Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.08.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, August 9, 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; Phil Monaghan, Associate Civil Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the July 26, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. GA ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCE FOR A 12 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 550 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 2. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A 12 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM - 550 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: one reason project does not meet front setback landscaping requirements could be because -of the circular driveway, is the circular driveway needed; traffic study cites 60 vehicle trips per day/f ive trips per unit, what is the assumption of five trips per unit based on; letter from applicant addressing findings for the landscape variance; how/where will trees bb planted on the sides; guest parking policy along E1 Camino Real; applicant address exhaust shafts on south side of the property which seem to conflict with the walkways, landscape plan which shows trees planted on property line, how will these be kept from encroaching on adjacent property. Items ,#1 and 12 set for public hearing August 23, 1993 if all information is received in time. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 9, 1993 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. REAR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A ONE STORY ADDITION AT 1600 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/9/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. She noted change in lot coverage figures from those shown in the staff report and eight letters in support received after preparation of the staff report. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed lot area is 5,249± SF. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Martin Lieberman, applicant and property owner, was present. He commented there is a 5' easement on the Westmoor Road side and on the Rosedale Avenue side, this takes about 800 SF off his lot; if that were allowed as part of ,-the lot,the lot coverage variance would not be necessary. He is looking forward to having this 10' x 16' addition for a small office area; construction will conform to the existing structure. Responding to Commission questions applicant said he will not be using the area for a home occupation, it would be a small office/den/library space for his own use; he is retired, the house has three bedrooms two of which are being used by his adult children, a daughter who is there about four months of the year and a son who just received his MBA from Stanford and needs to repay his loans. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: have no problem with the lot coverage variance, the house is not too large, it is a corner lot; regarding the rear setback variance, there is a lanai in the rear which will be removed, the house on the property at the rear is 20±' behind; the addition will not be overbearing or impact the neighborhood. Another Commissioner stated his concerns, the addition will fill up the lot too much, 40% lot coverage is a good review line, 43% would be too big. C. Kelly found this project is not too large, it will fit into the neighborhood, the lot coverage variance is much less than that originally stated in the staff report, this long narrow corner lot is difficult. C. Kelly moved to grant the rear setback and lot coverage variances by resolution with the conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: this is an example of the difficult decisions Commission must make, what is reasonable/unreasonable; lot is not too small, a corner lot is difficult, should the 40% maximum lot coverage be waived; applicant's request is reasonable but have difficulty approving more than 40% lot coverage in this particular circumstance, if the variance were granted some future owner could add a second story on 43% lot coverage; how is this project different from many others Commission has denied, do not think there are findings to support Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 9, 1993 approval. With FAR could only add 317 SF as a second story without a variance; actually talking about a 635 SF difference, cannot find exceptional circumstances other than the building is preexisting; agree there is no justification for approval. Motion to approve failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Jacobs, Mink and Deal voting no, C. Graham absent. C. Jacobs moved to deny the variance request for the reasons stated in discussion, seconded by C. Mink. Motion was approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Kelly voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO CHANGE COPY ON NONCONFORMING POLE SIGN AT 1095 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 8/9/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Applicant/property owner were not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found all of the circumstances relating to the original sign exception relate to this sign, the sign has been there for many years, it is in an area which has other large signs for the express purpose of being seen from the local traffic area. C. Mink 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 August 2, 1993 and August 4, 1993, and that only the face of the sign shall be changed; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DIMENSION AT 1310 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 8/9/93, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Linda Knight, applicant, was present. She noted statement signed by eight business neighbors supporting their application, there are 15 sites in the area that do retail sales and car repair, Knight Rides is just a small business trying to grow in Burlingame. She thought there might be space for 9' x 20' parking stalls, perhaps she measured incorrectly, for other Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 9, 1993 retail uses on this site these existing parking stalls were adequate, most of their customers ride motorcycles to the site and stay a short period of time, three to four motorcycles fit in a parking space, she felt that would be an exceptional circumstance. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion staff confirmed if this business became very successful and moved from the site only a business which did the same thing could go in here, no repair would be allowed. Based on the information in the staff report and that received this evening, C. Galligan found the type of customers, motorcycle users, required much less space for parking, there is additional parking space within the building, the request for retail sales is a reasonable extension of this business and more efficient, there will be less traffic for parts delivery. There was some Commission/staff discussion about measuring the parking stalls to see if in fact a parking variance wa$.-necessary. It was decided to include the parking variance in the application. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit for retail sales of motorcycle parts and accessories and of the parking variance for dimension of stalls by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the hours of operation shall be Monday through, Wednesday 12:00 Noon to 8:00 P.M. and Friday through Sunday 9:00 A. M. to 6:00 P.M.; (2) that the uses of this site shall be limited to customizing of motorcycles (exchange of parts) and retail sales of custom parts; no repair of motorcycles shall occur at this site; and (3) 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. Ellis. In comment on the motion it was pointed out that retail sales of motorcycle parts and accessories is the only activity that can continue on this site; a lot of motorcycles can be parked there; the building is there, the only way to use the building is to use the parking in front; there are so many similar uses in the area, this business is an interesting and exciting addition. Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS Continued Discussion - Residential Condominium Design Criteria CP Monroe noted condominium discussion at the July 26, 1993 meeting. Staff's attention has been drawn to the fact that findings for a condominium action are not regularly included in staff reports as they are for special permits, variances, etc. A new staff report form for condominiums was suggested which includes criteria for reviewing condominium projects taken from Exhibit A of P.C. Resolution 5-80. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 9, 1993 Commission discussion/ comment: new requirements for handicap parking spaces in multiple family development; would like parking requirement to be two spaces for a two bedroom unit and not less with guest parking; concerns: parking ratio for two bedroom unit could be increased to 2.1 per unit requiring one guest parking.space for each 10 units; guest parking should be required to be outside security gate; storage space should be required for each unit, if not required it will not be provided. C. Kelly commented this discussion started a month or so ago, he thought it was premature before the housing element is adopted, changes to the condominium guidelines might discourage developers. C. Kelly moved to table this discussion until the housing element has been adopted. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis for basically the same reasons, there will be big changes in the city within the next few months with the housing element. Motion was approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Jacobs voting no, C. Graham absent. Further comment: maker of the motion is very important but did not see Commission's time now when the housi in the next year. A Commissioner no on condominium projects now and adc take much longer than six months. housing element by the state or by t. 1994, zoning implementation of the I commented he felt this discussion the point of wasting staff's and ng element will drive what is done ted she is having a problem voting ►ption of the housing element may staff advised certification of the he city must be done by January 1, ►rogram will be done by staff. CP reviewed City Council actions at its August 2, 1993 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary