Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.08.11MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION August 11, 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 August 11, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Mink and Key Absent: Commissioner Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The first sentence of the minutes of the July 28, 1997 Planning Commission were amended to read: "A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on July 4428, 1997 at 7:02 p.m., the minutes were then approved as corrected. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 315 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JAMES E. INGRAM, JR., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: What was the prior setback for the house on this site; where are the windows on the accessory structure relative to the rear property line. Item was set for public hearing on August 25, 1997. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (TRIBECA, APPLICANT AND KARIM SALMA, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Application should include applicant's response to findings for a sign exception; there are paper signs on the tenant space at 1444 Burlingame Avenue (Plagmann's,i for Tribeca, what is their relationship to this applicant; are the umbrellas on the second floor with Ben and Jerry's on their -1- Burlingame Plawdag Commission MWd0J August 11, 1997 aprons, signs; unusual number of signs, would like an expert witness other than property owner or sign company representative to evaluate for the Commission that this number of signs will make a difference to businesses in the building; applicant should identify the base color of the building and the material and color of each sign or awning; specifics should be provided regarding the finish of the brass letters and the type of metal they are made of; does the applicant understand that color and material are a part of the request; four blade signs, one will be used by Tribeca, how will the others be used, will they be used just by businesses located in the basement; if all awnings on the first floor are to be green, how will Aida's Opera Candies and Ben and Jerry's comply. Item was set for hearing at the meeting of August 25 providing the applicant is able to complete his responses in time for the preparation of the staff report; if not, the application will be set for the meeting of September 8, 1997. ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES FOR A 4-UNIT MULTI -•FAMILY DWELLING AT 920 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, (RICHARD AND MAUREEN HARBER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). CONTINUED FROM JULY 14, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 1997. Item was continued to the meeting of September 8, 1997 and will be renoticed. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A VETERINARY CLINIC AT 1802 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1, MICHAEL BERUBE, APPLICANT AND DAVID R. & C. M. PEDERSEN. PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 8.11.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. CP noted that the condition of the existing conditional use permit" that no animal was to remain on the premises between 12 Midnight and 6:00 a.m. except in an emergency with a veterinarian in attendance", was inadvertently left off the list required and should be considered. Chair Key opened the public hearing. C.M. Pederson, property owner, represented the request in the absence of the real estate agent and tenant, he noted that the current leased space is 1500 SF not 1800 SF and the additional space they are asking to add is 800 SF not 950 SF;, it was noted that the plans included in the staff report showed the layout of the new area, but no layout for the existing area; it was noted that there has been clarification about how much area of the adjacent tenant space will be used, that was what was requested. There were no other comments on the item and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Deal noted that he was satisfied that the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and adjacent property owners, there have been no complaints over all the years of this tenancy, and the additional space will allow the business a better operation;; for these reasons he would move approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions in the staff report and adding a fifth condition, that of the original and previous amended conditional use permit for this use, "that no animal is to remain on the premises between 12 Midnight and 6:00 a.m., except in an emergency with 90A Burlingame Ptaaaing Commission Mbuetrs August 11. 1997 a veterinarian in attendance". The conditions are as follows: 1) that the; veterinary clinic expansion shall be limited to 800 SF at 1802 Magnolia Drive for a total of 2300 SF for this use, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 25,1997, Site Diagram (8 lh" x 11"); 2) that the veterinary clinic shall not be open for business except during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon Saturdays with a maximum of five employees on site at any one time; 3) 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; 4) that the conditions of the original permit as amended will remain in effect, requiring the premises to be soundproofed to the satisfaction of the building inspector, and that no animals remain on the premises between 12 midnight and 6:00 a.m. except in an emergency with a licensed veterinarian in attendance; and 5) 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. C. Galligan seconded the motion and it passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C.. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were noted. PLANNER'S REPORTS The City Planner reviewed the Council actions on planning matters which occurred at the August 4, 1997, City Council meeting. Chair Key discussed with the Commission the coming second reading; of the ordinance to change the voting majority of the Planning Commission. She suggested and commission agreed that staff should prepare a memo for the Council outlining the pros and cons of such a change in the regulations. The memo should be included in the next Planning Commission packet, August 25, for their review. The Neighborhood Consistency discussion was continued from earlier meetings. Commissioners noted that it would be useful to determine the goals or objectives we wish to achieve before looking at changes to zoning regulations. In previous review the Commission had taken the demolition portion of the neighborhood consistency issue first, it was suggested that enough work had been done on that to resolve it. It was noted that holding up demolition until a building permit had been issued might be a disservice to the neighbors, since they would not know a new structure was being planned until project review has been completed and the permit issued; and it was too late for them to impact the process. The current code also leaves the discretion of removal up to the Building Official if health and safety issues are a problem. If we need additional legislation in order to allow him to require landscaping on steep hillsides to stabilize lots where structures have been removed we should add that. It was noted that with demolition like other neighborhood compatibility issues we need to know what the problem is; what are we trying to address. It was noted that the issue is what we "need" and what we "want". If it is unsafe we need correction; if it looks bad, we want it to look better. We should limit ordinances to what we need. Do not want to place homeowner or developer in awkward position if he has last minute hold up on plans and needs to commence work in order to retain contractor, so needs to do demolition before having a building permit. With a safety issue there is a problem, should intervene; don't think need to do anything more than what we have now. Do not like legislation to be knee jerk reaction; think that current process available to neighbors for input is important, but not another regulation until we decide what we want to do and why. -3- Burlingame Planning Canunis"on Minatrs August 11, 1997 An important issue has arisen in last year and that is the need for closer scrutiny of demolitions across property lines and where structures are on lots adjacent to properties with different zoning designations such as R-3 and R-1. Another effective way to address this problem is to create transitional zoning R-1 to R-2 to commercial as was done in the Mills Estate. In areas where you don't have established transitional zoning like along El Camino Real where R-1 backs on to R-3, we have a privacy problem. It is too late to introduce the transitional zones now, so demolition regulation holding the existing pattern until the proposed development addresses pertinent privacy and compatibility issues may be an alternative. Demolition code might include giving the Chief Building Official the right to add landscaping for slope stabilization and fencing for public safety. What about aesthetics; if hurts value of neighboring property, demolition should not be allowed. Only time you get abuse is when you have transition from single family structure on a lot zoned multiple family; if project looses financing, for example. Don't know how to solve problem of incomplete house in single family neighborhoods. CE noted that if erosion is a problem the city can require planting now. CA noted that in the Palo Alto ordinance their motivation was to keep houses the way they were. A commissioner noted, would it benefit the city if it took forever to process remodels and reconstruction in Burlingame? From the Planning Commission perspective, which may be different than that of the Council, there does not seem to be a major problem with the current demolition regulations. There is no value in requiring a public notice for demolitions since there is nothing that the neighbor can review or change at that point, it is counter productive and adds another hurdle to the development process. The Commissioners concurred that given this and their previous discussion on the topic of demolition, they did not want to review further the portion of the neighborhood consistency issue relating to demolition. They directed staff to prepare a progress report on the neighborhood consistency issue for their review at the next meeting. This report should to be passed on to Council. Commissioner Galligan discussed the problems with implementing commission actions and their subsequent impacts on commission findings: the need to use findings to create tools for what could happen on a property later. He noted the trade off between being thorough in this regard and the problem of extending discussion on each item. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. .,u.t I--_:. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary -4-