HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.07.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 26, 1993
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, July 26, 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 July 12, 1993 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. TENTATIVE MAP FOR LOT MERGER AT 1710 ROLLINS ROAD/30 INGOLD ROAD,
ZONED M-1
Item continued.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION AT 1564 BALBOA WAY, ZONED
R-1
Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, concerns of the adjacent neighbor at 1519 Ray
Drive who called the minor modification up for review, staff comments,
required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Angelo Meneguzzi, applicant and
property owner, and Cheryl Hochstatter, designer, were present.
Applicant commented: concerns of the neighbor about roof drainage will
be taken care of with the addition of a sump pump to take the water to
the street; regarding the new windows in the extended dining room wall
facing the existing living room windows of the adjacent property, there
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 '
July 26, 1993
are existing dining room windows facing the neighbor's living room
windows; if facing a bedroom there might be a problem but not facing
the living room. He presented photographs of what could be seen from
his home now, from his front door one cannot see any windows, just a 6'
fence and the next door roof; the third photo is from. his dining room
window, the top 4" of the neighbor's living room windows can be seen,
cannot see in through the drapes; when his windows are relocated at 5'
instead of 7' neighbor feels he will see an unreasonable amount of
their living- room, the fourth photo is from his .breakfast nook, it is
presently at 5' setback and one cannot see any more than one could at
71; he felt his photographs show this is not an unreasonable request.
Speaking to exceptional circumstances, applicant noted the 5' setback
which has been in existence since the house was built in 1952; to
remove the existing 5' portion and make all of the setback conform to
code they would not be able to achieve the arrangement of interior
living space desired and needed; they do not want to take space from
the rear yard; designer has eliminated four existing windows on the
side of the house to give the neighbors more privacy. Responding to a
comment that they are moving a lot of walls inside and changing the
entire face of that side of the house, it would seem they should be
able to work within that one foot, designer said this would require
taking out the whole foundation as they couldn't tie into the existing
foundation, they need a foot for the foundation, it would not be a good
idea structurally to pull it back one foot; putting the entire side at
6' would be possible but would narrow the kitchen. Applicant confirmed
this was a two bedroom one bath house in 1952, when this remodel is
completed it will still be a two bedroom one bath home.
Commission/ applicant discussion continued: would the loss of a foot
make that much difference in the kitchen, family room and living room
design; applicant discussed the difficulty they would experience with
taking another 12" off the width of the kitchen in order to meet the
required 6' side setback, placement of the kitchen table was discussed.
A Commissioner spoke of the need to make findings for exceptional
circumstances pertaining to the property to support the variance
request and noted applicant has shown nothing unusual or exceptional
about this property.,; It was suggested perhaps he could take one foot
out of the bathroom instead of the kitchen, applicant replied they have
increased the bathroom by 12" also and need that space.
There were no audience comments in favor. Margaret Chew, 1519 Ray
Drive, spoke in opposition: they are the adjacent neighbors at the
corner of Ray Drive and Balboa Way right next to the proposed 5'
setback; she distributed a sketch showing the relationship of the
windows; there is a clear view from her house into applicant's dining
room window, applicant is proposing two new windows 2' higher than her
windows which will directly face her living room windows, if they are
only 5' away applicant can look right into her house, they use their
living room as a family room and spend most of their time together in
that room; she was not opposed to the proposed construction or to the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
July 26, 1993
5' setback since people do need more room, but she was opposed to the
new larger windows looking directly into her living room, she asked
that her privacy be honored. Ms. Chew did not feel the existing
windows were an invasion of her privacy but the new windows will be
closer and bigger. Commissioner comment: this is -a problem which
exists with almost every house that is constructed next to another
house, some properties have an even greater problem, the addition of
vegetation could protect privacy.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Jacobs felt Commission should have some concern when a property's
side •yard faces the rear yard of another; applicant may only be asking
for one foot but it appears his property is large enough and there are
ways to enlarge this house without extending the 5' side setback 39
additional feet; the proposal will be detrimental to the adjacent home
on Ray Drive. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the side setback variance,
seconded by C. Graham.
Responding to a question, CP discussed explanations and handouts which
are given to all applicants when they come to the Planning Department
counter. Commission comments on the motion: Commission might be able
to find some exceptional circumstances but this has been hindered by
the applicant who has taken away all ability to find exceptional
circumstances; if this were a 54' wide lot the required side setback
would be only 51, because it is one foot wider, 551, they need a 6'
side setback; do not think the Chew's concern is overriding, agree the
motion for denial should be approved; because there is only a 3'
setback on the side where the garage is located, applicant is asking
for too much in extending the 5' setback on the other side to such an
extent; a minor modification has a purpose for some existing houses
with setbacks less than present code', in this case only the bay window
encroaches into the older setback, bay windows are presently exempt 1'
from side setback requirements, it is not right to allow the entire
side of a building to have a lesser setback because of a bay window.
Motion to deny the variance request was approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
AN ADDITION AT 12 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1
Chm. Deal advised he would abstain and passed the gavel to Vice
Chairman Galligan.
Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comment, required findings. Four
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
July 26, 1993
Vice Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Steve and Carie
Stirling, applicants and property owners, were present. Mr. Stirling
advised they purchased this home in November, 1992;'now they would like
to extend a wall to add two bedrooms at the front and enclose the
attached patio in the back yard. They,have talked to -their immediate
neighbors, all are. in support, they did not want to go up with a second
story addition which might impact someone's view, it is all one story.
A Commissioner confirmed from the applicants that they want to extend
a 30' long wall with a nonconforming 5'-6" side setback a fraction more
of the length of the existing. Applicant also confirmed the gentleman
who was located in the canyon itself did not have an objection;
applicants wanted to be sure all people on the block had no objections;
the neighbor at 110 Kenmar was in favor.
Alan Olin, JD & Associates, designer, spoke in favor and commented that
normally this would be a minor modification but since it is in the
hillside area they had to apply for a variance. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Graham complimented applicants on a fine job and found this would be
a nice addition to the neighborhood, there is plenty of room in the
front for the addition, no neighbors have objected, a small portion of
the existing wall will be continued, it will not cause a problem for
anyone. C. Graham moved for approval of the hillside area construction
permit and side setback variance 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 June 24, 1993,
Sheets 1 through 6; (2) that the finish material used on both the flat
and sloping portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as approved by
the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the highest
point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed elevation
125.25' from the existing grade and that the framing shall be surveyed
to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer
before the final framing inspection is called for and the roofing
material is attached; and (4) 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. Ellis with the statement he did go inside the
house at 11 Kenmar Way and climbed the hill to 110 Kenmar, he did not
think there would be any problem five years from now, there will be no
view blockage. Motion was approved 6-0-1 on roll call vote, C. Deal
abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
Vice Chm. Galligan returned the gavel to Chm. Deal.
4. PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD STALL LENGTH FOR AN ADDITION AT
1652 BALBOA WAY ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, required findings. Two conditions were
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
July 26, 1993
suggested for consideration at the public hearing. In comment it was
determined the driveway is 14'-8" in length, staff measures this from
city right-of-way.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, architect for
the project, advised the existing garage width does not meet current
code standards, it is too narrow for two cars, they can get one legal
space within this garage; there is a problem in that the front of the
garage is 14' to 15' from property line although the driveway is 20'
long to sidewalk; the project meets all other code requirements. They
considered many alternatives to meet code without needing a parking
variance, widening the garage to add a second legal space would require
a great deal of work and add a great deal of cost. Commissioner
comment: this is a unique circumstance, the finding for exceptional
circumstances states that it is not generally applicable to property in
the same district, all of Ray Park is built with substandard garages,
there is no way to meet code without excessive cost.
Applicant stated at the time these garages were built they were
considered sufficient for two cars but it must have been tight, all of
Ray Park is essentially built that way and anyone who makes an addition
in that area will have similar problems if the front.of his residence
is only 15' from property line. Mr. Nilmeyer confirmed the garage is
20' in length and about 17.5' in width. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Ellis found there were exceptional circumstances in the 6' setback
from back of sidewalk to property line, this is unusual, in most areas
there is 1' to 21; made a site inspection and there is plenty of room
to park a car in the driveway. C. Ellis moved for approval of the
parking variance for substandard stall length with the following
conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 2, 1993 Sheets
A-2, A-3 and A-5 except that the man door open outward; 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. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
5. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 724 NEWHALL
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
A Commissioner asked if there had been discussion with the applicant
about making the garage 21' wide.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Wendel and Ulrike Wessbecher,
applicants, were present. Their comments: they have a very narrow
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
July 26, 1993
driveway since the house was built in the middle of the lot, they have
four cars, two are always parked in the driveway and they need more
maneuverability; it seemed better to place the new garage in the rear
30% of the lot, there will be no windows in the side or rear of the
structure which will face the neighbors. Staff noted CE's memo
received this afternoon (July 26, 1993) regarding widening the driveway
at the chimney by removing some hedge and at least 20' on either side
of the chimney, this may require removal of vegetation in that area.
Applicants stated that would be no problem, they had intended to widen
the driveway a foot. They were willing to make the garage 40' long and
21' wide to meet the legal requirement for a two car garage.
Following some discussion applicants said they would be willing to move
the garage to within 2' of property line at the side and rear which
would given them an additional 120 SF in the back yard and would
improve maneuverability. They have talked to their neighbors on each
side, at the rear, they would leave the hedge; the two redwood trees at
the back are about 6' to 8' from property line. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Graham found applicants have been more than willing to adjust the
structure, expand it, make legitimate parking spaces; they will be
removing a lot of stuff now in the back, the new structure will not be l
visible from the street, no neighbors are present this evening to l
object. C. Graham moved for approval of the two special permits for
the reasons stated 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 July 6, 1993 (existing) and July
13, 1993 (proposed) except that the garage shall be 40' in depth and
21' in width with a maximum 2' setback on either side and a 2' setback
at the rear; (2) that the conditions of the memos of the Acting Chief
Building Official (7/12/93) and Fire Marshal (7/12/93) shall be met;
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. Galligan.
There was some discussion on the motion regarding whether a survey
would be required and inclusion of the CE's July 26, 1993 memo. Motion
was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no. Appeal
procedures were advised.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO MAINTENANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR ONE
STALL AT 1501 EL CAMINO REAL ZONED C-1
Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions,
required findings. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at
the public hearing. Letter in opposition (received July 26, 1993) was
noted from Gregory Tancer, 1512 Highway Road.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
July 26, 1993
Staff responded to questions: we have -no accident statistics for E1
Camino Real, this is a state roadway; it is appropriate to consider
service station criteria when evaluating this use at this location;
staff has been very strict with residential structures on. El Camino,
not allowing underground parking garages, required'' exits, etc. to
extend into the 20' setback; the parking variance for one, stall has
been required should Caltrans implement roadway work in the future and
cause a reduction in the size of the two parking stalls on E1 Camino
Real; a Commissioner preferred to defer such a decision and address the
parking variance if and when it is needed; another Commissioner
commented this area is not within Caltrans right-of-way now, it is
within the City of Burlingame's 20' setback either side of E1 Camino.
Chm.'Deal opened the public hearing. David Whitgob and Kevin Cornell,
representing California Lubricants (Jiffy Lube), applicants, were
present. Mr. Whitgob's comments: they are not a service station, do
only fluid maintenance, no repairs, with three people working on a car
simultaneously; compared to any other retail use they would have a
negative traffic impact; expect to handle approximately 55 cars per day
in five years, serve people living within a two to three mile radius of
their business; customers wait with their cars, there is a customer
lounge. Mr. Whitgob commented on a brief slide presentation showing
their stores in other locations of the Bay Area, architecture of their
buildings does not resemble a gas station, the majority of their stores
are adjacent to residential uses; their sites are well landscaped, they
will buffer the existing shopping center with landscaping, floors are
not cluttered, note photo showing tile floor.
They have a computer system which keeps track of service maintenance on
a customer's auto; will have a maximum of five employees at any one
time; they try to employ people from the local community, screen and
train all employees, training never stops; disposal of the used oil is
environmentally correct. They want to make a contribution to the
community in terms of the service they provide, it will be an
architecturally attractive building, they feel there is no use in the
shopping center which will have such a minimal effect in terms of
traffic and parking.
Commission/ applicant discussion: concern about people who come in 10
minutes early, where do they go; the five on-site parking spaces do not
interfere with the flow of customers, typically customers drive by, if
there is no line they pull in, - if there are three cars waiting they
drive by and come back later; customers will not be allowed to hang out
in the street; if no space customers will be given a coupon and told to
come back, they do not allow congestion to build up on the site. Kevin
Cornell commented they expect approximately 55 cars per day in five
years, this equates to approximately six cars an hour, a gas station
probably would have 200-300 cars per day, Jiffy Lube will have
significantly less. If an auto is able to get directly into a bay it
can be serviced in 10 minutes or less, people learn to come back if
there are two or three vehicles ahead of them.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
July 26, 1993
Plans show signs and security lights, are any other signs or lights
proposed; Mr. Cornell said they have not submitted a formal sign
application with the city, plan only identification on the Adeline and
El Camino sides of the building, there is no visibility for a typical
monument sign on the site because of the trees, they would be satisfied
with identification of the building, nothing that is incompatible with
a residential area. They are proposing five on-site parking spaces
which is the average of their stores in the Bay Area, a good number of
their employees take public transportation to work or ride with someone
else, only two-thirds actually drive their own vehicles to work,
customers don't need to park so they thought five parking spaces would
be adequate. They could add more spaces next to the two in the 20'
setback along E1 Camino but would be giving up some landscaping, they
preferred to keep the landscaping. They have stores in three cities
close to Burlingame.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition: Thomas Notaro, 2848 Adeline Drive, also has an antique
business in the Adeline Shopping Center; Gregory Tancer, 1512 Highway
Road; Chris Borgeson, 1133 Oxford Road; Daren Schofield, 1152 Oxford
Road; Sharon Rider, 1157 Cambridge Road; Vicki Rounds, 1641 Lassen Way,
has a business in the shopping center. Their concerns/comments: this
type of business in a residential area, it will not blend with the
character of the area, will bring people from outside the city,
California Drive is a more appropriate location for Jiffy Lube; haven't
seen a Jiffy Lube in Carmel and there shouldn't be one here; the area
has become more family oriented since the gas station left; exiting the
site will be a problem; increased traffic in and out; accidents have
occurred on this corner, will be dangerous for students from Mercy who
catch the bus here; double bus on E1 Camino will block the exit
driveway; when cars can't get in at Jiffy Lube they will use the
Adeline Shopping Center parking lot; Saturday is when more people are
home and this business will be the busiest, customers will back out
onto the street and there will be more than 55 cars per day; have been
impressed with their service and efficiency which will lead to a
successful business and more traffic; apartments in the area have
caused enough parking problems without adding ajJiffy Lube; there are
small businesses which could be successful there.
Further concerns: the impact of lights; there is a traffic problem now
and only one crosswalk at this corner; think Jiffy Lube will take more
than 10 minutes for each car; this type of business needs a location
with better access and exiting; concern about litter and parking on
Cambridge and Oxford Roads; have witnessed several accidents at this
corner over the last year; concern for the safety of children and
pedestrians.
Marmora Terrell, property owner, Adeline Shopping Center, expressed her
concern about illegal left turns onto El Camino and cars using the
shopping center parking lot for parking or making U turns. She
suggested conditions if this proposal were approved: require lights to
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
July 26, 1993
come on at dusk and go off at dawn, landscaping be limited to the
height of the wall between the shopping center and the Jiffy Lube site,
the use permit be called up for review six months after the business
opens if parking and traffic becomes a problem. Some Commissioners
asked those opposed what use they would propose for this site. Answers
included a small park, bookstore, flower shop, ice cream shop, coffee
shop. Another Commissioner expressed the belief that Commission should
not ask the public what they think should go on a site, Commission is
here to listen to the public and make its decision after all the facts
have been presented and discussed.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion/ comment: agree with the neighbors, have always
been concerned about this corner, this will be a successful business,
they will have many customers, people violate 'right turn only' signs
all the time; Commission tries to get all the facts before making a
decision, live in this neighborhood, was supportive of the Adeline
Market coming back, Jiffy Lube 's service is terrific but this is not an
appropriate place for it, perhaps in a location where there are other
commercial activities, do not believe a park is the right idea either.
Based on these statements, C. Graham moved to deny the application,
seconded by C. Kelly.
Comment on the motion: will support this denial, would like to have
seen accident statistics on El Camino Real and ask that this
information be available if any future application for this site is
received; have a concern about access, with exit onto El Camino and
right turn only, it won't work. Grew up and lived for 18-20 years in
this area, have seen what has happened with the gas station on this
corner and without it, gas station was intensely used but it never
created problems, shopping center when it had auto access onto El
Camino Real created the traffic problems which resulted in accidents,
accidents are caused by people not paying attention to the traffic;
applicant has addressed all the problems as well as he can, the Adeline
Center is a good example of a neighborhood shopping center; would not
let my young children go to a park at this location; if not a park both
commercial and residential uses will present circulation problems, a
low intensity use is what this site needs, do not know if 55 cars a day
is an intense use, a retail outlet must have a number of customers
using it on a regular basis to make a profit.
Visited some other Jiffy Lube places of business, they may be backed up
somewhat, customer base will be in the area, it is something that is
compatible with the neighborhood, question if 55 cars will create
additional traffic hazards, intensity of this business is as low as it
can be and still make a profit.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
July 26, 1993
After all the discussion this evening think the use is too intense,
concerned about the peak, with five employees there. are only four
parking spaces since one space is a handicapped space, concerned about
the amount of traffic. The proposed business is not a problem, the
property is the problem; the site is so small that whatever goes in
will have circulation problems, with auto related uses a circulation
problem is guaranteed, like the Jiffy Lube concept, doubt a project
will ever be proposed which will satisfy 50% of the neighbors.
Motion to deny the application was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C.
Galligan dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 10:12 P.M.; reconvene 10:22 P.M.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO SALES IN THE M-1 ZONE AT
1327 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE
Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions,
required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at
the public hearing. Responding to a question CP advised all cars that
are going to be sold must be in the warehouse.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Roy Spencer, applicant, asked for
Commission approval of his request for retail auto sales from this
site. He has been complying with the suggested conditions of approval
for the past year or so, there will be little traffic impact, he
conducts his business 100$ by advertising in the San Francisco
Chronicle, when a potential buyer calls he makes an appointment to show
the car, advertises specific cars, he is a bonded independent used car
dealer. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Referencing the information in the staff report and confirmation that
all cars will be stored inside, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the
special permit for retail auto sales by resolution with the following
conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo dated
June 14, 1993 shall be met; (2) that the hours of operation shall be
9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday with one employee; '(3)
that none of the on-site parking shall be used to display or store cars
for sale from this business; (4) that vehicles to be sold or displayed
by this business shall be delivered before or after regular business
hours of other tenants on the site; no cars shall be off loaded on the
public street or in such a way that required on-site parking is
blocked; (5) that any changes to this business operation as outlined in
the application materials date stamped June 8, 1993 'will require an
amendment to this special permit; and (6) that the use and any
improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform
Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page it
July 26, 1993
Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved unanimously by voice
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO SERVICE AND STORAGE AT 1221
WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 7/26/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions,
required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at
the public hearing.
Staff confirmed the building is metal construction; Fire Marshal said
the problem is they cannot get area separation on the property line,
rated walls between buildings. It was noted the plans are unreadable,
information is incomplete.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Neither applicant nor property
owner were present. The Chair closed the public hearing.
C. Jacobs moved to continue this item to the meeting of August 23,
1993, seconded by C. Galligan. The following was requested: applicant
and property owner to be present; valid set of plans, site plan which
shows parking allocation for each use on the site; number of employees
Motion was approved 6-1 on voice vote, C. Ellis dissenting.
PLANNER REPORTS
Criteria for Residential Condominiums
Reference CP's staff report with attachments. CP Monroe noted the
summary sheet staff uses for residential condominiums provides a good
guide for current regulations.
Commissioners discussed, commented, questioned and made suggestions.
Comments included: in view of the new FAR regulations it was noted a
change to lot coverage requirement for corner lots would be
appropriate. Also suggested was an increase in parking requirements
for condominiums to 1.5 spaces for a studio, 2.0 spaces for a one
bedroom unit, 2.0/2.5 for a two bedroom unit, 2.5 for three bedrooms.
Clear delineation of guest parking was suggested with an additional
number of spaces based on number of units required parking.
Under general open space 50% must be landscaped, clarify what qualifies
as landscaping. Why no guest parking requirement for apartments; why
aren't requirements for apartments the same or similar than those for
condominiums. Regarding Exhibit A, Findings of Resolution 5-80, do not
believe Planning Commission in review places enough emphasis on 12,
condominium projects shall be reviewed on the basis of their effect on
sound community planning, that condition could be the basis of denial
of some of the projects which come before Commission. Under Findings
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
July 26, 1993
17, project plans shall indicate accessibility . . . to parking . . .
parking is important.
Do we have inclusionary zoning? What can be done short of design
review to improve the appearance of condominiums? Look at condominium
units as a lifetime situation as opposed to month to month apartments.
Guest parking for condominiums should be available to the guests
outside the security gate, should be in addition to the required
parking. Two spaces for a one bedroom unit and 2.5 for a two bedroom
might be too much if guest parking was provided separately.
Regarding architectural review, it has a valid place if properly used,
would like to discuss this further; no design review board but could
have an architectural committee, then refer to an outside design review
consultant. Agree apartments and condominiums differ, that is the
reason for discretionary review. Regarding parking, if two spaces are
required for a one bedroom unit construction will be all two bedroom
projects, it is better to have a mix. Could have separate criteria for
lower income units. There are too many condominiums in the city now,
don't know the vacancy rate but they are financial losers at present.
That Is, a function of the economy; would rather have a condominium built
to condominium regulations than have an apartment put up which is a
lesser structure.
The Chair continued this subject to a future meeting when there is room
on the agenda for more discussion.
CP reviewed City Council actions/ discussion at its July 19, 1993
regular meeting and July 21, 1993 study meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs
Secretary