Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.03.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 1997 Special Study Session - 6:00 P.M. Conference Room A CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ellis called the Special Study meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Present were Cers. Mink, Coffey, Ellis, Wellford and Deal. C. Key arrived at 6:30 p.m. C. Galli.gan was not present for this portio of the meeting. City Planner, Margaret Monroe and City Attorney, Larry Anderson were also present. DISCUSSION OF NEW COUNCIL REFERRALS: CP Monroe told the Planning Commission that they had received two referrals for review and recommendation from the council at their February 19, 1997: extension of auto row signage standards to the Broadway/Rollins Road auto sales area and review of the effectiveness of the take-out service food and food establishment regulations in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Commissioners noted that with these two items, they had three topics to study for council. They felt that they needed to set a priority and agreed that the proper order of study would be: (1) neighborhood compatibility, (2) take-out service food and food establishments in Subarea A and (3) extending auto row signage standards to Broadway/Rollins Road. The Commissioners suggested that they report at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on the direction of their thinking on all three items. Staff said that they would remind the commissioners of the date for the joint session (Saturday, April 12, 1997). DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Commission continued its discussion on the neighborhood compatibility issue from the previous special study meeting. CP Monroe had prepared a handout of a list of significant architectural features found in single family houses prepared by Palo Alto; she suggested that this might be used as a place to begin to address the second of the Commission's questions, "what features or characteristics should be included in neighborhood compatibility evaluation". She also noted that in her discussions with Palo Alto staff they had observed that after all their study and evaluation of neighborhood fit for houses built before 1940 the most important single design feature impacting neighborhood character is the garage placement. Commission discussion: advisory guidelines soon become limits, like our 35' review line; present detached garages are small, if appropriate size take too much rear yard area; complaints are about the effect, what is visible from the front; demand by neighbors for off-street parking seems to go in cycles; garage does not need to be at rear property line to not dominate facade; no problem with four bedrooms and one parking space, with driveway to park in. The Commissioners agreed that they -1- preferred the term "neighborhood consistency" rather than neighborhood compatibility. Generally they would like to build on the regulations that we already have in place, not undertake a substantial reconstruction of the R-1 zoning district regulations. There is a problem with the variance requirements, because on many lots there are no good criteria. As a group, the commissioners agreed that certain factors should trigger some kind of additional review for neighborhood consistency. The factors to be included in "consistency review" should include: a base structural square footage, single car garage, built before 1940, and altering the facade; It was agreed that if a project did not include any of the "trigger" factors it should be able to get a building permit with out any further review. Some commissioners felt that the more subjective review criteria were, the more able the commission would be to be flexible in applying them to specific neighborhoods or circumstances. One concern was that some areas have very small garages now, with narrow streets and serious on street parking problems; these existing factors need to be considered in a consistency review. It was noted that consistency review would not be able to help an already boring neighborhood; but could enhance an eclectic area. In Palo Alto an emphasis was placed on the importance of the sense and consistency of landscaping on neighborhood character. This increases awareness of things outside of design, like water conservation, which can also impact neighborhood appearance and cause inconsistent patterns to emerge. Commissioners agreed that their next special study meeting to discuss neighborhood consistency would be scheduled after the action items at their next regular meeting, March 24, 1997. FROM THE FLOOR There were three members of the public who spoke from the floor: Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, Suzy Kunda-Critkovic, 144 Costa Rica, and Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Avenue. They suggested that driveways along side property lines extending to garages at the rear predominated in houses built before 1940; Millbrae has a good set of design criteria for second story additions, they allow a 55 % FAR; using the average front setback is good; height should be determined by an average of what exists; proportion is the biggest issue, FAR is too big, they want a consistent fixed ratio like Millbrae; Millbrae's design review is good because it is specific; second stories area problem because neighbors loose privacy and use of open space; house next door is "monster" and was built within code requirements, should not happen; they feel current codes are damaging them materially, city is up for sale; adjacent addition cut all light out of kitchen, not considering effect of new development on next door neighbor; need to think about how houses are placed on lots and impact of additions on light; like it where street trees are consistent; should reconsider allowing an attached two car tandem garage, one space for storage, one for car; a long driveway is likely to be used to park more than one car even with a one car garage. Commission adjourned to the regular meeting at 7:25 p.m. IPA March 10, 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 March 10, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan (7:55 p.m.), Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Assistant Fire Chief, Bill Reilly MINUTES - The minutes of the February 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AT 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JEAN MARIE AND TOM BUCKLEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: Why are they proposing to add the new roof at this time; how do they intend to use the habitable area created. Item was set for public hearing on March 24, 1997. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIANCES AT 1432 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LISA AND STUART HOSMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: How much of this structure will actually be replaced, such as new electrical, plumbing, foundation, exterior walls etc.; what will remain after demolition in preparation for construction. Item was set for public hearing on March 24, 1997. -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL AGENCY AT 1500/1500A ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED C-1, (JILL HARMON AND TONA COHENDET, APPLICANTS AND NANCY KURKGIAN AND MARMORA TERRELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) Requests: Applicant needs to provide a redrafted site plan this one is illegible. Item was set for public hearing on March 24, 1997 pending ability to provide new site plan; otherwise set for next meeting after application complete. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL USE AT 2.20 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D, (HENRY KWONG, APPLICANT AND BUDI SUSETYO LEONARDI, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: where would trucks park while making deliveries to site; what will be the frequency of deliveries; estimate 20 customers per day, is this an accurate number, it seems low to support a business; what are the number of auto related businesses in Subarea I). Item was set for public hearing on March 24, 1997. ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR A CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT AT 1249 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JOHN & GALE DISERENS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report 3.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the request, staff and planning department comments, study meeting questions. CP Monroe noted that she had received a call from Anne Gentner, property owner at 1249 Drake, expressing concern about debris blocking the creek because of the deck and causing flooding conditions up stream; Mrs. Gentner also commented on security problems. Five conditions were suggested for approval. C. Galligan arrived at 7:55 p.m. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Gail Diserens, property owner, noted that they have 3 young children who play in the backyard, it is a long drop into the creek; the deck actually helps the debris in the creek problem since it stops branches from falling into the creek. A commissioner asked how they gained access to the creek for maintenance. Applicant noted that her husband climbs down into the culvert, do not want steps because do not want to encourage children to go into the area; maintenance was a bigger problem before the existing portion of the deck was built since there was more vegetation in the bottom of the culvert, with new deck there will be even less. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented that he would abstain from discussion and action on this item. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 C. Wellford noted that he had made a site visit and had seen the existing deck and the location for the new deck and that he did not see a problem, that the deck would be a benefit, it would improve the safety for the children using the rear yard because the culvert has steep sides and it would be hard to get a child who had fallen in, out; the deck as proposed at top of the bank of the culvert would not have a negative effect on the flow or capacity of the creek or on the ability to maintain or repair the creek. He then moved, by resolution, and with the conditions in the staff report as follows; 1) that the deck, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 21, 1997; 2) that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 1249 Cabrillo Avenue clear of debris and shall maintain the channel and protection structures on their property to insure free flow of the creek and to minimize erosion; 3) that the deck shall remain independent of the retaining walls as designed, and shall be constructed to be removable to clear debris if necessary; 4) that the conditions of the Park Director's memo of January 22, 1997 shall be met; and 5) that this 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. Coffey and approved 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 2829 TIBURON WAY, ZONED R-1, (EBERHARD WOERZ, APPLICANT AND KRISTINA WOERZ DOOMAN, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 3.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Eberhard Woerz, property owner, stated that they wanted the arbor in order to provide a sunshade so that they could keep the curtains open on that side of the house; the arbor will not be visible from the street or from other adjacent properties. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented that he had looked at the site and one would have to go out of one's way to see this trellis; no one complained about the hillside area construction (view obstruction) request; the trellis does cause lot coverage to be exceeded but it is an open structure, it is :needed for shade and the air passes through it, and it fits the design and arrangement of the existing house. On the basis of these findings he moved to approve the hillside area construction permit arid lot coverage variance by resolution with the findings in the staff report and the following conditions; 1) that the 10'-0" x 25'-0" patio cover (250 SF), as built over the existing concrete patio area, shall conform to the size and -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Mardi 10, 1997 location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date; stamped January 21, 1997; and 2) that this 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. Key and was approved on a 5-2 (C. Mink and Galligan dissenting) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO A CHURCH AT 1500 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 AND R-3, AND, A SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN R-3 ZONED LOT FOR PARKING AT 1501 EASTON DRIVE, (BOB DAVIDSON, APPLICANT AND ARTHUR D. GIMBEL, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 3.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. A total of seven conditions on the two properties were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the church was required in 1983 to buy the lot now used for parking at 1501 Easton, staff noted that church was not required; commissioner noted that these additional spaces are now being included in the existing non -conforming parking count rather than being used to offset the proposed expanded use; on the site. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Bob Davidson, church member and resident of Redwood City, representing the Presbyterian Church, spoke noting that they have reviewed the conditions suggested and agree with them; Charles Kavanaugh is presently doing the survey to merge the lots as required. Paul Kuhlman, GEZ Architects/Engineers, indicated that he was available for questions. He also noted that there were people in the audience representing the nursery school, residents of the adjacent neighborhood and members of the congregation, all willing to answer any questions the Commission might have. He was asked if the 24 parking spaces off -site; were available for parents picking up children at the nursery school; yes they can be, when they are not needed they are gated off to keep the lot from being used by others, if there is a funeral during the day the extra lot is open; it was noted that the hour between nursery school sessions was enough to avoid overlap between parents picking up and dropping off children; school sessions will never be spaced closer because they need to set up for the next class. Faye Boyes, 909 Lurline Drive, Foster City, Director of the Nursery school, spoke she discussed staffing noting that each class had two teachers and a parent volunteer for the 20 students enrolled; it was noted that initially only the two classrooms on the first floor of the new building would be finished and used by the nursery school, the two rooms on the second floor would be completed later. Staff noted that the use permit and conditions addressed the full development and use of the new building, as well as including the existing facilities and a separate use permit for using the lot across the street, zoned R-3, for parking so long as the church use continued at 1500 Easton. W Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 Speaking in favor of the use permits for adding the classroom building on the church site and for the use of the lot for parking were: Larry Agnew, 1667 Escalante Way; Deborah Griffith, 2470 Poppy Drive; and Christiana Pena, 718 Acacia Drive. In their comments they noted this is probably the best nursery school in the area, unfortunately it has a waiting list and many are disappointed, so it is a benefit to the city to allow them to have more space; the children are dropped off in the parking lot so the proximity to the busy street (El Camino) is not a hazard; parents leave children at door; church membership is not going to increase because more classrooms are available for sunday school; want to reach out to serve more children; the new building will mean that some; ADA requirements not met will be met, has a child with Downs Syndrome who will be a student in the future and this accessibility is important. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that he had two children who had participated in this program in the past and their experience was a good one; parent community was respectful of other parents and neighbors; in finding for the special permit and parking variance he noted that because. the peak use was generally on Sunday which this addition would not affect, not week days, and there were generally enough parking spaces on site for the 31 employees and parents dropping children off, the general parking rule, seemed excessive; in his years of use never saw a parking problem for the nursery school use. He felt that condition 3 should be revised to take out any reference to church service and/or sunday school hours or Sunday use, reference to hours and capacity of the nursery school activity seemed a reasonable condition. He also felt that a condition requiring review on complaint should also be added for the neighborhood. Based on these findings and the facts in the staff report as well as the fact that based on the recent election Roosevelt school would be reopened soon displacing a number of nursery school programs thus increasing the community need for this program, he moved to approve the special permit and 60 space parking variance for the new building at 1.500 Easton Drive with the conditions as amended and by resolution and to approve the conditional use permit to use the lot at 1501 Easton for a parking lot to support the church use at 1500 Easton with the condition as amended by staff which tied the use of the two sites together also by resolution and based on the facts in the staff report, comments made, and the following added and amended conditions; 1500 Easton Drive 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 23, 1997, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Demolition Plan, Floor Plan, Roof Plan and Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 24, 1997 :memo (requiring parcel map for lot combination and abandonment of alley), the Chief Building Inspector's January 27, 1997 memo (regarding upgrading of pedestrian walkway) and the Fire Marshal's January 27, 1997 memo (requiring fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems) shall be met; 3) that nursery school program may operate with up to 8 classes with 20 children each, with four morning and four afternoon classes; 4) that no building permit shall be issued until the parcel map for lot combination is filed with the County for recordation; 5) that the parking lot with 24 parking spaces at 1501 Easton Drive shall be maintained on that site as long as the church use remains. 6) that the portion of the conditional use permit address ing the nursery school use shall be reviewed upon complaint; and 7) that the project -7- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 1501 Easton Drive 1) that the site shall be used only as a parking lot with 24 spaces for the church use at 1500 Easton Drive and shall not be put to any other use without the church receiving; a parking variance first or the site at 1500 Easton changing from church use. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. Commenting on the motion it was noted that there was a potential problem with an increase in traffic movements at the Easton/El Camino Real intersection caused by the increase in week -day activity at the church, should turns be limited to right -turn only; it was noted that limitations for turning movements from private property were not enforced by the city; perhaps the intersection should be addressed by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission if it becomes a problem, not a Planning Commission issue; project meets General Plan and zoning requirements, have done a good job working with neighbors and have exceeded requirements. The chairman called for the vote. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised, noting that the appeal period would end March 19, 1997. The Commission adjourned for a break at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:47 p.m. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT FOOD AT 1100 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE D ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, (THE ROAST BARON LLC, APPLICANTS AND KARP FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 3.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked why the applicant had reduced the number of seats, staff noted that plans had been refined since initial application. Chairperson Ellis opened the public hearing. Joe Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, the property owner spoke in support of the applicant who was unable to attend. The reduction in the number of chairs was due to the refinement of the plans to concur with zoning and building requirements. Trash storage will be contained in each tenant space, he will provide a small dumpster on the site as well. Basim Azar, 245 California Drive, spoke in opposition to the application noting there are too many restaurants between California and Howard and not enough parking. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. In Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Mardi 10, 1997 C. Deal noted the new number of customers shown in the revised application is more representative; take-out is not detrimental to this area; the location is good; use is small; parking is provided on site and is an asset to the community. He then moved to approve this special permit, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 23, 1997 (floor plan and site plan) and February 25, 1997 (interior layout plan); 2) that the conditions of the City Engineers' January 27, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be open from 6:30 AM to 9:00 PM daily and shall have a maximum of 5 employees at any one time; 4) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle outside the building, the location and type to be approved by the City, and a trash receptacle inside the door to the restaurant; 5) that the applicant shall apply to the Public Works Department and shall receive an approved encroachment permit before installing any seating on the sidewalk or within the public right-of-way; such seating shall not extend more than 3'-0" into the sidewalk area and no table shall be larger than 2'-0" in diameter and shall have no more than two chairs; any hazards caused by the sidewalk seating and its use shall be the responsibility of the business owners; 6) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all take out debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and in planters, in front of the restaurant along Howard Avenue, and within 50' of the store in each direction; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and was approved 5-1-1 (C. Key dissenting and C. Galligan abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA, NUMBER OF ;;IGNS AND LETTER SIZE AT 1609 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3, (BLEIER INDUSTRIES, APPLICANTS AND MAGNOLIA GARDENS CARE CENTER, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 3.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairperson Ellis opened the public hearing. Irmke Schoebel, Administrator, 1609 Trousdale Drive asked that both signs remain because emergency vehicles and other vendors have difficulty finding the site. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. 'This was the reason she did not remove the wall sign before. Those on Trousdale need the monument sign, those on magnolia need the wall sign. Now a new owner with a new name. Discussion: Commission commented that the signage is to serve the people coming to the building for emergency purposes and is an asset. On the other hand, the new sign is more visible, brighter colors, eliminates the need for a second sign. 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 C. Mink moved approval with the added condition that the wall sign be removed unless the applicant can show a request by a state agency showing that it is a requirement, noting as revised this application is not detrimental to the area, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 24, 1997; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 27, 1997 memo shall be met; and 3) that the wall sign shall be removed unless the applicant can show that it is a requirement of a state agency; 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 and was approved 4-3 (C. Coffey Wellford and Ellis dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE AT 401 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE K, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, (KURT, STEIL AND OTTO MILLER, APPLICANTS AND FRANCES AND MAURICE COHN TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 3.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that Bruin Realty was in this building for awhile; Conditions addressing hours of operation should be reviewed for feasible enforcement. Chairperson Ellis opened the public hearing. Kurt Steil, 33 Woodhill Road, Redwood City, was present to answer questions. Mr. Steil is a real estate broker, the business will be purchasing property, building and selling houses from this site. There will be a developer a real estate broker, a project manager and one additional employee working from the office. This office was an insurance agency before: There will not be a mortgage loan broker on site. Steve Cohn, 347 Primrose, was present representing the property owners. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted the concept of this application fits office use and is conducive to sales, is not detrimental or injurious to the area and is in accordance with the general plan. He then moved approval of this special permit, by resolution, asking that the conditions tie amended adding the word only in condition #2 and changing the hours to read 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to better define the business day and condition #3 be amended to remove suite size and clarify the use is limited to real estate sales and development not all "real estate" uses, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the real estate business use shall be limited to 473 SF at 401 Primrose Road, Suite K as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 12, 1997 Floor Plans (8'/2." X 11 ") and shall not be expanded without amendment to this permit; 2) that the real estate business may be open only from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and have occasional weekend hours to meet client demand with a maximum of five full-time employees and two part-time employees -10- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 on site at any one time; 3) that the business shall be limited to real estate sales and development uses; 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; and 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and was approved 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council meeting of March 3, 1997. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. MINUTES3.10 -11- Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary