Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1994.10.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION October 11, 1994 CALL TO ORDER W, A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Galligan on Monday, October 11, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly and Key Absent: Commissioners Deal and Mink Staff Present: City Planner; Margaret Monroe, Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the September 26, 1994 meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA It was noted for the record that Item #9, 1500 to 1650 Bayshore Highway is continued to October 24, 1994. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES AND STORAGE AT 1291 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1 (NICHOLAS & STELLA CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNERS AND L.R. SPENCER, APPLICANTI. Requests: Is the applicant doing business in this location at this time; was this the result of code enforcement. Item set for hearing October 24, 1994. 2. DETERMINATION AND SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIZE AND HEIGHT AT 851 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O -M (WESTATES VENTURE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER AND WILLIAM A. RYAN, APPLICANT). Requests: Are there any vehicle code restrictions which would apply to this sign; any moving (flashing) lights; have applicant address need for sign at this location; does the "outdoor advertising act" apply to this sign; what types of businesses other than hotels and restaurants in this area have wall signs; why not name of business on sign; present an overview of what is seen from freeway (photographically); when were other projecting wall signs last approved. Item set for hearing October 24, 1994. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ACTION ITEMS October 11, 1994 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; there are only 5 members seated tonight. If an applicant would prefer to be heard by a full commission, they may request a continuance. There were no such requests. 3. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND FRONT AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1273 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (JOHN SULLIVAN. PROPERTY OWNER AND DRAKE GARDNER. APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. A letter from Barbara Ferrera was read into the record. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. There was a letter from a nearby resident about the burden currently placed on the sewer line. CE confirmed the problem will be corrected by the time this project is built. Drake Gardner, representing the applicant, was present to answer questions. Regarding seismic stability, the building is braced with steel and concrete, not standard wood frame and will be built to UBC requirements. The floors will be done with trusses above and should withstand any potential seismic problem. Each unit has 2 entrances, one at the rear for furniture near the wader stair and elevator. The easement is the uncommon factor causing the need for extra space in the front. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted the size of the easement, making access into this project difficult. This is a reasonable design solution to the problems caused by the easement and this design is compatible with the neighborhood. C. Jacobs then moved the commission approve this condominium permit, front and rear setback variance applications, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 16, 1994 Sheets Al, A2P, A3, A4, A5, and A6; Landscape plan sheet L-1 date stamped August 23, 1994 and Tentative Parcel Map date stamped September 19, 1994; 2) that the conditions of memorandums written by the Associate Engineer (September 20, 1994), Fire Marshal (July 26, 1994), Building Official (September 6, 1994) and Park Director (September 1, 1994) and the requirements of the CS 11.06, Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection, shall be met; 3) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided to allow access to the designated guest/disabled parking stall and that the stall shall be marked as such; 4) that the guest/disabled parking stall shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association and shall not be assigned to any unit unless requested by a unit owner to provide parking expressly for an occupant with a disability, if this is the case, the condominium association shall inform the Planning Department that there is no longer guest parking on the site; 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 -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1994 property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 7) that two parking spaces shall be provided with the sale of each unit, solely for use by the condominium owners and their guests, that no additional fee shall be charged for the parking spaces, and that no portion of any parking area or aisle shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; and 8) that the project, including access and egress requirements, shall meet all the requirements of the Municipal Code, Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Deal and Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A NEW FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1273 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (JOHN SULLIVAN, PROPERTY OWNER AND DRAKE GARDNER, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10/11/94, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Public Works comments, and study meeting questions. CE Erbacher stated, for the record, that the support posts are 6' into the easement. The balconies must be removable because of the need to move large equipment into the area. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the; public hearing was closed. C. Ellis noted that this will be an improvement to the neighborhood, and moved recommendation of this Tentative Parcel Map to the City Council with the following conditions; 1) developmental note on Final Condominium Map will require that the removable balconies and roofs that overhand the easement shall be removed and replaced by the Condominium Association if the City requires it for access to the easement; and 2) add note that 4 Condominium Units are as shown, Architectural Plans prepared by "Zone Design Build", dated September 19, 1994. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Deal and Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1531 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (ANNA & NIKITA DERUGIN, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 10/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the: request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. A survey shows the new roof is actually 2.16' higher than the original ridge line. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Nikita and Anna Derugin, 1531 Los Altos Drive, were present along with their designer, Mary Dunlap, 4100 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo„ The Commission queried the original condition and it was clarified that there was a misunderstanding between staff and the designer. Staff was told the height was 16'-9", however it was not clear that this was not the existing or original roof ridge line. The drawing did show a change in the roof ridge, although it was never stated -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1994 that this was a new ridge at a greater height. Applications will now require an original and new front elevation along with a dimension from face of curb to top of each roof ridge. In order to lower the roof it would need to be reengineered and redesigned. Effort was,, made not to change the look of this house from the street. The specific wording was, "it's not going to be any higher than what you see on paper". The new roof ridge is very similar and to reduce it would be at great cost. Pictures representing before and after were furnished the Commission. Jim Muhic, P. O. Box 1051, Cloverdale, a builder on the project, spoke in favor of the project and explained the construction of the wings in the roof area of the project. Loris Moorbrink, 1527 Los Altos Drive and Donald Vint, 1520 Los Altos Drive spoke in opposition to the project. They felt they should have challenged, more vigorously, the original project. The present addition affects views from the house next door to a greater extent than anticipated. The view from the kitchen is also affected along with removal of a large walnut tree now replaced with structure. Across the street the long distance view of the hills is reduced, compounding the loss several years ago of his view from the back of his house toward the airport. They paid a premium for their views and those views have been altered. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Commission advised the applicant and neighbor that perhaps mediation, i.e., Peninsula Mediation Services might best resolve the screening of the deck issue. It does not appear that the roof ridge line is the major issue here. C. Kelly noted to require reduction of this roof would be punitive. He then moved to approve this amendment to conditions of this Hillside Area Construction Permit based on the staff report and the conversation, with the following conditions: 1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 3, 1993 Sheets 1 through 5 with a front setback of 31'-0", a rear setback of 42'-0", a left side setback at 8'-0", and a right side setback at 8'-6"; 2) that the finish material used on all 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 be 16'- 9" at the front of the house and 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 the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Jacobs dissenting; C. Deal and Mink absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1811 MONTECITO WAY, ZONED R-1 (S. SUNG -TEN & C.L. PAN, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the. request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission discussed 40% lot coverage, fault trace and a geological study. The October 7, 1994 memo from the Engineering Department was read into the record. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Sandy Pan, 1811 Montecito Way;, the applicant spoke to the commission and confirmed this would be a non habitable hobby room only. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1994 C. Jacobs noted the lot coverage and hillside area construction permit portions of this application are consistent with required findings in that it will not be a habitable area, does not obstruct existing views and this use is not excessive for the area and will not be detr}mental to property or improvements in the vicinity, she then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the patio enclosure, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 19, 1994, sheets 1 & S1 and 81h" X 11" sheet date stamped October 5, 1994; 2) that the patio enclosure shall be no larger than 390.4 SF, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall and shall have a redwood deck floor, ventilation and clear plastic windows and sliding doors as required by the Uniform Building Code to be non -habitable space; 3) that this patio enclosure shall not be modified or expanded to become habitable area as defined by the Uniform Building or Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame without amendment to this variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit; 4) that the highest point on the roof of the patio enclosure shall not exceed elevation 91.3'; 5) that the applicant shall obtain all required building permits for correction of this structure within 30 days of approval of this variance and permit, and shall complete work including a final inspection within 60 days thereafter; and 6) that this 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 and passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Deal and Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AT 801 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 (VICKI COLLINS. PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. The applicant was not available and there were no other comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted there is not enough information to process this request, she then moved continuance of this application to the October 24, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Key dissenting; C. Deal and Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SATELLITE DISH AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 (HKTG DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., PROPERTY OWNER AND HYATT REGENCY, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 10/11/94, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the: request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1994 C. Galligan opened the public hearing. Fred Parquier, representing the Hyatt, was present to answer any questions. He explained that the large dish is necessary to get a clear picture with digital in such a large building. C. Jacobs moved approval of this special permit, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the satellite dish antenna shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 8, 1994 Site Plan (81/2" X 11"), Section (81/2" X 11 "), Fence Location Plan (81/2" X 11 "), and Antenna Specification Sheet (81h " X 11 "); 2) that the installation of this satellite dish requires separate application to the Building Department, with proper plans and engineering calculations, as required for a Building Permit; 3) that the antenna dish installed shall not have a diameter greater than 10'-0", nor rise more than 12'-0" above the surface of the ground or concrete pad, and shall be painted with a nonreflective paint, in a color to match the building; 4) that the applicant or property owner shall be responsible for an amendment to this use permit if future construction on any adjacent property requires relocation of the dish antenna, removal and reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant and/or property owner; 5) that the applicant shall permanently maintain the nonreflective surface of the dish and its support structure, or remove all the equipment and support structure; 6) that as installed the satellite antenna shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, including connections from the antenna inside the building to the television equipment; 7) that the satellite antenna shall be removed at the time this use leaves this premiss and if the new use wishes to install any type of antenna he shall comply with all the code requirements, in effect at that time; and 8) that any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Deal and Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. VARIANCE FOR LOT SIZE, TENTATIVE AND FINAL ]MAPS TO RESUBDIVIDE EXISTING PARCEL INTO FOUR PARCELS AT 1500 TO 1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 (CHRISTOPHER O. VEITCH, PROPERTY OWNER AND DANIEL G. MACLEOD. APPLICANT) (CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 24, ]1994 MEETING). PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council regular meetings of October 3, 1994. /_"i71"17,IA3, n AzY II The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 P.M. MINUTES 10.11 IM Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary