Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.01.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1995 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Galligan on Monday, January 23, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Jacobs, Kelly, Key, Mink and Galligan Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner; Margaret Monroe, City Attorney; Jerry Coleman, City Engineer; Frank Erbacher, Assistant Fire Chief, Ken Musso MINUTES - The minutes of the January 9, 1995 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA Bl (BERTRAM HORN AND FAMILY, REPRESENTED BY TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNER AND MARY BATES, APPLICANT). Requests: Confirm square footage to be used in this office; number of employees and clients on site at one time in 5 years. Item set for public hearing February 13, 1995. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, (JOE PUTNAM JR., PROPERTY OWNER AND ROBERT ROGERS. BARBER SIGN COMPANY, APPLICAND. Requests: Clarify what is to be removed/remain and what will be new signage for example sign E5; correlate notations on sign permit plans and items on table in staff report provide elevations of all structures with all signs shown to scale so impact can be determined; show signs to be removed with notation; include updated list of each businesses' signage along auto row; status of bunting signs and window signs; Item set for public hearing February 13, 1995, if details are submitted in a timely manner. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1995 Commission asked that auto row signage be agendized. 3. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN EXCEPTION AT 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 (PUTNAM LEASING, INC., PROPERTY OWNER AND ROBERT ROGERS, BARBER SIGN COMPANY. APPLICANT). Requests: Will both parapet sign and window sign remain; numbering and asterisks on plans are confusing, plans need to be cleaned up and more legible; whole face of sign should be measured even if part colored, since wording can be put there later; building elevations needed showing location of signs on wall and on site to scale; Item set for public hearing February 13, 1995. 4. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1017-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 (ALFRED MOLAKIDIS. PROPERTY OWNER AND ALLEN DAVID, APPLICANT). Requests: What is Caltrans policy regarding freeway oriented signs, is this a freeway oriented sign; what type business is Bay Cities Collision Center; need elevation of structures with signs to scale (on structure and freestanding) so know what reviewing; table, sign permit and diagram notations need to be consistent, without consistency and clear presentation cannot act because do not understand request;. Item set for public hearing February 13, 1995 providing all information is complete. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONS AT 732 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 (DAVID & WILLA THOMSON, PROPERTY OWNERS AND DALE MEYER, ASSOC., APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 1/23/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. CP noted, for the record, the FAR Variance is no longer required because the attic is under 500 SF. If approved three conditions were suggested. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Commissioners expressed concern that the existing windows in the newly created den area at the rear property line are a health and safety risk, even though they remain as a preexisting condition. If the room were to be used as a sleeping room there is no emergency egress to current standard; air and light requirements are also an issue. He also noted the need to increase the footprint by 32 SF in order to provide interior access to the new second floor. Dale Meyer, 840 Hinckley, Ste. 123, defined the project and explained the small area (28 SF). There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Page -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1995 C. Deal noted this project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and is not obtrusive, the roof ridge of the stair well would closely match the new roof ridge. He then moved approval of the this application, 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 December 28, 1994, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and amended by Building Data Sheet and South/West Elevation dated January 17, 1995; 2) that the property owner shall receive an encroachment permit for the fencing on the public right-of-way; and 3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Motions was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Following the vote the commissioners noted that they hoped the applicant would consider the safety issues and modify the design accordingly. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT AT 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (GARY HIRSCH, PROPERTY OWNER AND LARRY WEINSTEIN, DESIGN- BUILD SOLUTIONS. APPLICANT,, Reference staff report, 1/23/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If approved four conditions were suggested. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Larry Weinstein, 200 Poinsettia, San Mateo expressed a preference that the tree remain, it is one of few on the street, it is a nice specimen in good health, they would develop the space that was to be a parking space as a planter area with landscaping and water to support the tree. He agreed to a condition specifying the tree be replaced if it dies. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted this is a good project that will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, she then moved approval of the this application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 6, 1994, Site Plan revised to show access to the roll up door with a total of 33 parking stalls (31 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls); 2) that the conditions of the City Engineers' October 7, 1994 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors' October 17, 1994 memo, and the Parks Directors' October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be open 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with a maximum of fifteen employees including the proprietor, on site, at any one time; 4) that a planter area with proper irrigation shall be created to support the tree and should the tree die it shall be replaced with at least a 24" box tree; and 5) that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motions was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1995 7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW RESTAURANT AT 346 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2 SUB AREA B (DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER AND ALI MOUSANI, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 1/23/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. If approved four conditions were suggested. The City Planner asked several questions regarding how parking requirements for various uses were determined, if a condition limiting the number of chairs was possible, if sidewalk seating counted in parking or as seating area as defined here. A letter from Edith E. May, owner of Geo. W. Bower Paint Company, objecting to the project because of parking impact was read into the record. C. Kelly noted he has a business relationship with the applicant and therefore he will abstain from the discussion and vote. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Mr. Mousani, 809 Spruance Lane, Foster City, explained the seating arrangement noting that there was no space to add seating. They would increase the umber in 5 years by removing the storage closet and putting in a big table. The seating area is very narrow with tables for 2 on one side and tables for 4 on the other. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed the project noting that noticing requirements included posting the site and giving notices to the businesses on either side; the parking requirement for the prior use, a grocery store which had no seating, was three spaces, compared to six for this use, this site is non conforming for retail use such as a dress store could go in without a parking variance; the issue is not the current parking availability but the availability when the other food establishments have finished their tenant improvements and open for business particularly the brew pub and Il Fornaio, the area cannot accommodate another parking variance; feel that restaurant use much more than two times parking of retail use, if continue small variances no one will have a place to work; as a successful restaurant there will be more than 37 customers a day, suspect tables will be filled more than once for lunch and dinner; too many food establishments in the block, limited number of food establishments in subarea A to maintain retail balance; need to keep the policy; need restaurants if have good retail, poor location for destination business; general plan does encourage retail support activities in subarea B. C. Jacobs noted there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to all property in the same district and this project would be a detriment to those attempting to park in this neighborhood, referring to the details stated and the facts in the staff report and commissioners comments, she then moved denial of this application. Motions was seconded by C. Ellis and the denial was approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Kelly abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1995 The commission adjourned for a 15 minute break at 8:50 P.M. and reconvened at 9:05 P.M. 8. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A TWENTY (20) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1733 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 (CALIFORNIA DRIVE PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER AND RICO HUO, ACT DEVELOPMENT CORP. APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 1/23/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. There were 8 letters received after the packet from the occupants at 1750 California Drive objecting to the parking variance. CP explained that the variance request is not for an exception to the number of required parking spaces, but rather an exception to the location of extra spaces within the front setback. The building permit cannot be issued until the matter of the trees is resolved. When the tentative map is approved the address will change to 1755. If approved seven conditions were suggested. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. George Sinclair, 15 N. Ellsworth Avenue, San Mateo, the architect for the applicant explained the project. They are attempting to provide additional guest parking and are requesting an exception to provide 2 additional stalls. John Cimino, Jr., 1060 Carolan #101, spoke in favor of the project. Harry Ambriam, Building Manager and tenant at 1750 El Camino Real, informed the commission he was not clear about what the variance request was for when he encouraged the letters, he now understands they are requesting more parking and he has no objection and will inform the other tenants of the building. Mr. Ambriam asked, for the sake of safety, that large trucks not park next to the driveway of the southbound driveway exit, inhibiting vision on California Drive. Mario Knapic, 1108 Dufferin Avenue, Steve Goerl, 1124 Dufferin Avenue, and Hubert Sims, 1112 Dufferin, asked and were answered regarding noticing timeline and the 300' notice radius requirement, they also spoke about the sewer problems in the area they felt that approval of this request would cause more frequent overflows. CE Erbacher explained the sewer collection system noting the Dufferin California location was a low point in the citywide system, the problem they experience is part of the citywide system so this project would not have a measurable affect. He commented that the city had rebuilt the sewers in the areas at Rosedale in an effort to reduce the Dufferin/California problem and were now trying to clarify w;hat the additional causes may be so that they could be resolved. There was also discussion of the parking problems on Dufferin. Vince Muzzi, 1766 El Camino Real, Suite C-9, the adjacent commercial property owner, explained his concerns about future residential owners not wanting his adjacent parking/access area to be developed because they enjoy the open space to the commission. He asked the Planning Commission to condition the project that the CC & R's for the development state that his adjacent parking lot/access could be developed without setback as allowed by the current zoning code. Don Lembi, 229 Bloomfield Road, spoke in favor of the application. Parking for this application is less than that required for the previous occupant of this property, therefore there will be less impact. He also noted that the realtor selling the units would be obliged to disclose the zoning requirements on the adjoining parcel to the buyers. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Page -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1995 C. Deal moved approval of the Negative Declaration finding that, on the basis of the initial study, there will be no significant effect on the environment. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. C. Mink noted the testimony received indicates mitigation of the parking problem by providing code requirements for each unit plus 3 guest parking stalls. The unusual circumstance for the variance in the front setback is that the project is located on a high traffic roadway and the variance tends to alleviate some of the hazards by keeping more cars off the street, he then moved approval of the Parking Variance, by resolution noting this application is asking for a variance to encroach into an area in order to increase the guest parking above the required amount and the granting of this parking variance will be beneficial to improvements in the vicinity and will not cause a hardship. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. C. Deal noted this condominium project conforms to all applicable zoning regulations, he then moved approval of the this application, 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 December 19, 1994 Sheets; A1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, A4.1, Schematic Landscape Plan and Tentative Map and amended by Sheet A3.1 dated January 17, 1995, East Elevations and North Elevation; 2) that the overall height of the buildings shall not exceed 35'-0" as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the lot; 3) that the Associate Civil Engineer's comments dated December 28,1994 and January 12, 1995, the Park Director's comments dated December 13, 1994, the Chief Building Official's comments dated December 2, 1994 and the Fire Marshal's comments dated December 14, 1994 shall be met; 4) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 5) that this project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 11.06 of the municipal code prior to the issuance of a building permit; and that if meeting the requirements of Chapter 11.06 requires a redesign, the project must be resubmitted to the Planning Commission for their review; 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 property, including but not limited to the roof, paint, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; and 7) that the project shall meet all federal access standards, all other requirements of the Burlingame Municipal Code and the Uniform Building codes and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motions was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The conditions did not address amendment of the CC & R's and the CA noted it would be appropriate for the seller to disclose the fact that this project is next to a commercial property and that there is a potential that projects on the neighboring properties could affect this real estate. Page -6- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1995 9. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A TWENTY (20) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1733 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 (CALIFORNIA DRIVE PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER AND RICO HUO, ACT DEVELOPMENT CORP., APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 1/23/95, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Public Works Department comments, and study meeting questions. If recommended to Council, two conditions were suggested. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted this project meets the city codes and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, she then recommended approval of the this application to City Council. Motions was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of January 18, 1995. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. MIN1.23 Page -7- Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary