Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1994.12.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COAEMSSION December 12, 1994 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Galligan on Monday, December 12, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Key (7:34) and Mink ABSENT: Commissioner Ellis STAFF PRESENT: City Planner; Meg Monroe, City Attorney; Jerry Coleman, City Engineer; Frank Erbacher, Fire Marshall; Keith Marshall A11NUTES - The minutes of the November 28, 1994 meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. Chairman Galligan informed all applicants for action items that the rules of procedure for the commission require a minimum of 4 affirmative votes to pass a motion. If an applicant would prefer to be heard by a full commission, they may request a continuance. Item #3, 1000 Vancouver asked to set aside their decision until their action itf:m, in anticipation of another commissioners arrival. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND OLYMPIAN DAY CAMP AT 1131-1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (BURLINGAME SCHOOL, DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER AND OLYMPIAN DAY CAMP, APPLICANTI. Requests: applicant to complete application, i.e., number of employees; where do employees park; does anyone park at the rear of the site; hours of schools now on the site and proposed; complete chart including number of people on the entire site; enumerate peak time of day traffic movement of all tenants; what plans have been made by the applicant to meet with the neighbors and the school district. Item set for public hearing January 9, 1995 pending necessary responses received in a timely manner. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 Chairman Galligan noted that there were now 6 commissioners present and asked again if anyone wished a continuance? There were no such requests. ACTION ITEMS 2. SPECIAL PERMIT AT 123-125 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 (JOHN STEINER, PROPERTY OWNER AND PHILIP D. WILKINSON, APPLICANT) (DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT NOVEMBER 28, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING). Reference staff report, 12/12/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. An application to designate a primary dwelling on this non -conforming lot and for a parking variance at this ]location was denied without prejudice at the November 28, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has returned with the same remodel plans for the dwelling and has chosen to relocate and redesign the carport. This is a resubmittal. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. John Steiner, homeowner, 123-125 Bloomfield, and Philip Wilkinson, applicant were present to explain the resubmittal. There was discussion about the amount and type of pavement in the front yard because there would be a lot of cement and it would be very visible with a carport instead of a garage. There are no current plans to go into the main portion of the house to do any work. They reviewed alternatives discussed by the commission and feel this current design is the most viable and affordable. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted this new design is more appropriate and the carport will appear to belong to the second unit. He then moved to approve this application, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and failed on a 3-3-1 (Cers. Jacobs, Key and Mink dissenting and C. Ellis absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Key moved approval of the application, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report and an added condition requiring 50% of the front yard area between the property line and fence of the structure including the area in front of the dwelling at 125 be put into soft landscaping. The conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 5, 1994, site plan, house and carport elevations; and other sheets date stamped November 4, 1994 including floor plan, foundation plan, building sections and electrical; 2) that the carport roof shall be of Class B fire rating or better in order to meet die requirements of the Chief building Inspector's 11/7/94 memo; 3) that in order to meet the requirements of the City Engineer's memo dated December 5, 1994, the curb cut for the driveway shall be relocated to a size and location approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit; 4) that the primary unit shall be 125 Bloomfield and that any additional expansion of 125 Bloomfield shall require a special permit from the Planning Commission and that there shall be no expansion of the secondary 123 Bloomfield structure; 5) that the project shall provide 50% softscape in the front yard between the property line and face of the structures and that the softscape shall be concentrated in the area in fi ont of the dwelling at 125 Bloomfield; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Jacobs and Mink dissenting and C. Ellis absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERNIIT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AT 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (JOSEPH & JANETE BOJUES, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 28. 1994). Reference staff report, 12/12/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Joseph Bojues, 1000 Vancouver Avenue, the property owner and Brent Lords, the architect, addressed the commission and explained their revised plan which reflects a compromise with the neighbor to the rear. Mr. Lords also requested relief from condition #2 which requires a framing survey since the site has been surveyed by a licensed land surveyor. CE confirmed the reason for condition #2 was to establish location of new construction and could rely on base data already establish in first survey. Ms. Clasmeier, 2005 Carmelita, discussed the loss of light and air as her main objections to the project. Mr. Lords presented an overhead projection on the screen and showed the direction the shadows would cast (worst case scenario December 22). He pointed out that the majority of shadows would be directed toward Ms. Clasmeier's garage and toward the Schafer property to the rear adjacent to Mrs. Clasmeier. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal explained the variance does indeed show exceptional circumstances and because of the creek and past improvements done with building permits this lot has a number of exceptional circumstances. In addition to build at front of house would mean complete reconstruction. Since the large trees block the front on to the neighbors property the new addition will have little additional effect. He noted condition #2 should be retained. He then moved to approve this application, by resolution, with the following conditions, including condition #2: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 2, 1994 sheets showing ground floor plans, second floor plans and building elevations; 2) that the framing of the first and second story at the rear shall be surveyed before the Building Department framing inspection to insure that the height of the structure and the rear setbacks match those which are proposed; 3) that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo dated October 31, 1994 shall be met; 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. Mink and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AT 1237 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (FERESHTEH & KEIHAN EHSANIPOUR, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 28. 1994) Reference staff report, 12/12/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request for a parking variance for a 6 bedroom single family house, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. 511 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Fereshteh and Keihan Fhsanipour were present to answer any questions. Walter Smith, 1249 Balboa, presented a petition in opposition based on neighborhood and on street parking impact to the commission containing 40 signatures. John Gibbons, 1221 Balboa, Bob Thomas, 1234 Cortez, Ken Aron, 1600 Sherman, Charles Sanqula, 1230 Cortez, Mark Petri, 1240 Cortez, Nancy Kox, 1208 Cortez, Marilee Williams, 1230 Cortez voiced opposition to the approval of a parking variance for a residence that could, at a later date, be used as a 6'bedroom house without enough parking in an area where there is already a parking problem. The neighbors would prefer not to have a proliferation of elderly care facilities and there is already another a block away. Mr. Ehsampour responded he to was concerned about on -street parking problems and the fact that through the remodel the house would be brought into compliance for the Uniform Building Code. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the issue is the addition to the house and the parking vaiiance as such does not fulfill the requirements of the findings requirements of hardship on the property. Moreover, if a legal garage were added it would make the lot coverage over the percentage limit and there are no exceptional circumstances. He then moved to deny this application. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioners noted, for the record, that the ordinance addresses single family houses not any future use which they could be put to. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A PERMANENT TENT AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 (HTKG DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER AND SAM SINNOTT, APPLICANTI. Reference staff report, 12/12/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Larry Builta, engineer at the Hyatt explained the tent and the parking logistics. The present parking demand and use at off-site at one Bay Plaza and the West States Building were reviewed, a parking attendant is provided whenever there its a large function to reduce parking problems. Also, staff is notified when there is a large function and the meeting group is local, staff is given 24 hours to set up the alternate parking. The fabric has a ten year life expectancy, it zips in and out. The cost of installing the tent was higher than anticipated and Hyatt would not want to raise the building now. In the Uniform Building Code a temporary permit is 60 days so this tent was built meeting permanent criteria. If there is going to be any structure in place, they must meet certain requirements having to do with fire suppression, ventilation, heating and habitability of space, therefore in order to meet the building requirements it had to be done as a permanent structure. Commission asked that the Hyatt verify the number of parking spaces available at the present. time. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 In their discussion commissioners noted that Hyatt needed some time to get a return on their investment because the UBC required installation of the temporary tent as a permanent installation; not like the idea of a parking variance for this kind of floor area expansion and availability of replacement parking sources to code dimensions and on-site for the 23 under the tent is unclear; availability of parking on-site is a problem some times with or without the tent; allowing the planning temporary permit for more time to assess the availability of parking on-site, the effective use of the off-site lots seems feasible if a review or a complaint basis is also considered; life span of the tent structure covering is 10 years; a parking variance for this land use would encourage other hotels to put in similar temporary facilities; in required parking. C. Mink moved to extend the temporary permit for the tent located in the parking lot at the Hyatt for 10 years from the date of this approval providing the permit was reviewed annually or upon complaint for compliance with the conditions, off-site parking agreements at One Bay Plaza and the West States Building, for after hours use of their parking lots, are executed and maintained and a plan showing all on-site parking is submitted to city planning staff with the following amended conditions: 1) that the tent as installed shall match the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 27, 1994, Sheet C -4T Tent Site Plan, Sheet 1 Tent Elevations and Plan, and Sheet A3.1 Hotel Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineers' October 28, 1994 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors' October 313, 1994 memo shall be met; 3) that all employees shall be encouraged to park in the off-site parking lot during non -office hours, when all the parking spaces at the hotel site are full; 4) that the tent and its use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that the tent shall be permitted at this location as a temporary use for 10 years (2004); 6) that the Hyatt Hotel staff shall submit to the Planning Department, plans documenting all on-site parking within 60 days of this action; and 7)that this temporary tent use shall be reviewed annually or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Jacobs dissenting and C. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SIDE SETBACK AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AT 808 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O -M MCHOLAS CRISAFI. PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 12/12/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. CE suggested a covenant be recorded. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Mr. Crisafi was present to respond to the commissioners' questions. He is in agreement with the recordation of a covenant to insure continued access to the backup area of the row of parking next to the property line. He also explained that there were two sets of plans. The one at study showed 13 % landscaping and 20 (the minimum required) parking spaces. The second plan he preferred with 8.5% landscaping (where 15% is required) and 29 parking spaces because the additional parking was better for him than landscaping within the parking area that no one could see from the street. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. In their discussion the Planning Commissioners noted that under the terms of the 0-M district regulations the extra parking provided could be used to intensify the uses (i.e., add more office) on-site in the future, -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 by granting variance for building already allow 1800 SF more structure on-site than other properties, should provide landscaping (13%) to soften; might consider a condition about requiring Planning Commission review if use on-site is intensified; what is the unusual circumstance for side setback and landscape deficiencies, the purpose of the non -conforming section of the code is to get compliance after a fire, there is no compelling need for the variances, no excuse not to comply. Prefer the November 17 plan with more landscape, it represents an honest attempt to comply. C. Mink moved to grant the side setback variance and variance for 13 % landscape as shown on the November 17, 1994 plans with a recorded covenant to provide a 24' backup aisle on the adjacent property at 826 Burlway Road, by resolution, with four conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 21, 1994 Parking Layout with 8.5 % landscaping (2,638 SF) and November 17, 1994, Sheet 2, Floor Plan; 2) that the driveway covenant shall be recorded on both properties so if either parcel is sold the shared back up aisle remains for parking spaces 15 through 29; 3) that the project shall meet all conditions set forth in the Fire Marshal's memo dated October 24, 1994 and the Building Official's memo dated October 24, 1994; and 4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. One commissioner noted that he preferred parking to landscaping in this area in part because the landscaping would not be visible from the street and because of parking problems. It was also noted that employees should have landscaping to enjoy as well. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIANCE FOR UNDERGROUND GARAGE EXTENDING ABOVE NATURAL GRADE AT 601 ANSEL ROAD, ZONED R-3 (ANSEL- FLORIBUNDA LTD., PROPERTY OWNER AND HABITEC, APPLICANTl. Reference staff report, 12/12/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Mr. Knudsen explained the problems with the high water table and the buried stream bed. The property slope rises from Ansel three feet to the western property line. The front of the lot is Ansel, they are therefore taking the base elevation to determine the height of the new structure from the lowest point, which required them to actually lower the west half of the building below natural grade. This plan raises the building bringing the west half of the building up to natural grade. There were 39 parking spaces in the original project; one is converted to storage to eliminate the storage in the front of the building and pull the wall back further from front property line. The parking is all underground and behind a security gate. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted the elevation change will have not have a negative effect on the project and is necessary for sound community planning due to the topography of the land and the location of the water table. She then moved approval of this negative declaration, special permit and variance application, noting the findings of the previous action and the staff report, 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 -6- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 March 21, 1994, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, L-1 and Tentative Map dated March 7, 1994 as amended by Sheet A-7 and Tentative Map dated November 10, 19914 and Sheets A-1, RA2 and A-4 dated November 28, 1994; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo dated November 28, 1994, and the Chief Building Official's memo of November 29, 1994 shall tie met; 3) that all conditions of approval specified in the April 5, 1994 letter from M. Monroe to Jerry Yates shall be met; 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. Deal and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of December 5, 1994. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. NUNUTM12.12 -7- Respectfully submitted, Ruth Jacobs, Secretary