Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.08.25MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 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 25, 1997 at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Nlarshall MINUTES - The minutes of the August 11, 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 PARKING, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCES AT 2104 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (BRUCE AND PAM OLIVIER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: the dimensions and scale of the plans submitted do not match, this makes some calculations like declining height difficult to accurately assess, plans should be redrafted so that dimensions and scale match; applicant's variance findings should be clarified for example they indicate that can't have a tandem garage because of the location of a redwood tree but they presently have a tandem garage; do not understand the declining height information given, dimensions of envelope do not match scale on plans, clarify; the first floor has a nonconforming side setback and needs a variance, the new second floor has the same nonconforming setback, does it need a variance also; since parking variances go with the property forever, need good justification related to property, what can applicant provide; does applicant intend to use the portion of the garage beyond the 20 feet required for parking or for any other use. Project was set for hearing on September 8, 1997, providing the plans could be redrafted and the questions answered in time for staff to notice the item and to prepare the staff report. so Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL COOKING CLASSES INCIDENTAL TO RETAIL USE AT 1325 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A, (HOMECHEF, APPLICANT AND JIM LAWRENCE. PROPERTY OWNERJ. Requests: data on number of employees is inconsistent in report, clarify; what do the percentages of 80% retail to 20% classes refer to, i.e., revenue, customers, etc., and how were the proportions arrived at; feel that after Labor Day when people are back from vacation is a more appropriate time to do the traffic/parking study; after Labor Day parking/traffic study should be done by a licensed traffic or professional engineer, did not see number of vacant stalls indicated in applicant survey on days he observed; comparison of parking demand for existing use Bon Appetit and proposed use should also be provided; personal observation is that parking Lot J is heavily used on Wednesday nights, study should include count for at least that night; how many classes will there be on Saturday; provide comparison with level of activity at their other stores and use, besides Corte Madera, maybe at least one in an area with parking more like Burlingame; why is the code required 1 space for 50 GSF of instruction area, not applied in this case; parking study should include hours of 8 to 9 a.m. and 9 to 10 a.m. , and Sunday parking activity as well; provide a list of restaurants located on that block and on Park and Primrose Roads and the number of seats in each restaurant; could applicant comment on starting morning classes at 8 a.m. ; plans are hard to read, exactly where will the demonstration kitchen be located and where exactly will the moveable: wall be placed; could the applicant provide the class schedule and size for the Palo Alto store right away so that Commissioners might make a site visit; comparisons should be based on stores in similar downtown type of location, not strip mall. This item was set for hearing on September 22, 1997 providing that all the information is completed in time for the public notice and preparation of the staff report. APPLICATION FOR AN RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1404 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: is the design of this project the same as 1408 El Camino Real which shares the access easement; in the units with two balconies or two private open space areas, is each space 75 SF or is the total of both spaces 75 SF. The item was set for public hearing on September 8, 1997. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A 4-UNIT TOWNHOUSE AT 1404 EL CAMINO REAL. ZONED R-3, (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Map does not reflect a sanitary sewer easement in the rear 5 feet, this should be shown. The item was set for public hearing on September 8, 1997. ACTION ITEMS 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). Reference staff report, 8.25.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 1997 recommended for consideration. CP Monroe introduced two letters one from the applicant who could not attend tonight's meeting and one from a neighbor. It was noted by Commission that the neighbor who wrote was not within the notice area. Commissioner Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and therefore would abstain from this item. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Jerry Mangini, 316 Burlingame Avenue, Terry and John Baack, 305 Burlingame Avenue and Rebecca Haseleu, 232 Stanley, spoke. There; is a change in grade on the lot, will it be leveled; if it is, how will changing the grade affect the neighboring property; it was HOUSE)noted that the city requires all drainage from structures to go to the street, surface drainage is not required to be changed. Would the higher grade in the center of the lot affect the height of the structure; it was noted that the height of the structure is measured from top of curb not adjacent existing grade so a mound in the center of the lot would have no affect on the height of the finished structure as seen from the street. If the garage is placed one foot from property line as shown they will loose the afternoon sun, and if the structure is as tall as the one on Burlingame and Stanley, it will block all the sun. The windowless wall of their bedroom will be one foot from the garage, this house is being replaced because it burned, he helped fight the fire and does not want such a safety hazard as the garage so close to his bedroom. It was noted that the code allows garages to be placed on property line in the rear 30% of the lot, this situation is unusual because the house next door is placed so far to the rear of the lot, but the. new garage will include one -hour fire resistant construction, which is probably better than the bedroom wall, given its vintage. The neighbor had no suggestion for altering the plan commenting it might be hard to move the garage but he dial not want to sleep so close to the neighbors garage; he is a tenant, but hoped the commission would consider his concerns. They share the rear fence, why not flip the plan and put the garage on the east side, it was noted that the eucalyptus trees on the street don't appear to leave enough space for the drive way on the east side; not feel good about two such large structures (the house on the corner and the proposed house) so close together. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the circumstances of the front setbacks on this block are unusual, these two lots were developed for duck clubs and the structures were placed very far back on the lots, the other lots are a house on a corner and a church set back at a typical 15' to 18 % the original setback of the structure on this lot, now demolished was included in the average which skews the average setback on the side of the street; the proposed setback is consistent with the north (facing) side of Burlingame Avenue; for these reasons there is no problem with the front setback variance request. The conditional use permit for the windows in the accessory structure should be permitted since they basically balance the appearance of the structure; and add positively to the structure as a whole and its enjoyment without affecting the neighbors. The height variance requested is minor, aL foot and a half for an area of about 5 square feet, the design is restricted by the narrow width of the lot as well as the narrowness of the street, the variance is necessary to preserve the architectural integrity of the structure and therefore acceptable; the height is a matter of scale, there are a number of tall trees across the street, a tall house on Stanley, so the proposed scale is appropriate and meets the intent of the height limit since the design incorporates several features of the neighborhood. Commission discussion continued: the side setback problem is not caused by the proposed building but by the building built years ago; understand concern of neighbors, but believe that this property owner has the right to do what is appropriate within current code, so will support the location of the garage despite the neighbor's concern; given their age the improvements next door may not last as long -3- Burlingame Punning Commission Minutes August 25, 1997 as the new construction, and when redeveloped they will need to meet the; code requirements in effect at that time. Commissioner Mink noted that there are extraordinary circumstances on the property which apply to all code exceptions requested, the width of the lot and the front setback, and justify exceptions, moreover the project will preserve a property right and not be injurious by being built to current building and fire code requirements, and is consistent with the mass and bulk existing in the neighborhood. For these reasons and the reasons cited by other commissioners he moved approval of the variances and special permit with the conditions listed in the staff report by resolution. C. Wellford seconded the motion suggesting an additional condition that the: wall of the garage adjacent to the side property line be changed from wood siding to cement plaster which will not affect the aesthetics of the structure and will increase the fire safety for the adjacent property. C. Mink agreed to the added condition. On the motion commissioners noted: the height exception is consistent: with discussions with City Council regarding neighborhood compatibility and encouraging better looking structures, the amount of the intrusion is small; if the structures are reversed on the lot, six trees will have to be removed, this design saves them; concerned about grading and insuring drainage to the street. An additional condition was suggested that the property be graded as shown on the site; plan, sheet 1, and checked by the City Engineer before the work on the foundation is begun. The maker of the motion and second accepted the additional condition. Chair Key called for the vote. The commission voted 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) by voice vote to approve the motion with conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 31, 1997, Sheets 1 through 6 with a maximum roof ridge height of 31'-6" as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the house (130.045'), a maximum attic height of 9'-0" as measured from the attic floor to the bottom of the roof beam and an 18' wide garage door shall be placed and maintained in the detached garage; 2) that the construction for the single family dwelling and detached garage shall conform exactly to the height, setbacks, envelope, rooflines, and window placement as shown on the plans date stamped July 31, 1997, Sheets 1 through 6; any change to these features shall require amendment to this permit and a public hearing; 3) that the materials proposed for construction as detailed on the plans (late stamped July 31, 1997, Sheets 1 through 6, shall be used in the construction of the new single family dwelling and garage; 4) that the height of the roof (3l'-6") and the height of the attic space (9'-0") shall be established by a survey and accepted by the City Engineer prior to calling for the framing inspection; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Inspector's July 21, 1997 memos shall be met; 6) that the east wall of the garage adjacent to the side property line shall be finished with cement plaster; 7) that the grading plans shall be checked by the City Engines-,r to insure that all on site drainage is to the public street before a building permit is issued and that the elevations of the grading shall be confirmed on the site by the City Engineer before the construction of the foundation is begun; and 8) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Appeal procedures were advised; it was noted that the next City Council meeting is on a Thursday, September 4, 1997. -4- Buri+++game ping Commission Minutes August 25. 1997 APPEAL OF CITY PLANERS DETERMINATION THAT AN INVESTMENT ADVISORY USE DOES NOT FIT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "FINANCIAL INSTITUTION", LOCATED AT 1475 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (SCOT LENHART, FARALLON PORTFOLIOS, APPLICANT AND MARINA PLISSAK. PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 8.25.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. It was noted that the poor copy was the cover of the document from which the applicant had taken past tenant information; the current status of Ace Reality on the site was discussed, it was noted that the Ace Reality space had moved about on the second floor and is now in another suite, with beauty salon and office apparently occupying some of these suites. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Mr. Lenhart, 1475 Burlingame Avenue, spoke noting that Ordinance 1214 established in 1982 limiting financial institutions on Burlingame Avenue was concerned with parking generated by the number of customers and employees in large businesses like banks; his is a sole practitioner business, in an upstairs location; he feels that the code is out of date to include his type of business since he operates like an attorney which would be permitted. He did not feel that anyone working with Wall Street should automatically be included as a financial institution. He was asked why he did not ask for a special permit instead of a determination since the time was the same. Mr. Lenhart stated that he did not want to pay the fee for a conditional use permit since he felt that sole proprietorships should not be included. In addition., there are no plans for the building so it would have been expensive to prepare plans for submittal. and taken hours to do the paper work. He was asked what he does exactly; portfolio advisor, he has power of attorneys' from his clients and does transactions, buying and selling stocks, through discount brokers for them, he charges an hourly fee rather than a percentage; he also is paid a management fee based on the valuation of the portfolio during the time he manages it. George Demetrius, 3151 Hillside Lane, leasing agent and property manager, spoke. This suite has been vacant for a time, Ace Realty once occupied it, then a security pager system company and an attorney, who is still there. Ace Realty is now in suite C. There was a. sign on the building at the rear for Ace Realty, but it was removed and replaced by a Colton Piano's sign. Now the only Ace Realty sign is on the mail box. The owner of Ace Realty has a current business license but the owner recently died. Suite A has been vacant at least 3 years. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved to uphold the City Planner's classification of this use as a "financial institution" requiring a conditional use permit and recommending that the definition of financial institution" be amended to except single individuals in such businesses. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the motion: three years is too long to retain an entitlement for a non -conforming use so the relationship with a real estate use is moot; feel strongly that someone making stock trades or causing them to happen is not intended to be a financial institution since we can all do this at home today; the intent of financial institution was to encompass more than a single individual; not think the definition should apply to people who only recommend, that is similar to an attorney or accountant; definition needs to be modified because we must follow the code. Commission has no choice given current definition but to require a conditional use permit, request that the motion include a request to City -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Mu+uta Augus! 25, 1997 Council that the definition be amended to except individuals. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. Chair Key called for the vote on the motion, it passed on a 6-1. voice vote (C. Galligan dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised, noting that the next Council meeting would be on Thursday, September 4, 1997. RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: JOHN MICHAEL "MIKE" ELLIS Chair Key presented a Planning commission resolution commending Mike Ellis on his 10 years of service to the city on the Planning commission. C. Ellis addressed the Commission commenting that he had appreciated the opportunity to serve the City; and the City Council's giving him an interesting 10 years. He has had no goals to redo the city but wanted to be reasonable and make reasonable decisions since he never knew when "was" was, and how to keep it the way it "was". Change is always with us and so the target is always moving; so it is best to head for a goal, "the good of the city". He hoped he had not strayed to far from that. He thanked the Council, Commission and staff for their help and was encouraged that the best paperboy he ever had is now on Planning staff and has two projects on the next agenda. His wife, he noted, is sorry to loose her Monday nights off. Meeting Recessed at 9:00 p.m. Meeting Reconvened at 9:30 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS Staff discussed briefly the draft of the 1997 Zoning Code Update included in the packet for the commission's information. The commission directed that for their review the report be divided into three sections and each reviewed independently. When the entire review is complete the Commission's recommendation on the update will go forward to City Council. Commission discussed the draft of the staff memo on change in; the Commission majority vote rule, which they asked to see at the last meeting. By acclimation the commission directed Chair Key and C. Mink to meet and prepare a simpler statement of the reasons why the commission was recommending the change. The commission memo should be included in the council. packet for the September 4, 1997 meeting when the ordinance change will have its second reading. In their discussion Commissioners noted the way abstentions are treated under the current rules is a problem that needs to be fixed, the city council can act on a simple majority; public feels mistreated when they have to have a super majority for action on their project; want to promote a professional look and get business done expeditiously; feel the wording in the current section is vague. Memo should be one page and simply stated. M Burlingame Planning C mmission Minutes August 25, 1997 ADJOURNMENT Chair Key moved adjournment at 9:50 p.m. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. All agreed by voice vote. NMgUTEs8.25 Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary -7-