Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.03.23MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 23, 1998 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on March 23, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriag;a and Key Absent: Commissioners Mink and Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, City Attorney, Larry Anderson MINUTES - Page 12, para. 4, line 1; of the minutes for the meeting of the March 9, 1998 Planning Commission, were corrected to read; "would love to see this restaurant come to this city stFeet"; C. Galligan then moved approval of the minutes of the March 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. There were no objections and the motion carried on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Mink and Wellford absent). AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR George Zannis, 1515 Carol Avenue spoke. There were no other public: comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A REMODEL AND FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION REQUIRING VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING 3'-0" LEFT SIDE SETBACK AND AN EXISTING AND PROPOSED 3'-2" RIGHT SIDE SETBACK; FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO; FOR ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE WHERE TWO COVERED PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED; AND FOR EXTENDING AN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR WALL WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE BY 4'-2" AT 1117 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (TONY PANTALEONI, APPLICANT AND ANTHONY AND ROSALIE SPITERI, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff reviewed the project briefly and the commissioners asked the following questions: explain the exceptional circumstances for doubling the length of the wall on the right side; what are the exceptional circumstances for the floor area ratio (FAR) variance, why is the allowed FAR inadequate; what are the exceptional circumstances with the property for the declining height -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 exception and why are the current standards inadequate; what is the calculation of removed walls, of all walls; if you exclude the right and left side walls, does this project still qualify as new construction; if the garage is not extended, can the project meet FAR. The item was set for action on April 13, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR EXISTING SIDE SETBACKS AND THE EXISTING GARAGE DIMENSION FOR A REMODEL AND A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 2133 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND DOUGLAS AND DEBBIE MCKEEVER, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff reviewed the project briefly and the commissioners had no additional questions, the item was set for public hearing on April 13, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE OFFICE AT 1815 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 (KEVIN HICKS, APPLICANT AND FRANK J. AND L.I. VENTURELLI, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff reviewed the project briefly and the commissioners asked the following questions: there appears to be an error on the chart showing the number of employees, the owner is considered to be an employee and this needs to be shown. The item was set for action on April 13, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DELIVERY SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS AT 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (DAVID GREENSTEIN, APPLICANT AND LORENZ KAO AND LOUISA ZEE KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS) Staff reviewed the requested amendment to the take out food service permit and commissioners asked the following questions: why was condition 10 added to the August 1996 action, what was the intention; how will employees be able to arrive at site, wait for call, pick up food and deliver it in 2 to 3 minutes; explain which employees are part time and how the employees delivering food will fit into the mix of employees; if delivery people use the service alley to park, will they need to back onto California Drive when they leave. The item was set for action on April 13, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FROM ONE TO FIVE AT AN EXISTING PHYSIOTHERAPY BUSINESS AT 340 LORTON AVENUE, #203, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (GINA LAROCCA, APPLICANT AND DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER). Staff reviewed the project briefly and the commissioners asked the following questions: would like more comment on how the intensification of this use will not affect parking further in this impacted area. The item was set for action on April 13, 1998. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2930 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (JOYCE FORD, APPLICANT AND KATHY HUTCHINSON AND LUIS ROSARIO, PROPERTY OWNERS). (25 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 03.23.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. The commissioners had no questions on the staff report. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Kathy Hutchinson and Luis Rosario, property owners, 2930 Adeline, came forward to answer any questions. There were no questions and no other comment from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the existing house has a large setback and is adjacent to a steep ravine so the lesser setback is all right, initially there were some concerns about the impact of this addition on the neighbors views but on looking more closely at the plans the neighbors have with drawn their concerns, indicating that there are no problems; therefore he moved for approval of the project by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chair Key called for a voice vote with the following conditions of approval: 1) that the addition, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning; Department and date stamped February ,5, 1998, Sheets 1-5 with a maximum roof ridge height of 4'-3" as measured from the average paving edge along Adeline Drive (elevation 389.62'); 2) that any changes to the footprint, building height, window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction permit; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Mink and Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Chair Key noted that there were five commissioners seated tonight and under the rules of procedure for the commission three of five votes are required in order to pass a motion. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING SIDE SETBACK AND FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH; AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR USE OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND FOR A WINDOW WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1446 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (STEVEN AND JULIE DEVINCENZI APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). (69 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 03.23.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 conditions were recommended for consideration. Does the proposed garage accommodate two parking spaces, yes. There were no further questions from the commission on the staff report. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Steve DeVincenzi, 1446 Capuchino spoke noting that he could replace the door with a solid door, eliminating the window within 10' of property line use permit. For the house they just want to retain the present setback , there will be no water service inside the garage, but there will be electrical service. No skylights are planned. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Coffey stated that he had reviewed the application, made a site visit and noted staff comments; he would move approval of the application by resolution with the four conditions in the staff report; he found that it would be an undue hardship to remove the existing structure to meet the setback, that the proposed windows in the accessory structure only looked into the rear yard of the property and should be allowed for aesthetic reasons. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the motion: the double doors between the garage and the workshop area swing into the workshop and will take away a lot of space in the workshop; there is no water inside the building, the applicant can have hose bibs on the outside if he wishes. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the following conditions of approval: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 25, 1998, sheets Al through A4; 2) that the left side property line shall be surveyed to verify the existing first floor setback; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's February 9, 1998 memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR TWO SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR EXISTING CONSTRUCTION FOR A NEW SECOND STORY ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1228 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONING R-1, (STEPHEN JOHNSON APPLICANT AND STEPHEN AND ALISA RUIZ-JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNERS). (59 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 03.23.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions on the staff report. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Emily and Steve Johnson, 1228 Cortez, spoke noting that they would like to keep the exterior wall of the porte cochere open, feared it would look bad closed in; want the variance to retain the size of the living room; commissioner asked if the fire requirements would be different if the porte cochere was a car port, no. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 C. Deal noted that he would abstain from discussion and action on this matter because of a business relationship with the applicant. Commissioners noted that on the issue of placing a fire rated wall without openings on the exterior side of the porte cochere, the commission had no choice it was a matter of the California Fire Code. Fred Cullum, Chief Building Inspector, noted that: the California Building and Fire codes view the porte cochere as providing a continuous roof to the outer wall of the structure with the possibility of fire projecting under this roofline all the way to the exterior wall of the porte cochere; openings are not allowed in such cases because fire can travel easily through the opening onto adjacent properties. However he noted that the definitions of new construction were different in the codes he administers from the zoning code and he would review this case to be sure if the project fit under the CBC definition of new construction where the opening would be a problem. Commissioner pointed out that the commission cannot vote to have an opening in a wall there, since the commission can only address zoning code issues. C. Galligan then noted that there were a number of issues with this project: the side setback variance of 1' to 2'-8" along the living room where the fire place was the problem, and the fire place has been there since the house was built, the applicant did improve this impact by removing a part of this wall at the rear and increasing the setback there to 4 feet which is a betterment, to require the removal of the remaining portion is an undue hardship; the porte cochere is an architectural feature which adds to the visual appearance of the street, to require its removal would be inconsistent with neighborhood compatibility; regarding closure of the opening in the porte cochere, can only refer the matter to the Chief Building Inspector for determination. Based on these findings he moved for approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. On the motion: is there a way to remove some of the roof of the porte cochere and leave it open, not really. Need to leave the resolution to the Chief Building Inspector. Chair Key called for the vote on the motion to approve by roll call with the following conditions of approval: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 20, 1998, sheets 1 through 4 and sheet 6; 2) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed a height of 30'-0" as measured from the average elevation at the top of curb along Cortez Avenue (elevation +99.8'), and that the top of the second floor and the final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3) that the left and right side property lines shall be surveyed to verify the existing first floor setback; 4) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's and City Engineer's February 2, 1998 memos shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining and Cmsrs. Mink and We:llford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 511 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS A HOME OFFICE AND FOR RECREATION AND TO ALLOW WINDOWS WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE LOCATED AT 539 FRANCISCO DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (ALICIA FAUGIER APPLICANT AND ALICIA FAUGIER AND VINCENT BONES, PROPERTY OWNERS). (55 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 03.23.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were recommended for consideration. Clarify there is no water and sewer service to this accessory structure, that is correct. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Alicia Faugier and Vince Bones, 536 Francisco, spoke. Ms. Faugier handed out a revised floor plan which the commission requested at study. She noted that the accessory structure has been there since 1958; she is an independent marketing contractor with two children and works from her house, no clients come. to the house, she does not disturb the neighbors, she needs a place to work 40 to 50 hours a week, there is no place inside the house because it has an awkward floor plan; cannot afford to expand the house since they just purchased it; will work with the city to bring the accessory structure up to current codes and address the neighbors concerns. Speaking in favor of the application was Rich Quadri, 530 Francisco who noted that he has been in neighborhood for 27 years, this accessory structure has been there as long as he and has caused no problem to date; there may have been no permits for window replacement but applicants were not sneaking anything, inspectors on site for electrical, it was just unclear what was required. Speaking in opposition was, Ron Hill, 530 Oak Grove, who state there were no permits for work done, lived next door to rear for 11 years; 11 years ago this was a potting shed (had three sides); new owners installed windows, french doors and enclosed and put in electrical lights prior to October 20; don't know if work was done by a licensed contractor; his property has a special circumstance relative to the project property because this accessory structure abuts his front yard (his property is a triangle on a corner); concern that the improvement to the accessory structure will affect the value of his property because future buyers would not know how the accessory structure would be used; most important value of his lot is its shape which lends itself to privacy, this structure has windows at property line which are at eye level; unaware that a business was being run from this building, how are the impacts of the growth of the business handled, his wife works at home from a part of a third bedroom, neighbor could do the same; can the applicant be trusted since did work without permit already; concerned that since there were no permits this structure could represent a fire hazard. Commissioner noted that the structure is nonconforming, don't give permits for building on property line now; assessor in 1950's identified as playhouse, not shed; neighbor noted that in 1987 this structure had three sides; commission noted that if use was not consistent with permit neighbor could request to have it reviewed, neighbor noted did not want to be a spy. Commissioner noted comment on bright exterior lighting, asked if bothered neighbor to rear, neighbor commented that excessively bright so made it hard to see in dark after looking at it; Commissioner noted that two windows at property line would have to be removed to meet fire requirements, would the other two new 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 windows affect neighbor; the old one is 3 inches from fence problem, how can they be removed without affecting the fence. Commission asked if there was landscaping on the fence between these properties, neighbor to rear responded, no, have swing set in front yard next to fence. Alicia Faugier, property owner spoke again, when moved in accessory structure was not a shed, had carpeting and four walls, does not intend to use accessory structure 24 hours a day; can remove light fixtures if too bright, they are carriage lights on the front of the building; there are two motion lights on the side which go on for 30 seconds when go into back yard at night, would like to keep those for safety. CA Anderson noted home occupation allows only one employee and no clients to the site. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he understood the neighbor's concern, the accessory structure cannot be used as a dwelling unit under the municipal code, if it is so used the city can take action; in this case he suggested that the use should be limited to what is permitted with the home occupation permit and when that use ceases then the use permit is also voided, this would avoid the structure taking on a life of its own; move approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and the condition that the use be limited to that of the current home occupation permit so any change would be reviewed. The motion died for lack of a second. CA Anderson noted that the commission can limit hours of use through a use permit on such a structure. Commissioner discussion: if abuse recreation use can permit be revoked, yes under public nuisance provisions. C. Galligan then moved approval for the special permit to use the accessory structure for a home office and recreational use which is normal, reasonable and not invasive to the neighbor, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report as amended by the description of the recreation use as being normal, reasonable and not invasive to the neighbor to the rear; and that the windows at the rear of the accessory structure be removed and the exterior lighting adapted to benefit the neighbors to the rear. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Commissioner's comments: the conditions should be amended to limit recreation use to that which is normal, reasonable and not invasive to the neighbors; two neighbors should communicate and the applicant should be sensitive to neighbor to rear',& needs; this accessory structure was snuck in 47 years ago, difficult to approve now for a 40-50 hour a week use on property line, that is not a light 1-2 hour use a day, am opposed because of impact on neighbor; if going to pass add a condition that there never be water or sewer service extended into this accessory structure. Maker of the motion agreed to add a condition prohibiting water and sewer service to the accessory structure; the second also agreed. Commissioner noted that it was important to the neighbor that when the windows at rear property line were removed the repair to the exterior wall was well done and that landscaping be added along the rear fence to benefit the neighbor, not want this as a condition but to have one neighbor address the needs of the other, create good will. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve, by resolution, and with the added conditions: recreational use, normal, reasonable, not invasive to the neighbor; that the rear -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 2.3, 1998 windows 3" from property line be removed and the exterior lighting be adapted to benefit the neighbors; and that there shall be no extension of water or sewer service to the accessory structure; so the conditions include: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 5, 1998 (site plan and floor plan), including removal of all windows along the rear property line; and that the existing exterior lighting shall be adapted to benefit the neighbors; 2) that the applicant shall obtain a building permit and pay applicable penalties for the new side windows of the accessory structure; 3) that the conditions of the Senior Building Inspector's February 9, 1998 memo and Fire Marshal's February 9, 1998 memo shall be met; 4) that use of the structure shall be limited to normal, reasonable recreational uses not invasive to the neighbors and for use as a home office; that there shall be no water or sewer service extended to the accessory; and that the accessory structure shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cmsrs. Deal and Luzuriaga dissenting, Cmsrs. Mink and Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE: STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS). (72 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 03.23.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twelve conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked for a clarification of the location of the common open space and how it worked with the private open space for unit C; also for a clarification on whether the location of the balcony extending into the 20' setback on El Camino was allowed, yes so long as the extension into the setback was not greater than 4 feet. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Kendall Peterson, 162 Carmel, El Granada, spoke noting that the common open space provided was behind the fence along the rear of the 20 foot front setback; he demarcated on a site plan for the commissioners to see, the common open space area and the small utility yard for unit C; in response to a commissioner's question about the appearance of the upper part of the building facing El Camino, he commented that the building was very active with redwood balconies and exterior stairs so he had not added much else, could add a fake chimney to the blank wall at the second and third floors to break up expanse; it was noted that the perspective provided after study did not show the walls on the second and third floors stepped in; applicant noted could add chimneys, modify roof line but felt it was best to leave it alone; commissioner noted that reason for requesting the rendering at study was to determine project content, garage doors are a feature at ground level but there is nothing above that, no shutters, planters, or window finishing, should be some architectural features to dress up the building which will be visually prominent; stairs on the facade look: like the back of a San Francisco apartment building, structure contains several architectural elements but they do not work together, look chaotic, looks as if designed on the inside and the outside of the structure just happened without any harmony; architect noted the stairs will be the dominant feature of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 the building will be done in rough sawed material; problem is features not show on rendering, drawings are hard to read, right side of plans seems to be smeared, can't read; no window treatment and eye focuses on garage doors and cement, people along El Camino will not want to see this building. Members of the audience commented: Angie Wilson, 1511 Arrow; Jason Brady, 35 East Carol; Keith Kutner, 11 East Carol; George, Zannis 1515 Carol; Angie Willoghby, 1519 Carol; Darleen Schmaka, 35 E. Carol; Coleen Aklack, 22 Club Drive, San Carlos; partial owner of project. Comments included live behind project, this is a dream compared to what was proposed number of years ago, property is zoned R-3, a condominium is better than an apartment building because the residents will be permanent; want good aesthetics on El Camino with that would be satisfied with project; need to look at building materials, need something beside stucco, concerned about the appearance of the second and third floors which is what he will see, rear appearance is not well thought out either; want to avoid a walled off ]look on El Camino, no greenery is provided along the side; done a fairly good job, but the devil is in the architectural details; his property is on the site where there is a 6 to 8 foot setback, would like to see rendering of side and what he would see; would like architectural review, want to see fluid lines and be at peace with self when look at her rear yard; understood that there would be a lot of landscaping, but what exactly at rear does it include, tall trees, from East Carol see blank wall with tile roof; look at one of these to be new home, prefer condominium, live in building designed by this architect it is beautifully done; project will include crown molding, chasing around the windows, color which will mix well with the environment, when it is finished the neighbors will be happy. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commissioners noted if this were an apartment project commission would not see it and could be built as wish; conditions require that project be built according to plans, but plans do not show architectural features and detail described by applicant; for condo can ask for more exterior detail and detailed landscape plans, applicant needs time to prepare these:; need a set of plans to scale which show the design amenities and landscape, plans have to tell a good story, including moldings and amenities; not happy with open space provided most of it is walkways with a small area, it is what's left over not planned space; the outside of the building is negative, it's dominated by stairs, it is good that there are few windows which overlook the rear yards of adjacent properties; need detailed landscape plans to see how effect on neighbors will be mitigated. Based on the comments C. Deal moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 13, 1998, for submittal of completed plans. The motion was seconded by C. Galli:gan who noted that he would like a rendering of each side of the triangular site. The maker of the motion noted that these should be perspective renderings not elevations and because of the time needed to prepare both plans and perspectives this item should be continued to the meeting of April 27, 1998. The maker of the motion agreed to the addition of perspective renderings suggested by the second and the second agreed to the extension of the continuance to the meeting of April 27, 1998, suggested by the maker of the motion. M City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 On the motion: need to be sure that the renderings are done so that the residents on Carol have a good idea of what they will see from their backyards; need to see detail on the El Camino side because all three floors are going to be visible. Chair Key called for a vote on the motion to continue the item to the meeting of April 27, at which time the submittal should include plans to scale including architecture detail, perspective renderings from the three sides of the building and detailed landscape plans. The motion was passed on a 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Mink and Wellford absent) voice vote. Since no action was taken on the project it is not subject to appeal at this time. The neighbors will receive notice for the next meeting where this item is to be heard. APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS). (72 NOTICED) Action on the tentative map was also continued to the meeting of April 27, 1998, so that the review of the map could accompany the action on the condominium permit. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICES (PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY OFFICE) AT 1450 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 6, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, (DR. RENATE TRITTELVITZ AND PAMELA KRELL, PH.D., APPLICANTS AND DORENE ROEPKE, PROPERTY OWNER). (51 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 03.23.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. The commissioners asked no questions of staff. Chair Key opened the public hearing. The applicants were not present and there were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted that the request was straight forward, the intensity of the proposed use was consistent with that of the previous tenants who had not been a health service use, parking would not be exacerbated over the previous use therefore he moved approval of the use permit by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be operated as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 6, 1998 (Floor Plan, Suite 6 and Site Plan); 2) that the office shall not be open for business except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; and that the 554 SF suite shall have no more than 2 offices (134 SF and 268 SF) and one waiting room (134 SF), with a maximum of 1 employee for each office; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's February 17, 1998 memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Chair Key called for a voice vote. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Mink and Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 2.3, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AT 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE ZONED C-3 (MACLEOD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND CALIFORNIA TEACHER'S ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNER). (25 NOTICED) CE Erbacher presented the staff report noting that this was a lot combination which was required before the applicant could get his building permit to commence construction on a project previously approved by the Planning Commission. Staff had agreed to allow some grading on the site and will issue the foundation permit without the map. CA Anderson noted that the city had received a letter from the Avalon apartment on the north side of Murchison expressing three concerns: construction access to the site, dust control during demolition and construction, and parking during construction. He had responded to the letter noting the enforcement options available. Since the city boundary is the center line of Murchison, parking issues for the Avalon apartments are partly located in Millbrae. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Dan McCleod, the engineer on the project, represented the map application and stated that he did not know anything about the construction plans. CA Anderson noted that he sent all letters he had received to the California Teachers Association for them to respond to. Susan Street, Resident Manager of the Avalon Apartments noted that she wrote a letter to the city and to Millbrae; she was not sure where to start the process; not object to the project but about half the 72 units on the site face Murchison, the tenants pay a lot and she is concerned about the driveway access, dust and asbestos removal; all can be addressed but wants as little disruption as possible as project proceeds, suggested discussion with her and contractor should be soon. Paul Gumina, representing himself and his room mate, 300 Murchison unit 212, commented he first noticed the construction fence 8 or 9 days ago, residents received no notice about the project, they were not informed of the environmental review process, should have received written notice by March 19; concerned about parking, safety, noise and dust, presented brochure of apartment to show number of units with windows on Murchison. He is protesting the failure to adhere to the CEQA requirements with the 1997 negative declaration because the tenants were not noticed. It was noted that the project negative declaration was posted outside the chambers on July 3, 1997; he noted it should have been put in a newspaper of general circulation; thus adoption of the tentative map is inappropriate and should be postponed until the environmental survey is complete. CA Anderson noted that if the parcel map was a condition of project approval and the notice of determination had been filed then the Planning Commission can act on the tentative map tonight. Commission asked if it might be advisable to continue action on this until someone representing the Teachers Association could be present, CA advised yes they could be informed and told of issue. Mr. Gumina said, if going to litigate need to raise environmental issues now, law says am entitled to notice by mail or other option, did not receive, contractors from CTA did not notify residents, asbestos removal requires CEQA consideration, negative declaration does not address, failed to meet and confer with school district as required by Public Resources Code, Mills High School is only one quarter mile away. Submitted documents to secretary including photos taken from back window showing impact on parking and truck traffic, brochure showing orientation of windows. -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 Dan McCleod, representing the applicant, commented that he recommends that Commission act because a tentative map is categorically exempt from CEQA. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that the planning commission's action on a tentative/final map was recommendation to City Council, based on the evidence presented hie moved approval of a recommendation of this map to combine the two existing lots based on the information in the staff report as modified by the discussion with conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair Key called for a voice vote and the motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) vote. The Chair asked for a five minute break at 10:15 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:20 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR TRUCK STORAGE AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1 (JOEL BECK, PROPERTY OWNER). (14 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 03.23.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Is there a plan for the use permit, no, since no construction work was being done the City accepted the assessor's map for the site as the project plan at that time. CA Anderson noted that one alternative open to the commission is to modify the existing conditions of the use permit but only within the parameters of the original permit, but cannot amend to add a structure or something not in the original conditions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. William Last, attorney representing Mr. Beck, spoke. He asked for a continuance so that his client could remove the plywood structure on the lot. He would apply separately to modify the use permit. If cannot grant a continuance does not feel that commission can make sufficient findings because there has been no fraud, the use is being exercised as granted, the use has not been suspended for a year, the use- has not been exercised contrary to approval or in violation of approvals, he is not running a repair business, and use is not detrimental to public health, safety, is using what was granted. Commissioners noted: in looking at correspondence this problem goes back to 1994, more than a year ago Mr. Coleman, then City Attorney, contacted about problem, why would 2 weeks more at this time make a difference? Mr. Beck hired an attorney only 3 weeks ago, now feels he needs to remove. Attorney Last notes that structure only been there 6 months and two weeks short time to show good faith. Commission stated originally there was a plan to construct a building on this site which was denied, site had only 20 feet width to work with, could not build on; when Mr. Beck approached commission the site was to be open, no structures and it was determined to be all right; no shed, no container, no generator; wood structure is not OK; for compliance need to take everything off, then able to store trucks. Mr. Beck's attorney noted that his client would come back and apply additionally for what he wants. Is Mr. Beck aware that repairs are not allowed on the site? Attorney Last noted he would review ordinance to see how -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 minor repairs are defined. CA Anderson noted that Burlingame has unique alternative that allows a determination by the Planning Commission of staff's decisions on code interpretation; also when grant a special permit it goes to the property, if he can reshape request you can consider an amendment. Commission asked how long to clean up site; structure 2 weeks, sheds longer because contents need to be relocated; not want to continue for 4 weeks; the problem for Mr. Beck is the container and storage shed and where to move the tools. Commission noted there are five findings for a revocation; number 4 is that there are violations of conditions or ordinances. Attorney Last noted use is the same. Mr. Beck spoke commenting that there was a permit for the electric; needs to store hand tools so needs a container for security; did have a security problem until the wooden shed was built. What is the business, permit was for truck storage; general contractor, does truck maintenance, tires, oil change, keep up equipment; Sheri in Planning told him he could build a leanto of 100 SF, he was misinformed. How long has Sheri been gone, 18 months. Applicant wants to keep 2 shipping containers on the site; it was noted the site was permitted for truck storage; at time permit allowed storage of equipment with trucks like loading bucket no discussion of container for storage. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: not favor a continuance, this has been going on a long time, applicant has put it off as long as possible; it was scheduled 2 meetings ago and continued until now. Is in violation of ordinance finding number 4; permit says storage of truck equipment, nothing about storage facilities, plywood structure, washing trucks on the street, or truck repair, all kinds of violations of city codes are present; applicant has done nothing to eliminate violations; could have applied before to change conditions of use permit; favor revocation because we need to draw a line. Would have listened to presentation regarding continuation if it would have gotten us where should have been, but 3 weeks not enough time to clean site, according to Mr. Beck; disappointed to see generator, compressor on visual inspection on site, can't help notice not storage, but active work taking place on site, would not need size of electrical service and box etc. if no work; when code enforcement office and Chief Building Inspector says major problem that should be sufficient notice. No use on the site is now appropriate, this did not just sneak up on Mr. Beck, he is not motivated to remove in 3 weeks. Finding number 5 is also present: is detrimental, a health hazard and a nuisance. Plywood building is unsafe, afraid to put a person in , equipment looks unsafe and jeopardizes the health of those who work there. C. Galligan having cited the above reasons moved for revocation of the use permit by resolution. Motion was seconded by C. Deal. Commissioners voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) on a roll call vote to approve the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 PLANNERS REPORTS - CA discussed the Rules of Procedure. CA Anderson noted that he has been working on the suggested reworking of the commission's rules of procedure for some time. He noted that we did proceed with adjusting the affirmative vote for majority action of the commission and changing the meeting time. These proposed revisions address other commission rules of procedure. There was a brief discussion about consent calendars and how they work. Staff asked the commissioners to review the draft document and it will be on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting. Commissioner's noted that this was a timely review since they were concerned about the manner in which the moratorium on second story additions came forward from subcommittee to council; felt commissioners were uninformed and caught off guard, which was awkward. Perhaps these special issues need to go through the Chairman, even be discussed and voted on first, so the whole commission can be informed before they go to council members. - REVIEW OF ORDINANCE 1589 AND CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 30, 1998, TO DISCUSS IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE 1589. Staff handed out a brief report to focus discussion on this topic. Commissioners agreed by consensus to set a special meeting of the Commission for March 30,1998, at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers to discuss the parameters for the report to the city council on second story additions and new regulations for food establishments in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and in the Broadway Commercial Area. It was noted that both items would also be on the Joint City Council/Planning Commission agenda on April 25, 1998. Each commissioner was then asked to address their thoughts on what the! next step following the 35 day moratorium should be. The input was as follows: - We should consider adopting interim legislation by urgency that treats second story additions procedurally like minor modifications. In the longer term we should provide free review at a schematic plan level with specific direction on how to achieve architectural harmony. Should consider extending design review to apartment buildings. Need to educate city council on the reason why we need architectural design review. These reasons include :having someone review plans who has the proper professional vocabulary. CA noted that action on regulation by urgency is different procedurally from moratorium. Urgency action on regulation would make it effective without the 30 day waiting period. If a -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1998 committee to review design separate from the Planning Commission were to be appointed they would be subject to the Brown Act and issues would require public notice. - Need to have an interim ordinance to give us time to do research. Should review collection of documents for next meeting so that we can arrive at a good interim ordinance. Staff should provide the booklet prepared by the city's subcommittee on FAR. Council expects results quickly. - Moratorium will slow development down; council wants resolution. Concern about acting in haste. Think commission needs to spend time. This represents a policy change for the City Council. Don't know if DRB necessary, but need some code changes. Processing will not save time if have design review committee. Conflict of interest to have a Planning Commissioner on DRB; another layer of review will create lots of problems. Favor a single person to do reviews with recommendations to the Planning Commission. Also recommend extension of the moratorium and use that time to develop a permanent solution. Problem is not consistency, problem is that developers build to the maximum of our rules and the result is poor. We need someone to do review who has the right vocabulary and can articulate what needs to be done to a project to make it compatible with existing development. - Anticipate problems with a DRB committee, see interim differently. Set general criteria; use an outside expert to apply criteria, and have Planning Commission as a committee -of -the -whole review recommendations. Can use this process while we collect neighborhood data we need for more refined approach. - Need to define problem. Problem is created by the new building style; houses with second stories can have problems. Need to extend moratorium, bad weather has slowed down peoples building activities, when it dries it will boom. Solution is two step: interim ordinance, establish some kind of review for all second story structures, apply to all residential development (could extend later to commercial) needs to be a process which is not onerous. Planning Commission has seen agendas increase substantially, almost always property, however it is designed, affects the neighbors, Planing Commission is not good as a DRB, need committee of architects who know Burlingame, assign to project, have applicant pay fee for plan check to designer. Interim, don't know how to get there in two weeks, can't afford to hang up development for 6 to 9 months which it is going to take to develop full regulation. So we need a short simple solution for interim. Minor modification pits neighbor against neighbor, creating; bad feelings. Need is simple: homes appear massive, in excess of reasonable building standards, no charm or special characteristics. Commissioners discussed: why does the Council not want to extend the moratorium; uncomfortable with a moratorium; willing to give space for an interim.. Urgency issue: there is a lot of "development farming" in the Easton Addition, many lots selling for a lot of money on the basis that the structures will be demolished and replaced. Build within code with cookie -15- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23. 1998 cutter plans. Once we began to discuss, cause developers to hurry with plans in anticipation of what could happen. A simple solution is to narrow code requirements to enable architectural effectiveness. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key asked for a motion to adjourn. C. Galligan moved for adjournment. C. Luzuriaga seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. MINUTES3.23 -16- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary