Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.04.13City of Burlingame Planning Conunission April 13, 1998 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 13, 1998 7:10 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chair Key called the April 13, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga and Key Absent: Commissioners Coffey, Mink and Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; City Attorney, Larry Anderson MINUTES Page 5, para. 2, line 1; of the minutes for the meeting of the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission, were corrected to read; "fie City Attorney pointed out"; page 9, para. 2, line 1; Angie Wilson, 1511 Carol Avenue mew; page 15, para. 5, line 7 was corrected to read; "Planning Commission". Page 7, para. 1, line 12 of the minutes for the meeting of the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission were corrected to read; "to stopok construction". C. Galligan then moved approval of the minutes of the March 23, and March 30, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. There were no objections and the motion carried on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Coffey, Mink and Wellford absent). APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 4, 1080 Carolan Avenue was withdrawn by the applicant and Item 7, 1117 Cabrillo Avenue was continued because the submittal was incomplete. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE EXISTING LEFT SIDE SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1424 BENITO WAY, ZONED R-1(DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND DAVID J. AND TANYA E. MITCHELL, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff presented a brief summary of the project and the commissioners asked: the plans show windows in the portion of the living room which is 2'-3" from property line, is this allowed in the California Building and Fire Codes; why did the City Engineer not ask for a property line survey; what is the -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission April 13, 1998 proposed use of the rear yard; have the ability to provide a 14' second floor setback and have chosen to do less in front which causes an intrusion into the declining height envelop along the side property line and affects next door, how would this benefit the neighbor; what mitigations are included in the project to help neighbor on the left where the setback is the narrowest; the house is not centered on the property, where was the garage originally (there is no garage there now, this project is close to the neighbor would like an isometric drawing showing the fence, driveway and house next door; drawing should also show the house will sit on the lot in relation to the neighbor on the south side. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on April 27, 1998. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION; AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE WITH A WORKROOM WHICH WILL BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND WHICH WILL CONTAIN A TOILET AT 949 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 (MICHAEL J & THERESA GARRETT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff presented a brief summary of the project and the commissioners asked: property is zoned R-2, there is now one dwelling, does adding a toilet make a difference in how this structure is defined; how many cars do the residents on the site have now, why are they not proposing a two car garage now; could this structure qualify as a second unit in the future, what are the requirements; a variance for lot coverage is requested, what percentage of the lot is covered by the deck, could it be redesigned closer to the ground to reduce or eliminate the lot coverage variance; understand the need for a sink in the garage work area, why is a toilet needed. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on April 27, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1523 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (I. PING HO, APPLICANT AND I. PING AND JANETTE SU HO, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff presented a brief summary of the project and the commissioners asked: could the story poles be installed by April 20, 1998, since this is a large structure and the neighbors need some time to look it over, installation by April 24, does not give enough time; this property backs onto Skyline, difficult to figure out which neighbors' long distant views will be affected, could you ask if we can enter properties of concerned neighbors or if they could take pictures out of affected windows located in common living areas. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on April 27, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL ONE NEW SIGN AND REPLACE ONE EXISTING SIGN AND TO EXCEED THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ON TWO FRONTAGES, THE ALLOWED SIGN AREA AND THE ALLOWED HEIGHT LIMIT AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-4 (NICOLE STERNE, APPLICANT AND NORTHPARK PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER). This item was withdrawn by the applicant. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE (DELI, BAKERY & COFFEE) AT AN EXISTING GROCERY STORE AT 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (MOLLIE STONE'S MARKET, APPLICANT AND WEIMAN SYNDICATE, PROPERTY OWNER). -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission April 13, 1998 Staff presented a brief summary of the project and commissioners had no questions. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AT AN EXISTING DELI/TAQUERIA AT 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED OM (EDWARD KHOURY, APPLICANT AND ROSBERG DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) Staff presented a brief summary of the project and the commissioners asked: area is remodeled, was there a permit taken out for the work, has it been finialed; purpose for incidental food establishments in this area was to serve employees, document need by employees in area to come to this business; what is the difference between what is being proposed and a restaurant, it does not appear to be incidental to another business, it has seating (indoor and outdoor), Saturday operation. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on April 27, 1998. ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A REMODEL AND FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION REQUIRING VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS; FLOOR AREA RATIO; PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT 1117 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (TONY PANTALEONI, APPLICANT AND ANTHONY AND ROSALIE SPITERI, PROPERTY OWNERS). ITEM CONTINUED APPLICATION INCOMPLETE. - ITEM WILL BE RENOTICED). This item was continued to the meeting of May 11, 1998, because the applicant did not complete his submittals. 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). Reference staff report, 04.13.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. C. Luzuriaga noted that he would have to abstain on this item since he lives within the notice area. C. Luzuriaga's abstention deprived the commission of the required quorum of four to hear the item. The applicant asked to be continued to after 9:00 p.m. when C.Wellford might arrive to complete the quorum. C. Key continued the item to later on the agenda after 9:00 p.m. 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). Reference staff report, 04.13.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. City of Burlingame Planning Comntission April 13, 1998 Chair Key opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and there were no comments from the floor. Chair Key closed the public hearing. C. Deal noted that this office use was limited, the number of employees, both part time in the office, and customers would have a small impact on the parking as he observed on his site visit so he moved approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair Key called for the vote by voice; the motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Coffey, Mink and Wellford absent) vote, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the real estate office shall be limited to 485 SF in Suites 1 & 2, at 1815 El Camino Real, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 20, 1998 (site plan, floor plan and parking plan); 2) that the real estate office shall not be open for business except between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 3) that the number of employees shall be a maximum of 2; 4) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 5) that the on - site parking shall be used for employees on -site and their clients/customers without any charge to the users or the business; and 6) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Appeal procedures were stated. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOOD 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). C. Galligan noted that he would have to abstain from a vote on this item because of a prior business relationship with the property owner. Chair Key asked the applicant if he would like to continue this item until after 9:00 p.m.; he indicated that he had a substitute running the restaurant and so preferred to be continued to the meeting of April 27, 1998. Chair Key continued this item to the meeting of April 27, 1998. The item will be moved forward on the action agenda. 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-2, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (GINA LAROCCA, APPLICANT AND DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 04.13.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the Planning Commissioners. C. Key opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and there were no comments from the floor. C. Galligan noted that he supported this request the last time because there were two therapists, one of which was part-time; this request is more substantial in an area impacted with parking, prefer to give the applicant an opportunity to address the commission's concerns; move that the item be continued to the meeting of April 27, and renoticed for that date. If the applicant does not appear on that date then suggest that the commission act. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. C. Key called for a voice vote on the motion which passed 4-0-3 (Cers. Coffey, Mink, Wellford absent) -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission April 13, 1998 PLANNER REPORTS CP reviewed briefly the City Council meeting of April 6, 1998. Chair Key called for a ten minute break at 8:05 p.m. The commission reconvened at 8:15 p.m. Chair Key adjourned the April 13, 1998, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission until C. Wellford arrived or 9:00 p.m. RECONVENE SPECIAL MEETING Chair Key reopened the April 13, 1998, Special Meeting of the Planning Commission called to discuss Neighborhood Compatibility and the Interim Ordinance for Design Review. Chair Key then picked up the discussion on design review and neighborhood compatibility at the next item on the comparison chart, time. Commissioners noted: if individual reviewers were used the city planner would supervise them, they would have office hours, there is the danger of corruption and confrontations with applicants because their individual actions are outside public oversight. CA Anderson agreed with the potential problem but noted that architect, city staff and applicant's architect could get together and discuss the project; Commissioner noted that he is concerned that community opposition be involved in the design review process, process needs to involve those most affected and they are the people in the neighborhood. The problem now, however, is time, not enough to change code, or to incorporate public notice into interim action; in design criteria we need to let neighbors know so that they are aware that a "big" project is coming. CA Anderson noted that if going to stay within current approval process timing there is no time for pre -notice of design review. Commissioner noted that Subcommittee looked at a number of design review boards and had experience with some, experience was varied and not many good examples exist, for that reason suggest a Planning Commission liaison to "watch over" the review group, too often a DRB is created, no one keeps an eye out for their direction and the group goes out of control; moreover as the membership changes so to do the interpretations. Need a three person committee so able to work out problems before they get to the Planning Commission, eventually hope the review committee has authority to grant waivers, within stated parameters, for development envelope requirements. We have a seven member planning commission so that applicants get more diversity, a better chance, need same for review committee. A Subcommittee would be subject to the Brown Act because they recommend to the planning commission, even if the recommendation is not based on a vote. Commission discussion: not in favor of a neighborhood representative on the design review body, not feel that the city is that big or neighborhoods that diverse, like to see review make design palatable then go to Planning Commission where neighbors input; feel that not fair to make applicant vulnerable to whether he has a "good" neighbor or a "bad" one; we cannot guarantee privacy on a 50' x 100' lot; property owners are entitled to certain things, including being able to add a second story. The problem is the person who wants to add more than the lot can support. Commissioner noted: the key is flexibility, there needs to be an interim ordinance, implementation is an issue needs to be one person doing review or on the other side have no one doing design review. Commission reviewing now without any tools, feel uncomfortable, need recommendation from outside to simplify everyone's job. The interim ordinance is a one year commitment, gives us time to develop 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission April 13. 1998 a better ordinance. Not want to preclude review board option, but after interim where use a paid person to get started; these people will be professional contractors so they can be more easily disbanded than an appointed group. Need to allow an architect to take burden off planning commission. Based on experience the code may need to be changed as well, could use home improvement exception or conditional use permit but allow some adjustment of parameters through the review process. CA Anderson pointed out that these changes to the code cannot be addressed in the ordinance at this time because to loosen controls is the reverse of the findings for urgency. We would also need to do an environmental document if we were to make the regulations looser. Could the reviewer recommend that based on the design it would be appropriate to grant an exception to the current code; yes. The finding of the review body could be used in the Planning Commission's finding for an action. The Commission went on to discuss qualifications and selection. Commissioners noted: it would be all right for individual architects doing review for the city not to be residents if they understand the community and what the commission and council are asking for; need to be residents or have practiced residential design in Burlingame. Consensus was individual design reviewers serving on a panel to be used in rotation should be limited to: people who have done residential design; not need to practice in Burlingame but local enough so that can come easily to city hall to meet people; staff would nominate a group and select a slate, Planning Commission would consent; ordinance should include a way for the Planning Commission to remove these individuals. Panelists should be expected to meet periodically with staff to discuss issues of consistency in review. Planning Commission should be the group responsible for amending the process and design guidelines. Consensus for design review committee was that they should live in the city, be an architect, engineer or professional in a related field i.e., based on quality and credential; and have residential design experience. Comment: need to be Burlingame residents to have the needed affinity with the city and to do the city justice, these are issues unique to Burlingame. Commissioner asked if commission still wanted to present two options to council, thought it might be better to present one. Group discussed briefly the next steps in the process, packet to council on Thursday, action on April 20, staff thought that packet would include all that commission had seen so far i.e., both draft ordinances. To adopt an ordinance by urgency on April 20 council will need 4 votes, one council member will be absent from that meeting. If there are not 4 votes for extension of moratorium or for urgency ordinance, then the moratorium will end and we will return to the code as it stands. Commission continued on recommendation: would like to give council a clear recommendation based on a quick implementation to be replaced when ready with a final result; easier to hire people and let go than to let volunteer committee go; do not want the planning commission to end up as a design review board. Chair Key adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:10 p.m. noting that it was past 9:00 p.m. and C. Wellford had not arrived. in City of Burlingame Planning Commission April 13, 1998 Chair Key reopened the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:11 p.m. 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). Chair Key asked the applicant for the project at 2133 Poppy Drive if she wished to wait longer; noting that there was not a quorum of the commission for her action tonight. The applicant said she wished to proceed with her project as soon as possible. Chair Key continued the item for action at the meeting on April 27, 1998. Staff noted that this item would be put on as the first action item. Chair Key then closed the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:15 p.m. RECONVENE SPECIAL MEETING Chair Key reopened the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:16 p.m. and the commission discussion of the interim ordinance for design review and neighborhood consistency continued. Commissioners noted: should draft a recommendation to the city council which would: create a panel of individual architects who would review all second story additions and new houses with second stories; the whole panel would be required to meet once every 6 weeks to encourage consistency of interpretation, and there should be a planning commission liaison at that meeting; the architect selected from the panel, a planning staff member and applicant should have the opportunity to meet unless, at initial review the architect assigned determines there are no issues on which to meet. Two items are key, opportunity for integration with the application and to have that interaction in a group setting where there is an ability to change minds. Prefer to present one option to city council, with so many choices it will be hard for council to come up with a "good" decision; would like an individual reviewer who would look at the whole not focus on specific aspects of a structure's design. Would like to propose an individual reviewer as an immediate/interim action and as a second step use a design review committee. Commission Recommendation on an Interim Ordinance: Because there is insufficient time, given the expiration of the moratorium, to refine a permanent solution and design guidelines; the commission felt the Council should consider adopting by urgency an interim ordinance for 6 months. This ordinance should include the following provisions: design review would be done by a panel architects who would individually be selected at random by staff to review projects; the opportunity for a meeting to occur between architect, a planning staff representative, and applicant should be provided if necessary before the submitted application is considered final; the reviewing architect will review plans again after applicant's submittal is made final and will submit a report to the Planning Commission; applicant will pay a planning review fee and an architectural design review deposit, the unused portion of the deposit will be refunded; applications with design review will go straight to action on the Planning Commission agenda. Along with their recommendation commission noted that during the 6 months of the interim ordinance the staff and commission would evaluate the effectiveness of the interim process, evaluate how a design review committee would work, review what changes to the zoning ordinance regulations would assist design review, and work on and refine the design guidelines. -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission April 13, 1998 Chair Key called for a vote on the recommendation for the interim ordinance and follow up recommendations; the commissioners voted their support on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Coffey, Mink and Wellford absent). The Commission concluded by agreeing that C. Deal, as chair of the subcommittee, would respond to any questions that the City Council might have on the Commission's recommendation at the April 20 meeting. They noted that the issue did not seem to be whether to have design review but how best to do it. The Commission then discussed their review of the April 4, 1998 revision of the proposed Design Guidelines. Concerned about location of garages, need a better aesthetic solution that does not take up so much of the rear yard, perhaps middle of the lot would provide a better visual presence to the street and provide attachment to the house; feel that if we resolve the garage issue everything else will fall into place; color does make an impact, too soon to deal with now, but need to later when look at rest of residential and commercial development for design review. Several specific recommendations were made to change the landscape section of the proposed design guideline document: the landscape design section should apply to all new construction and the objective to minimize impervious surfaces in the front yard should be added as a review criteria. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key asked for a motion to adjourn. C. Galligan made a motion for adjournment; it was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. The motion passed 4-0-3 (Cers. Coffey, Mink and Wellford absent). The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. MINUTES4.13 Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary -11-