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