Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.05.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION May 8, 1995 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Galligan on Monday, May 8, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Key and Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the April 24, 1995 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #5, a one year extension request for a parking variance and retention of 2 food establishments at 1420 Burlingame Avenue was moved to Item #1. The order of the agenda was then approved. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Consistent with the commission's rules of procedure, Chairman Galligan noted that this was the meeting to elect new commission officers for the coming year. He noted that Commissioner Ellis had been reappointed by the City Council for another term. He thanked the commission for their support during this last year. C. Key nominated C. Jacobs for Chairman for the 1995-96 term; nominations were closed and C. Jacobs was elected Chairman on unanimous voice vote. C. Jacobs nominated C. Ellis for Vice Chairman; nominations were closed and C. Ellis was elected Vice Chairman on unanimous voice vote. C. Ellis nominated C. Kelly for Secretary; nominations were closed and C. Kelly was elected Secretary on unanimous voice vote. C. Galligan passed the gavel to Chairman Jacobs. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes PERART EXTENSION May 8, 1995 1. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF PARKING VARIANCE AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (MAURICE HACK, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 5/8/84, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria and staff comments noting that although the building permits for the seismic retrofit had been issued the permits for the tenant improvements will not be requested until after the present planning approval had expired. The seven conditions previously approved were submitted. Mr. Hack spoke to the commission along with his architect, Paolo Crescini, from Italy. Renderings of the rear elevation were shown including a new window design, parapet cap and landscaping plan. No changes are proposed which would affect the floor area previously approved. It was noted that any design changes made to the rear facade would have to meet UBC and UFC requirements in effect when the building permits are requested. The Planning Commission was not approving any specific changes to the structure only extending the special permits with the same conditions as before plus the requirements to comply with the UBC in the future. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis noted that this is an extension, as allowed, he then moved approval on this one year permit extension, with the condition approved July 5, 1994, as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 4, 1994, Sheet A.2 First Floor portion of the plans only, Sheet A.3 Elevations, Sheet A.4 Sections and Details; and May 6, 1992 Sheet A1.0 Site Plan, Sheet A2.0 Basement Plan, Sheet A2.2 Second Floor Plan, Sheet A2.3 Third floor Plan, Sheet A2.4 Fourth Floor Plan except that the mezzanine/second floor shall not exceed 3,030 GSF and that there shall be no change to the Burlingame Avenue facade of the structure except that required for seismic retrofit of the building; 2) that the maximum gross floor areas per floor shall be 7,700 GSF basement, 7,700 GSF first floor (including two food establishments each 2,572 SF), 3,030 GSF mezzanine/second floor, 7,700 GSF third floor, 7,700 GSF fourth floor; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshals' May 16, 1994 memo with attached October 26, 1983 letter from Ed Williams to Steve Parker shall be met; 4) that the uses by floor shall be basement storage related to the uses in the building not leased to a separate tenant; first floor retail sales and service including 2 food establishments each 2,572 SF; second, third and fourth floors office uses as permitted or conditioned by the zoning, with no health services allowed; 5) that the separate lot at the rear shall be retained for parking, shall provide 30 parking spaces available to the tenants of this building and their customers/clients and shall not be leased separately for a fee to any other business, use or activity including valet parking without amendment to this use permit; 6) that eight spaces in the at -grade parking at the rear of the building shall be marked "two hour parking for customer use only" and this use shall be enforced by the property owner; and 7) that this structure shall include compliance with all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame and the requirements for seismic upgrade. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1995 Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 5-2 (C. Galligan and Jacobs dissenting) voice vote. STUDY ITEMS 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT FOOD AT 346 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B (L)ON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER AND RON LOUIS AVENIDA III, APPLICANT), Requests: Is the new stairwell at the front of the lease area going to be blocked off; what are UBC requirements for the access to the basement; how many employees, staff and drink production numbers do not match; when are the peak times expected to be; considering the area a count of available parking spaces at peak hours should be made, the area evaluated should correspond to the area others have counted. Item set for Public Hearing May 22, 1995. 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED C-4 (DKBERT ASSOC.. PROPERTY OWNER AND ROBERT C. HUTTON, APPLICANT)_ Requests: need legitimate arguments from city and applicant for abandonment of half of Burlway Road; Item set for Public Hearing May 22, 1995. ACTION ITEMS 4. PARKING VARIANCE AT 2301 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (DAVID M. & K.H. MONASTERIO, PROPERTY OWNERS AND F. JOSEPH BUTLER, AIA, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 5/8/84, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested foi consideration. C. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Kimberly Monasterio, 2301 Ray Drive, the applicant and her architect, F. Joseph Butler, descried the application to the commission and explained that they felt applying for the variance to parking dimension would be a better way to proceed than to apply for a lot coverage variance caused by expanding the garage to accommodate two cars. The architect noted that because of the steep slope off toward the creek at the rear of the lot they needed the large deck to create useable area. Since much of the deck was more than 30" off the ground it was counted in the lot coverage. This was a hardship and they did not want to reduce the size of the deck. C. Deal noted that the garages are close to the street in this area, this case is not overly excessive for the properties in the area, he then moved to approve the application with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 1, 1995, sheets A-1, A-2 and A-3; 2) that obstructions in the garage be removed to provide one covered parking space with interior clear dimensions of 10'-0" x 20'-0"; 3) that the transition area (labeled "fun room") between the kitchen and the dining room shall never be enclosed by four walls; 4) that the requirements of the Associate Engineer's memo (4/7/95) and the Chief Building Official's memo (4/10/95) -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1995 Shall be met; and 5) 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. Kelly. In discussion the commissioners felt there are alternatives available on the side to solve this problem and bring this application closer to the intent of the code. The motion was then withdrawn by the maker of the motion with the approval of the second. It was noted that the garage can be widened with possibly a small encroachment into side setback to accommodate two cars without affecting living areas within the house, the deck could be reduced some to meet lot coverage with the widened garage; commissioners noted that parking was more critical than side setback in this case particularly since in the future someone could add a second story and a fifth bedroom to this house and it would be very difficult after this addition to expand the garage. The parking should be corrected now. C. Mink moved to deny this application without prejudice noting that the applicant should came back with a design that better meets code providing two properly dimensioned covered parking spaces. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AND FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1421 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (BOB AND CANDACE SAVOIE, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 5/8/84, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe read a letter into the record from Philip R. and Jeanne B. Alber, 1424 Vancouver Avenue, in opposition to the project. C. Deal noted he has a business relationship with the applicant and therefore he will abstain from the discussion and vote. C. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bob Savoie, 1421 Bernal Avenue, the applicant, submitted a letter from a neighbor in support of his project. He explained their focus is to retain the style of the house and the character of the neighborhood, as well as to retain the large trees and play area in the rear yard. For these reasons they want to keep the existing garage. They park a car in it regularly. C. Galligan noted that the trees are not of a protected size and it is not unreasonable in this case since the lot allows it, to ask the applicant to conform to the code. He did not feel the request met the variance test since there are alternatives on the site which would comply with city regulations. He then moved to deny the special permit and parking variance portion and approve the side setback variance. Commission discussed the fact that if the garage were relocated to the rear 30% of the lot a side setback variance would not be needed. In addition there is a need for findings in order to approve any portion of this application. The motion died for lack of a second. 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1995 C. Mink noted that there are no exceptional circumstances or hardship on this property. The applicant wants to change the cottage character of the house but not change the garage to match the new character. There are alternatives that would eliminate the need for this application, he then moved to deny the application. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and failed on a 3-3-1 (C. Kelly, Key and Jacobs dissenting and C. Deal abstaining) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Kelly then noted that the application stands on it's own merit and the special circumstances are that the garage was there, it is not a hinderance to anybody and is not a hardship to anyone in the neighborhood. He then moved to approve this application, with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 3, 1995, Sheet 1, Site Plan; Sheet 2, Demolition Plan and Section; Sheet 3, First Floor Plan; Sheet 4, Second Floor Plan with eave layout as shown on 81h" X 11" plan view date stamped April 28, 1995; and Sheet 5, Elevations; 2) that if the existing nonconforming accessory structure (garage) is ever demolished it shall be replaced with a garage that meets current zoning code requirements and is located in the rear 30% of the length of the lot; or variances and special permits shall be received before any new accessory structure shall be built; and 3) 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. Motion was seconded by C. Key and failed on a 3-3-1 (C. Ellis, Galligan and Mink dissenting and C. Deal abstaining) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of May 1, 1995. Zoning Corrections and Clarifications - Further discussion Commission discussed Items #4, #5, #7 and #8, of the Commissioners proposals for changes to the zoning and sign ordinance. The proposed changes will be incorporated into the ordinance and presented to Planning Commission/City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. MINs.s -5- Respectfully submitted, Pat Kelly, Secretary