Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.02.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. [yam ffifffx* � A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Galligan on February 27, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Jacobs, Key, Mink and Galligan Absent: Commissioner Kelly Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - Page 3, paragraph. 3, 4th line from bottom was corrected to read: 5) that all the temporary bunting signs on the lighting poles along California Drive (all bunting materials and the sifigns). The minutes were then approved. Staff verified, the minutes reading "to be retained" regarding the wooden used car sign on the south fence, not included in the project plans. 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. There are only 6 commissioners seated this evening. There were no such requests. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES AT 100 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 (RUDY & KATHARINA FROEHLICH, PROPERTY OWNERS AND RAY VIOTTI, JR., APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 2/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1995 Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Ray Viotti, Jr., 1634 Ascension Drive, San Mateo, asked that the occupants be allowed to keep the curb cut since they use the driveway as a main entrance area to get their elderly mother back and forth from the car to her home next door, he explained the use of the adjoining property since the owners are related mother and daughter and use the stairs between the properties for access and the curb cut for unloading groceries, etc. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted the special permit to expand the primary residence reduces lot coverage and eliminates the carport that really did not fit, and the variances for lot coverage and parking dimension are minor. It was noted that the curb cut and driveway should be removed since this is a corner lot and there is sufficient street parking available. He then made a motion to approve this special permit, lot coverage and parking variance, 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 February 6, 1995, sheets A0, Al and A-2 except that the curb cut and driveway from Bayswater to the face of the structure shall be removed; 2) that the requirements of the City Engineer's memo dated January 18, 1995 shall be met and that the former driveway area shall be replaced with soft landscaping such as grass; 3) that the primary unit shall be 100 Bloomfield; any additional expansion of 100 Bloomfield shall require a special permit from the Planning Commission and there shall be no expansion of the secondary structure (102 Bloomfield); 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 Commissioner Mink and passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kelly absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 2. PARKING VARIANCES AT 2011 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (MR. & MRS. STEVEN WILK, PROPERTY OWNERS AND KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 2/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Ken Ibarra, 600 El Camino Real, San Bruno, the applicant and architect was present. He presented the commission with pictures to document his January 25, written comments, to explain the project and answer questions. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted this application is for a typical Ray Park house placed as others were on corner lots with a large area between the street right-of-way and the property line, the depth of the parking is being increased by the removal of the storage area and this will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. She then made a motion to approve this parking variance application recounting the findings in the staff report and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 26, 1995, Sheets A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4; and 2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ellis and passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kelly absent). Appeal procedures were advised. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1995 3. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1232 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (ELIZABETH O'SULLIVAN AND THOMAS O'CONNOR, PROPERTY OWNERS AND JACK McCARTHY, APPLICANT. Reference staff report, 2/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There was discussion regarding the fact that the plans in the packet were those submitted for the changes to the original building permit. The old plans originally reviewed did not include the notes about the changes to the front and side foundation. The Chief Building Inspector determined this is a new foundation, therefore a new house. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy, project architect, 53395 Prospect, Suite 311, San Jose and Thomas O'Connor, 1338 - 36th Avenue, San Francisco were present to respond to the commission's questions. Commission asked the applicant if he had understood when the original design was done that the non -conforming structure could invade the front setback so long as the original foundation and wall remained, if it was removed then the structure must meet the current zoning and uniform building and fire code requirements. Mr. McCarthy stated it was understood that it would be necessary to retain the walls in order to continue the exception to the setback requirements. When it was discovered that it would be impossible to retain those walls because of the termite problem, they thought it was okay since they were keeping the same foundation line and capping the original foundation. Gene Bordegaray, 1236 Cabrillo, Jean Hargrave, 1227 Cabrillo and Sigrid Geiger, 1237 Cabrillo spoke in favor or the project. They have no problem with the siting of the house in the exact same location as previously placed. Steve Pade, 1205 Cabrillo, spoke in opposition to these variances, the encroachment into the front setback with a two story house changes the character of the street. He stated there should be no need or reason to grant a variance to a new structure, they should abide by the guidelines required of everyone. This would set a precedent for him if he remodels his house. This lot has no unusual circumstances it is the same as all other lots on the street. Mr. McCarthy gave a copy of the survey, showing the placement of the original structure, to the commission. C. Deal remarked this is an all new structure and no longer fits in the non -conforming category. There are no unusual circumstances on this lot and therefore are no findings for a front setback variance. He then moved denial of the front setback portion of this application. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and the motion to deny was approved by a 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kelly absent) voice vote. C. Deal then moved approval of the parking variance portion of this application, by resolution. He noted that the areas is only 4" smaller than required, the 9'2" distance has existed and been useable for many years, the conditions should be modified to retain conditions No. 1, amending it to address the driveway only and condition No. 5, addressing that all new needs to meet all requirements of the UBC and UFC -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1995 as follows: 1) that the driveway setback shall be 9'-2" as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 1995; 2) 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 Commissioner Jacobs and passed on a 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission adjourned for a break at 9:05 P.M. and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. 4. ANTENNA EXCEPTION FOR A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 707 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH. PROPERTY OWNER AND DONALD NEPTUNE, APPLICAMD. Reference staff report, 2/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Tom Felton, Chairman, Building Committee, 1550 Adeline Avenue, San Mateo, was present. Alex Bodgis, 601 Burlingame Avenue commented regarding the ambiguity and subjectivity of the antenna review guidelines, exceptions and findings as they apply to the satellite ordinance. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs, noted that the placement was lower than the roof ridge, visible only from Hillsborough Town Hall, the neighbors had not complained, an effort had been made to make the installation compatible and it would be painted the same color of the roof based on the information supplied in the packet and provided by the applicant, moved to approve this antenna exception application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the satellite dish antenna shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 17, 1995 Site Plan and Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspectors' January 23, 1995 memo (roof and supports shall meet wind load requirements of Chapter 23 of the Uniform Building Code) shall be met; 3) 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; 4) that the antenna dish installed shall not have a diameter greater than 7'-0", nor rise more than 25'-0" above the surface of the ground relative to the roof, and shall be painted with a nonreflective paint, in a color to match the roof; 5) that the antenna shall have a maximum rise of 12' above the roof ridge as viewed from the northwest elevation; 6) 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; 7) that the applicant shall permanently maintain the nonreflective surface of the dish and its support structure, or remove all the equipment and support structure; 8) 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 any television equipment; 9) that the satellite antenna shall be removed at the time this tenant (Seventh Day Adventist Church) leaves this premiss and if the new tenant wishes to install any type of antenna he shall comply with all the code requirements in effect at that time; and 10) that any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit. .Q Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1995 Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and passed on a 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kelly absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1108,1110-1120 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A (LORENZ KAO & LOUISA ZEE KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 2/27/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. A letter regarding the failure to collect trash in front of the site was read into the record. There is no on site parking and the proportional increase in square footage is small and the uses remain the same so there is therefore no need for a traffic study. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Louisa Kao, 1110 Burlingame Avenue and Thomas Adamo, her structural engineer, 545 Byron, Palo Alto, were present to explain the project. Mrs. Kao asked that the word minimum in the second condition be changed to maximum to clarify the intent. Mr. Adamo, the structural engineer explained the primary objectives of the reinforcement program and the structural questions about the reinforcement of the masonry buildings. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noting that most of the uses were already on the site, the patio area restaurant use would be pleasant, parking is a problem in this area no matter what and the restaurant is not being increased, and the small amount of additional square footage is reasonable given that the URM work has to be done, so she moved to approve these special permit and parking variance applications, by resolution, with the conditions corrected as noted. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and failed on a 1-5 (C. Deal, Ellis, Key, Mink and Galligan dissenting) -1 (C. Kelly absent) roll call vote. In further discussion on the project commissioners noted that the restaurant up from the basement and replacing the partial kitchen with a full commercial kitchen represented an intensification from the business previously in the basement area; and would have a big impact on the usage; although the proposed square footage is smaller than before, the seating area is larger and the overall area is larger because they share the restrooms and support areas which serve the whole building. The entire basement area can be used for other retail activities which will have less parking impact. The patio area should be retained, it will have only seasonal use because it is outdoors; the biggest parking impact for a restaurant will be at night when more parking is available within the area; retail uses have not done well in basement areas; area called patio is now used for parking, should continue to be available for parking to relieve area and off set increase in office square footage they are asking for; the restaurant should not be able to use any area in basement including for restaurant office activities. C. Key then moved to approve one food establishment of 3230 GSF on the first floor of the building and 1685 GSF of seating area in the outdoor patio without any restaurant/food establishment use including associated office area in the basement with the associated special permit and 3 space parking variance to increase office floor area by 928 SF. These special permit and parking variances, by resolution, with -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1995 the following modified conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 2, 1995 sheets A0.0, A0.1, A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.5 and A1.6 and sheets A1.0 and AlA date stamped February 17, 1995; 2) that there shall be only one food establishment on this site with a maximum of 4,368 GSF inside the building (3230 SF on the 1st floor) and 1685 SF used for seating in the outdoor patio area and that the basement area shall not contain any restaurant use including any office area for the restaurant business; 3) that condition #3 of the City Engineer's memo (1/19/95) shall be met; 4) that the conditions of the Building Official's memos dated 1/17/95 and 1/21/95 and the requirements of the Fire Marshal's memo dated 2/21/95 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. Deal and passed on a 4-2 (C. Jacobs and Mink dissenting) -1 (C. Kelly absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. DISCUSSION - CORRECTIONS AND MINOR CHANGES TO THE ZONING AND SIGN REGULATIONS. Commission discussed staff proposals for corrections and minor changes to the zoning and sign ordinance and identified several issues for further discussion at their March 27, 1995 meeting. VIII. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council regular meeting of February 21, 1995. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary MINUrES2.27