Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.01.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NEWUTES January 13, 1997 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame: was called to order by Chairman Ellis on January 13, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall Chairman Ellis took this opportunity to introduce and welcome the new City Attorney, Larry Anderson. MINUTES - The minutes of the December 9, 1996, Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. PRESENTATION OF COMMENDATION TO SHERI SAISI Chairman Ellis presented a resolution from all the commissioners thanking Planner Sheri Saisi for 6 years of service to the city, commission and department. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAPS AT 601 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (CON BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNER AND NEIL GABBAY, APPLICANT) Requests: How will the address of the merged lot be determined since the lot also has substantial frontage on Floribunda. Item set for hearing on January 2.7, 1997. -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 1997 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1141 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, (KARABET ZENCIRCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Revise drawing of elevation showing overall height since it does not seem to reflect the height of the foundation; what is the exact size and location of the door; what type of material will be put on the plywood; what are the special circumstances to justify the 9'-6" plate height; what structural divisions exist in the garage, provide a floor plan; what is the proposed or intended use for the garage, in addition to two cars; from outside the house appears to have two stories, plans reflect only one, what is the square footage of the house; what is the permissible lot coverage for the R-3 zone; plans show a side setback of 4 feet, but neighbor who did survey indicates that setback is less, what is the side setback from the structure. If the information can be gathered in time the item is set for hearing at the meeting of January 27, 1997. ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1704 TOLEDO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LI YIN LIANG, PROPERTY OWNER AND GABRIEL Y. NG, AIA, APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 01.13.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Gabriel Ng, architect for the applicant, 1375 Sutter Street, suite 311, San Francisco and Shu Re Liang, daughter of the owner addressed the commission. Both spoke about the restrictions, caused by the lot and location of the house, placed on the remodel attempt, noting communications with the neighbors and changes made to the plans reducing the size of the second floor and changes made to the plans reducing the size of the second floor and design of the front of the house. Commission asked if they were informed of the need for a Hillside Area Permit in initial discussions with the Planning Department prior to their purchase and told that there could be opposition from the neighbors if the views would be blocked. Ms. Liang responded in the affirmative. Karlyn Schneider, 2705 Arguello, Susanne Bock, 2704 Arguello Drive, Hera Kostekogllu, 2708 Arguello Drive, Henry Sommer, 2709 Arguello Drive, John Morgan, 2720 Martinez; Drive and Alba Lopez, 2725 Arguello Drive, spoke against the application verifying the rooms in their houses from which their distant panoramic views would be blocked by the second floor addition and the probable negative impact on the value of their properties. The neighbors would prefer the addition go out on the first floor not up. They also presented a petition in opposition to the application with 60 signatures There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal then made a motion to deny this application noting the original CC & R's which limited these houses to a single story had lapsed and had been supplanted by an addition to the zoning ordinance requiring a Hillside Area Construction Permit. Noting the specified review criteria -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 1997 are obstruction, by construction, of the existing distant view from habitable areas within dwelling units. Each application is taken on its individual merit. C. Galligan seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commission complimented both the neighbors and the applicant's architect for their attempts to resolve this issue. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 601 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3, CON BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNER AND NEIL GABBA-1I, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 01.13.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Neil Gabbay,19 South "B" Street, Suite 7, San Mateo, architect for the property owner, presented a rendering and pictures depicting revised elevations of the proposed building and the surrounding streetscape to the commission. There were no questions or comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission discussed the benefit of adding to the housing stock and noted for the record that if this project is not built to the requirements of a condominium, i.e., parking and open space; a future condominium conversion and a variance would probably not be granted. Commissioner Galligan then moved to approve the negative declaration, 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 January 6, 1997, Sheet A.1 through A. 7, PL-1 and T1. 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 14, 1996 memo, the Fire Marshall's November 12, 1996 memo and the Parks Department's November 20, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the use and any construction for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4) that the project shall be subject to the state -mandated water conservation program; a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 5) that this proposal shall be required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; 6) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code; 7) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary; abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; and 8) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 1997 are obstruction, by construction, of the existing distant view from habitable areas within dwelling units. Each application is taken on its individual merit. C. Gailigan seco'dd d the motion. Motion passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. \ Commission complimen%NEGA e neighbors and the applicant's architect for their attempts to resolve this issue. APPLICATION FOR AVE DECLARATION AT 601 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED Reference staff report, 01.13.97, w th attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department com ents, and study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public ng. Neil Gabbay,19 South "B" Street, Suite 7, San Mateo, architect for the property o ner, presented a rendering and pictures depicting revised elevations of the proposed building d the surrounding streetscape to the commission. There were no questions or comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission discussed the benefit of adqing to the housing stock and noted for the record that if this project is not built to the require nts of a condominium, i.e., parking and open space; a future condominium conversion and a vlariance would probably not be granted. Commissioner Galligan then moved to approv6lbe negative declaration, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be ilt as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 2 996, Sheet A.1 through A. 7, PL-1 and T1. 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's Novemb 14, 1996 memo, the Fire Marshall's November 12, 1996 memo and the Parks Department's No mber 20, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the use and any construction for the use shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended the City of Burlingame; 4) that the project shall be subject to the state -mandated water con rvation program; a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landsc pe and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 5) that this proposal shall be required to eel: the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 199 and enforced by the Parks Department; 6) that all construction shall abide by the constructi hours established by the municipal code; 7) that all new utility connections to serve the site nd which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards anc diameter; sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary; abandoned utilities and hoo ps shall be removed; and 8) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1234 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, (TSTN PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER AND BROADWAY CLEANERS, APPLICANTS). DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE OCTOBER 28, 1996. Reference staff report, January 13, 1997, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria for action, staff and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. There were no questions or comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Deal noted this reduces the number of signs and removes one non -conforming roof sign, cleans up the facade and does not constitute special privilege by allowing more signage than other businesses in the area have, he then moved to approve this application 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 December 9, 1996; 2) that all other existing signs on the site not part of this application shall be removed within 30 days, (February 22, 1997) from the final date of this action; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, 1995 edition. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wellford and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT TWO SECOND -STORY APARTMENTS TO REAL ESTATE OFFICE USE AT 251 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (BRUCE HERMAN, APPLICANT AND CLAY HERMAN, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, January 13, 1997, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria for action, and staff and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration; the first condition was modified to note that the plans may need to be revised to meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshall. The commissioners commented on the plans and staff report noting that a condition of this action is compliance with building code requirements, plans have many shortcomings and do not show how the second stair to the second floor would be provided; need a workable plan in order to act; CA noted that item could be continued until adequate plans had been submitted; plans which meet CBC requirements could reduce amount of office area on first floor which could be a factor in parking variance, so need better information; should discuss with CBI the need for ADA accessible bathrooms on the second floor, could they be put on the first floor; building is large and plans do not show all the tenant spaces on the first floor, plans should include this; how does one get to the second floor if you are handicapped; what was the parking requirement for the apartments when they were originally built, should this be the basis for determining the size of the parking variance; feel that there is enough on the plans to make a decision, the foot print -4- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 1997 of the building will not change and the bathrooms will not change; the applicant needs to know how the commission feels before he spends more money on plans and possibly gets denied; CBC not met, stairs are too steep, condition will see that the new ones, do; do they want two bathrooms on the second floor so they can in the future return to apartment use. The commission decided to have a public hearing since the applicant was present to discuss. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Bruce Herman, 251 Park Road, son of property owner and real estate tenant on the first floor who wishes to expand to the second floor office area, spoke in favor. Agrees that the stairs are steep, that was the reason they got a building permit to fix them. One of the apartments has been rented to the same person for 30 years the other was easily rented, so no incentive to change. When the lease came up, decided that they needed to work on the stair to increase safety; discovered that there was not enough head room so had to relocate a second floor bathroom; later in the process the Fire Marshall inspected noting that the new construction required more fire protection, the building department seemed to prefer office use so removed the kitchens; then went to planning. ]Began this stair repair in September,now it is January, would like to get it done. Asked if want office or residential use upstairs, noted that if expand office upstairs it would be necessary to comply with Building Department requirements; noted that level of improvement on plans and what required will be a big difference financially -stair enlarged, toilet rooms, significant remodel first and second floors and expansion -before vote: important to know that applicant aware of cost and willing to proceed if approved. Applicant noted that he would prefer to expand on the first floor but cannot because of zoning restrictions, so forced to expand business to second floor; he does not want to change existing offices on first floor nor does he want to tear the buildings down; he noted building has fire escape and door to exterior on roof. Commissioners noted that they did not have authority to change ADA requirements or building and fire codes, cost of improvement is a factor here; applicant noted that use of the second floor depended upon cost, but if unrealistic how could he expand the business in the building; commission noted it wouldtake a change in the zoning code to expand real estate use on the first floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Galligan moved to continue this item until the February 10, 1997, meeting when new plans can be submitted, noting it was important for the applicant to discuss with the building department what is required for construction on both the first and second floors in order to change the use on the second floor from residential to office; as they stand the plans are too preliminary for Planning Commission approval; speaking for himself the issue of the parking variance is not a major concern if the use on the second floor can be accomplished within the basic parameter of the structure that is there; however they need to stop present work immediately. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wellford. Discussion on the motion: can support the motion if a set of code compliant plans are submitted, from what can see not object to office use on second floor if the building is made legal; applicant caught, cannot convert second floor to real estate use without meeting current code requirements because his use is prohibited on the first floor; need appropriate plans in order for Planning Commission to decide; part of the problem is that this is an old building. -5- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 1997 The Chairman called for the vote on the motion to continue by voice. The commissioners voted unanimously in favor of the motion to continue the item to the meeting of February 10, 1997. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, EMBASSY SUITES, PROPERTY OWNER AND ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANTS)_ Reference staff report, 01.13.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the pubic hearing. Walter McIntyre, 1051 - 46th Avenue, Oakland, the applicant representing Embassy Suites explained why he now was requesting the signage on the bay side of the building many customers arrive by plane from SFO. There were no further comments from the audience and the hearing was closed. C. Mink noted that he had reviewed the conditions and facts as presented in the staff report and at the public hearing and felt that they provided adequate findings for a motion of approval of this amendment to the master sign program and sign exception on a secondary frontage application, with the following conditions: 1) that approval of this application shall supersede the Master Sign Program for this site approved on July 22, 1991; 2) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 14, 1996, and shall constitute those signs described in Table B, Proposed Sign Program, 150 Anza Boulevard, January 13, 1997; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, 1995 edition. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and was approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of December 16, 1996 and January 6, 1997 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p. m. MIN1.13 Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary