocation program they will have for these tenants. Mr. Fainchtein said if the project is approved they plan to give the tenants six months notice, they do not know at this time when the final plans will be completed or when they will break ground. Chm. Deal closed the public hearing. C. Mink found the negative declaration as submitted by staff is adequate, there does not appear to be an adverse impact, and moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -463P, seconded by C. Galligan, approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Graham absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 23, 1993 C. Mink found this to be a good plan, he recognized the tradeoff of landscaping for the circular drive in the front which may have some advantage for the tenants, drive may not be used as much as applicant suggests but Commission will learn from this project. C. Mink moved for approval of the condominium permit and landscape variance based on the findings in the staff report and comments this evening, by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment/ discussion on the motion: can see some benefits in the circular drive for dropoff and delivery, if one double parked moving van a month can be taken off El Camino it will be worth it; would like to add a condition that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Parks Director and City Engineer. Maker of the motion and seconder agreed to this added condition. Further comment: compliment applicant in attempting to address the storage space issue, would hope that if any extraneous space appears after the building is constructed and occupied that it be considered for storage; three guest -spaces are reasonable but they will not be available to the public, cannot penalize the project because of this. Under condition 17 suggest the word "vehicles" rather than "cars" be used when speaking of the remaining spaces rented; circular driveway may not be as useful as expected, am more concerned about the width of 1 this driveway which may promote the concept of parking vehicles in front of the project, would be more comfortable if width were reduced to 91/101. CE advised the standard minimum width has been 121, with a 12' width there is not sufficient room to park a vehicle and get around it. In additional discussion a Commissioner responded to comment of the ladies who spoke in opposition, he was sure most of the Commission have been on the site, he himself sees every site, and often walks the sites; he parked at the medical building next door and walked this site; Commission's record will show it has probably denied one-third of the condominium projects proposed in the last year and a half, the medical building site adjacent to 550 E1 Camino has been in recently twice with a residential condominium project proposal and both were denied. Regarding tenant relocation assistance, do not think the city should be obligated but it would be a good idea for humanitarian reasons. There was further discussion about providing more storage, specifically storage lockers above the parking stalls. A Commissioner did not think it was Commission's position to redesign a project. Another Commissioner pointed out the architect had originally wanted to do this and agreed this evening to change the plans if requested to do so. A condition was added, accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion, that storage lockers above the cars be permitted, dimension and location standards to be agreed upon by the City Engineer and architect. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 23, 1993 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 3, 1993 Sheet DD1, DD2, DD3, DD4 and Drawing No. 618-93A Tentative Map (note: Tentative Map has incorrect stairway location at rear of parking garage and the stair location should be as shown on Sheet DD1 of the architectural plans); (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's July 30, 1993 memo, Parks Director's July 30, 1993 memo and the City Engineer's August 17, 1993 memo shall be met; (3) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided for access to the designated guest parking in the garage and a mirror shall be installed halfway down the garage ramp for vehicles exiting the garage to see oncoming cars; (4) that a total of three guest parking stalls shall be designated and marked on the final map and plans, and not assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; (5) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (6) 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; (7) that the parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association with one space assigned to each unit, three (3) designated guest parking spaces and the remaining spaces rented for a nominal fee by the association only to'residents with two vehicles; and no portion of the parking area and aisles shall be converted to any other use than parking or used for any support activity such as utilities; (8) that the furnaces and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside of the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; (9) that for the protection of. pedestrians a silent auto warning system shall be installed at access/egress to the parking area; (10) that the location of trash receptacles shall be approved by the City Engineer; (11) that the exhaust system shafts for the underground garage shall be located to avoid landscaping and walkways; (12) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge and parapet wall shall not exceed elevation 74.33' (74'-411) as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along E1 Camino Real, and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing inspection and roofing; (13) that final landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Director and City Engineer; (14) that storage lockers installed on the wall above the cars shall be permitted, dimension and location standards to be agreed upon by the City Engineer and architect; and (15) that the project including egress and access requirements shall meet all the requirements of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 23, 1993 municipal code and Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 8, MAP NO. 2, BURLINGAME LAND CO. - 550 EL CAMINO REAL Reference staff memo, 8/23/93. C. Galligan moved that this tentative condominium map and tentative and final parcel map be recommended to City Council for approval subject to the following condition: (1) that this map be considered as both a tentative and final parcel map to combine these two portions of lots and that the final parcel map be filed prior to issuance of the building permit. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 5-1 on voice vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Graham absent. Staff will forward to City Council. 5. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE FIRST FLOOR AT THE FRONT AND REAR OF THE HOUSE AT 2716 ARGUELLO DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/23/93, with attachments. CP reviewed details of the request, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. She pointed out some additions to the staff report and amended conditions. CP confirmed new front setback would be 18'-3" and stated staff used applicant's figures for existing ridge height. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, architect, was present. He stated this is a sloping site, the variance will be on the uphill side, adjacent property's living area is 12' higher, impact of the variance will be minimal, purpose of the setback is achieved by change in grade. Since approval of the hillside area construction permit previously they have proceeded to complete the plans, there would be a delay if they had to revise them and added cost, they hope to proceed with construction before the rainy season. He suggested existing ridge line be surveyed and existing height established. A Commissioner asked how architect reached the conclusion there are many ±5' side setbacks in the area. Mr. Lam responded these houses were built about the same time and at that time setbacks were +51. The Commissioner said he had walked the neighborhood, there are about 12 houses in the immediate vicinity and he found only one house besides the subject property with a 5' side setback, some had 7' and many had 10' setbacks. He also noted this is basically a remodel and wondered how much of the house will be demolished. Architect said there will be extensive remodeling, taking down most of the walls and replacing them. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 23, 1993 There were no audience comments in support. Carol Cox, 2720 Arguello Drive, spoke in opposition: she lives next door and has discussed the plans with the architect, the roof will not block her view but she questioned such a large remodel, fireplace will block some of her view, new garage will be in front of her living room, she would prefer it be located not so close to her property line, would like to be protected. When she first discussed the plans with the architect she did not know a side setback variance was needed as well, it is a very narrow side yard; if new garage is the same length will they save the trees; with the new roof line the view from her living room windows will not be affected but she would like applicant to meet side setback requirements. Henry Sommer, 2709 Arguello Drive: he lives across the street, three years ago a side setback variance was approved for the house next to him, the remodel cut off his light and now ne needs lights in the house during the day, Commission should be very careful when considering variances on the downslope side. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs stated she lives in the Mills Estate and does not have a 7' side setback. She found this elevation is very steep and the proposed remodel will be much better than a two story addition; because of the elevation the 2.2' side setback exception to 4'-10" on the west side will not be a problem, it will not affect light; people want to add to their homes and the city does not want them to build up; there is a hill in the rear, all the homes are above this proposed remodel. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit and side setback variance by resolution with the revised conditions as follows: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 2, 1993 Sheets Al, A2, A2.1 and A3 through A6, except that the existing garage shall not be enlarged beyond the existing wall to the front by 1.6' or by 34.5 SF as shown; (2) that the finish material used on the roof shall be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the existing roof ridge shall be surveyed and that survey.approved by the City Engineer prior to demolition of the house and that the new roof ridge shall not exceed the height established by survey prior to demolition; the City Engineer shall approve survey of the new roof framing prior to attaching the roof; and (4) 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. Galligan. Comment on the motion: this is essentially a rebuild and applicant should be able to redesign to meet the current standards; had no problem with the hillside area construction permit, architect did a good job, talked to the neighbor and has asked that the existing roof ridge be surveyed before demolition; intent of the code is to allow people to make small additions with an existing setback but this is too much, house will be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 23, 1993 almost torn down; one of the reasons for side setback regulations on the larger lots is to reduce mass and bulk as seen from the street, this 80' wide lot with 7' setback on each side would be allowed a 66' wide house which is 82.5% of the width of the lot, with the existing side setbacks house would be 70.5' wide and 88% of ].ot width; cannot find exceptional circumstances, approval would be granting a favor to this one house which is wider than every house on the street. Further comment: house is newer, do not think applicant will have to remove the foundation to do this remodel; could move garage and rear addition over to 71, apparent width would be the same, for these reasons am inclined to support the motion; from the Cox house if addition were moved over to 7' they could see more of it, the separation caused by the slope on that block is what makes this proposal more acceptable. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Deal and Mink dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. There were no PLANNER REPORTS. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned -at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary