Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.09.08MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 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 September 8, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the August 25, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR Judy Richmond, 1233 Paloma, introduced herself as a member of the Burlingame Bicycle Cooperative and commented that for them and for herself she would like to ask the Commission to require adequate, accessible bicycle storage facilities in all multiple family dwellings. She feels that this is a basic quality of life issue; there is too much dependence on cars in this country, we should encourage bicycles. She noted that Palo Alto has such an ordinance and gave staff a copy of Palo Alto's regulations. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BOAT PARKING AT 1633 MARCO POLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (HARRY E. DAVI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Is there a history of past complaints about the boat on this site; does this code section apply to other recreational vehicles such as motor homes; has the applicant looked into making the paved strips of turf block; will this additional parking require a curb cut and subsequent loss of on street parking; how would this affect the current on street parking available; what is the lot coverage of the structures now on the lot; what is the height of the boat as mounted on the trailer from adjacent grade to the highest point on the boat. The application was set for public hearing at the September 22, 1997, meeting. -1- APPLICATION FOR A TAKE-OUT PERMIT AT 1112 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (ADAM ROSEN, THE NATURAL EDGE JUICE COMPANY, APPLICANT AND LORENZO & LOUISA KAO, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Will the facility have outside seating; where will the restrooms be to serve this business; who will have access to the rest rooms; some of the exhibits show sandwich signs on the public right- of-way, do they intend to advertise in that way; is this a franchise or will :Mr. Rosen be the operator of this business; what is the relationship between Java Juice, Juice Stop and this business, they are all out of San Mateo, are they connected in some way; would staff provide minutes from previous applications of similar businesses on this block and on Lorton; plans show counters inside, would the applicant be willing not to have them, as well as foregoing tables and chairs and even benches outside; is there still a bench on the city planter in the vicinity of this site; letter from applicant refers to music, sports TV and other entertainment inside, is it their intention to include this at this site. C. Galligan indicated that he has a business relationship with the applicant and would abstain from any debate or action on this application. He felt it was pertinent to know this since there will not be a full commission seated by the next meeting. The item was set for public hearing at the meeting of September 22, 1997. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AT 1801- 1831 BAYSHORE/840 COWAN ROAD, ZONED O-M, (DOLLAR RENT -A -CAR SYSTEMS, INC., APPLICANT AND JAMES CLANG, CRM PROPERTIES, INC., RICHARD W. REED TRUST AND CENTURY INVESTMENTS, INC., PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: clarify which conditions will apply to specific sites and which to all sites, how will the flexibility for the whole use be achieved; what is the city revenue from this site now and what will it be if this project is developed; how many cars are rented from this site now, how many will be rented from it after the changes; O-M district requires that there be a specific site size and that the car rental operator be the sole tenant, how does this apply to the Crossroads Expresso site where there is already one business on the site, is this an existing non -conforming use; they are providing required parking on separate sites, can the .7 acre requirement be met on different sites; have we allowed off site parking in this type of arrangement before; recall that previous use permit on Cowan Road site showed layout that provided for car delivery trucks to loan and unload on site, how is this provided in this application, provide plan to show since not noted on current plans. The item was set for public hearing at the meeting of September 22, 1997. ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, SIDE SETBACK, HEIGHT AND PARKING VARIANCES AT 2104 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (BRUCE AND PAM OLIVIER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 9.8.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions of staff from the commission. -2- Chair Key opened the public hearing. Bruce and Pamela Olivier, property owner and resident at 2104 Hale Drive, spoke addressing the four variance requests noting they have worked hard to make the existing parking work: they repaved the driveway, installed an electric gate and garage door opener, they put two cars in the garage regularly. The location of the very large redwood tree in the rear yard limits their ability to replace the garage with a two car, side by side, structure; the roots of the tree are close to the surface and they would have to move in 2 to 3 feet into the: drip line with foundations for a new structure; this might affect the stability of the entire tree, which is maybe 100 feet tall, and would create a danger for them and their neighbors. Given its size, the redwood tree takes a lot of the yard and they need a safe play area for their 5 year old and baby on the way. There would also be a problem getting into the second parking space of a two car garage; because of the placement of the bay windows on the house, you would have to enter the second space at an angle, it is a straight shot now into the tandem garage. They use their garage regularly because they understand the safety issues of cars parked on a narrow street like Hale. On the height and side setback variance requests they noted: the house was built in 1930 as a two bedroom, two bath house with the existing side, rear and front setbacks; a two bedroom addition was made in the 1970's on the second floor, the house is now functionally obsolescent since its present layout would require that either they or one of their children's bedroom would be on another floor; they looked at several options and this was the only feasible one, since the stairwell is in the center of the house; if the side wall were inset 3.5' it would cut off 50 % of the proposed bathroom and closet space for the new addition, if the bath is moved to the other side there is no seating area in the room and the toilet would have to be separated; they could build a smaller room, but that is not what they are trying to do; want to add a true master bedroom. The present roof has many ridges and gullies, it is a poor design for the redwood tree which sheds a lot, concerned about fire hazard. The building is presently about 31' tall. The Designer Gene Thurston noted that the new roof ridge would be about 1.5 feet higher than the existing and the existing roof is above the maximum 30' allowed today. A number of neighbors spoke: Mary Alice Lewis, 2108 Hale; Charlotte Kiesel, 2105 Hale; Debbie Bliss, 2116 Hale, Tom Seaney, 1433 Vancouver; John Flagger, 1419 Vancouver; Roland Vandermeer, 1436 Vancouver. They noted: support request, would block some sun to their property on the left side of 2104 Hale but they get so much sun now that have to draw blinds at breakfast; the breakfast room is the only room in house affected since it is the only one on that side with windows; her house is built to edge of her property and she has been in the two houses adjacent to her, this addition would cause no loss of light to them either; present residents of 2104 Hale always park in their garage, good neighbors and do not want them to move; lived on street, across from this house, for 22 years, have seen many additions go up, the applicant reviewed and discussed the proposal with her, they have 100% support of neighbors; feel that the project with the variances will be consistent with the neighborhood and they never park on the street; the issue is about neighborhood and community not about variances, if this is disapproved it will tear at the fabric of the neighborhood which has lots of children and a cooperative environment; if this is not approved Bruce and Pam will need to move; the pink Mediterraneans are much worse; variances keep the neighborhood in tact better than a removal and rebuild would, prefer to replacement. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the large tree on the site is an extraordinary circumstance which justifies the parking variance and retention of the existing tandem garage, if the garage were widened it might very well kill the tree. The 35' height exception is also caused, in part, b:y the approximately 5 foot -3- change in grade at the front of the lot since height is measured from average top of curb; the steep roof pitch is needed to match the existing roof. The declining height exception is a different matter, since that ordinance was passed to combat complaints about houses being built too close to property line; it was noted that the lot is pie shaped 50' wide at front, 42' wide at rear and as a result the existing house varied from 2.5 to 3.5 feet from side property line causing; the side set back to vary from 3.5' to 2.5 % however a review of the floor plan shows that by removing 1.5 feet along the side property line the declining height and second floor side setback could be; met without too great an effect on the master bedroom so there does not seem to be extraordinary circumstances with the property to justify the declining height and second story side setback requests. This is a nonconforming building, the city's concern is with bulk, this applicant wants to increase bulk, it could be redesigned to reduce bulk, as it is it will loom over street; the old code was wrong, we have had few complaints since it was changed; the project could be modified to make it better. Agree with parking variance, the tandem garage was done at the time of original construction and is consistent with the on site parking of many houses on Poppy and Hale; the street is 5 feet lower than the first floor of the house, the height variance is needed to make the new addition consistent with the existing structure, so the height variance is acceptable; burden on property owner to show why cannot build within declining height and side setback, present neighbor may feel alright about it but future neighbors may feel it is a problem; with a little design rework these two variances could be met. The height variance is needed so that the new roof in front can meet the line of the existing roof behind it. Strongly influenced by the neighbors testimony about their feelings about the neighborhood and its environment and how it functions; the existing first floor is 3 feet and the second floor is only a foot into the setback, to remove it could affect the integrity of the whole property and is asking too much; on the declining height encroachment Ms. Lewis noted that the effects are minimal on her property, so must look at the whole project and the applicants needs; for that reason favor all four variance requests. C. Deal moved to approve the parking variance for one covered parking space and a height variance for 35 feet to deny of the variances for declining height envelope and second story side setback with one additional condition, that there not be an increase in bedrooms beyond the five in this application without returning to the Planning Commission, with the other conditions as shown in the staff report and by resolution. In discussion on the motion it was noted that the parking variance is mitigated by the tandem garage as shown on the plans, would like to add to the new condition that if there should be any change to the Floor Area Ratio, the tandem garage, the 2200 SF and the five bedrooms as shown on these plans that the variances should be revoked and the project reviewed by the Planning Commission. C. Deal agreed to the revised conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 12, 1997, sheets 1 through 3 and sheets 5 though 7 and sheet 4 date stamped August 28, 1997, except that the second story of the structure shall comply with all the requirements of the declining height envelope and second floor four foot side setback as set out in the R-1 zoning district regulations effective in 1997; 2) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed a height of 35'-0" as measured from the average elevation at the top of curb along Hale Drive (elevation + 1.021'), and that the top of the second floor and the final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds, and prior to final framing and roofing inspections; should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point in the construction it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height, 35'-0", shown on the approved plans; -4- 3) that the left side property line shall be surveyed to verify the setback of the existing first floor; 4) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and Chief Building Official's August 4,1997, memos shall be met; 5) that the house shall remain as approved with a maximum of five bedrooms, a 33'-0" long 10'-4" wide tandem garage accessible for parking two cars, a FAR in the primary structure of .503 and a maximum of 2200 SF of lot coverage and any redesign of this project or future addition to the house or garage which increases or changes any of the development on this property shall cause the variances herein granted to be suspended and application to the Planning Commission shall be required; and 6) 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 then seconded by C. Wellford. Further discussion on the motion: should commission consider denying the declining height and side setback variances without prejudice so that the applicant could resubmit revised plans in less than a year; if were to consider denial without prejudice we need to direct applicant about what looking for in revision to these items; if they can not make room addition without encroaching into setback and declining height they need to document explicitly why and resubmittal should be made within 30 days. C. Deal amended the motion to deny the declining height envelope and second story side setback without prejudice. C. Wellford, the second, also accepted the denial without prejudice amendment to the motion. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion made including its amendments which added one condition and moved approval of the parking and height variances, denying without prejudice the declining height envelope and second story side setback variances. The motion passed 5-1 (C. Coffey dissenting). Following the action it was noted that if the applicant wished to resubmit on the declining height and side setback variances he should also include a plan showing how the addition would look if it complied with the two setback requirements. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR NUMBER OF BUILDINGS AND 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 AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Reference staff report, 9.8.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the: request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked if some of the units were built without required planning and building approvals, staff said yes, the burden is on the property owner to provide evidence that units were built with proper permits; two separate buildings are required, is this non -conforming, no, a variance is required for dwellings built in two structures today, the variance is required because illegal construction is evaluated as if it were new; was covered parking required in 1973, yes; is the building at the rear considered an accessory structure; there is a skylight within 10 feet of property line, no not an accessory structure, it is a dwelling unit which is part of primary use. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Rich and Maureen Harber, property owners, spoke noting that the listing did not call these units illegal but did "not warrant the legality of the units"; when they bought the property went through the records, did not see anything that said that the units were illegal; they are existing non -conforming units. The statement made at an earlier meeting that the units were -5- installed 10 years ago is false, two previous owners have stated that units were there when they owned the property which goes back more than 10 years; believes that the units were existing non -conforming since 1940 when the cottage was built behind the main building. Soon after the garage at rear was built it was converted to a living unit. If put parking back, the garage would be 18' wide and would not be big enough for two cars, the backup requirements would also cause: the existing parking to be unusable; Fred Hinkey, the last owner, did a substantial remodel including replacing the toilet and sink, so cannot date from typical items. Complaining neighbor wanted him to plant a garden and paint the side of the building for him so he would not come tonight; water nun off from the site was a problem, went out of his way to solve, and then neighbor began to ask him to do other things. The neighbor who started all this knew when previous owner did work, there was a permit for changing out cabinets; they are able to bring the units up to code, they can move the skylights 10 feet from property line to the other side of the ridge; window looking into neighbors yard will be removed and his privacy increased; did not buy at a discounted rate, there were multiple offers and they were the high bidder; one neighbor with the only R-1 zoned lot on the block has complained about parking, would be willing to put in leases that tenants can only have one car, real estate lawyer indicates that they can do this legally; it would keep the parking situation as it is; the property cannot be expanded any more and the units can be traced back at least 25 years, there was no requirement to disclose before that; there are no city records, we need a meeting of the minds so that we can continue to use property as it is in good faith. The following spoke in opposition to the project: Dave and Sally Schnell, 924 Chula Vista, Jay DeWolf, 1212 Edgehill, Margie Ungar, 1200 Edgehill. In their testimony they noted: there are only three single family homes left on this block that are owner occupied; dispute began with unsightly storage in sideyard, he then used one tenant parking space for his personal van; he did not live on the site; dumped some old paint and chemicals on the site which washed down into their vegetable garden, fence blew down and he put in levy to stop drainage on to neighbors property; the city attorney enforced and these things stopped; now have an adversarial relationship that maybe we should not be in. Do not know if requiring one car per tenant is enforceable, probably depends upon who rents there; not want to see whole building removed to get one space, maybe one could be added on the side or in front instead; building is painted a number of different colors, would like it to be painted one uniform color; narrow strip about 3 feet along their side property line would like to plant and maintain; would like window in wall at side property line closed to provide privacy in his rear yard; have lived next door since was a kid, the units were converted a long time before 1983, improvement was maybe 3-5 years before previous owner sold the property. Problem is on street parking, fair amount of parking on street regularly; began as three units increased to 4, lets keep it at least to three; better if parking provided is behind the structure so not see it; people park all over the block, not know which are renters; if slipped in a additional unit, does that make it OK; potential is at least 6 cars now; to remove garden in front of house would have a terrible impact on the neighborhood; property owners in area feel differently than renters; did not know what neighborhood was buying into when bought house. In support: Sandra Johnson, 922A Chula Vista, lived in this unit 6 years, other tenants also long term; the apartment is tiny, don't know how more than one person could live there; currently 4 cars parked in back she is first in and out; she will keep her window on the side property line closed on the week- end if she can keep it. Applicant noted: that R-3 does not mean 3 units, they did not try to slide anything in, they knew exactly what they were buying, he is a contractor and examined the property before he bought it; sold a property in Monterey and needed to reinvest in short time frame for tax ral exemption; construction is close to being legal; was ignorant on parking requirements; there are cars in front of neighbors house all the time, not from these tenants; reluctant to add parking in front,will not look good; ask Commission to establish these units as non -conforming. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: C. Wellford commented that he would abstain from this action since he knew the applicant. It was noted that there were five commissioners remaining; for action, and a motion must pass by 4 votes since council's recent change to the voting rules would not be effective until October 4, 1997 applicant had no objection. Commission decided to continue with the action. Further discussion: Bothered by the variance for dwellings in two buildings since the provision would go with the land indefinitely, cannot accept; if it is an existing non -conforming situation a variance would not be necessary; could propose some kind of sunset to variance, yes; compelling that we have an applicant who understands the trades and real estate and knows what the documents mean; know someone did something after 1954, now there are two units in the front and two in the back; with present configuration all tenants must back cars out onto the public street which is not allowed in R-3 zone; cannot park four cars on site, property is built to property line, window in 922 A must be removed to meet fire requirements; there is no open space on site, do not want to legalize situation by giving variances. Could consider sunset in 10 years, but neighbors would have to put up with for 10 years, improper conversion, result in hardship to tenants; *this condition has existed for a long time and should have been dealt with before; two units original construction, one more added in front building in 1950's, the three nonconforming units and three parking spaces provided on site for them; the two separate structures are a part of the existing non -conforming situation since 1954; covered parking was not required until after 1954, so three units have been there 40 years and it is too late to required abatement now; the light and air, and size of the forth unit at the rear make it questionable; like the sunset idea for variance approval with 10 years to figure out how to reuse the site. Based on the evidence heard believe this to be a non -conforming situation, and that: it needs to be brought up to code; the parking is not practical, but parking is not a problem because of the small size of the units; city can't do anything to keep owners or tenant from owning vehicles; problem with sunset is if one tenant is still there would have to leave then, and it would be a greater hardship if they were older; sunset would give notice to all tenant that time is limited and they could make plans; there is just one car too many from the site; real problem is unit 922 A, if it were removed there would be three units and three parking spaces and the property would be returned to the existing non -conforming condition. C. Deal moved that the conditions be amended with a condition establishing; a sunset date commencing 10 years from the date this action is final, and at that time the unit designated 922A shall be eliminated from the property and the square footage occupied by it shall be converted to useable open space for the three remaining units; three parking spaces shall be maintained on the property for the use of the three remaining units on the site, 920A, 920B and 92213; the variances are based on the plans submitted with this application and the square footages shown; there shall be no increase in the number of units nor size of the buildings or units, no accessory structures may be added and if the buildings are demolished both the sunset agreement and the variances shall cease and the site shall be developed in conformance with all code requirements in effect at that time. The motion included the other conditions in the staff report and action by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 Comments on the motion: clarify the motion to include that no accessory structures may be added to the site, C. Deal agreed; should the motion include limiting tenants to one car, CA noted that he did not want the city to become involved in enforcing such a condition; could the fourth unit be continued after 10 years if the parking were covered, commissioners decided it would be better not to do so. Chair Key called for the vote and asked C. Deal to restate the motion. C. Deal summarized that the motion was to added a condition that would have the variances for number of buildings and parking cease in 10 years at which time unit 922A would be removed and the site of that unit would be converted to on site open space for the remaining units; that there would be no more than three units on the property from that time forward and if there was an increase in the square footage of the units or other square footage added, the option to retain the forth unit for 10 years and the three units after that would go away, the sunset agreement would cease, and the property would have to be developed according to all code requirements in effect at that time. The conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 10, 1997 sheets 1-6 (location map, site plan, floor plan 920A and 920B, existing floor plan 922A and 922B, floor plan and electrical 922A, Section A); 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's memo dated June 13, 1997 and the Fire Marshal's June 16, 1997 memo shall be met so that the existing units including 922A shall comply with all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, 1995 edition; 3) that based on the June 10, 1997, plans unit 922A shall be removed within ten years time (by June 10, 2007) and the area of the site occupied by this unit shall be converted to open space useable by the other tenants as approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector; 4) that the variance for parking for unit 922A and for providing dwelling units in two buildings in the R-3 zoning district shall expire in the year 2007 so that if this site is redeveloped for multiple family housing in the future the new project must meet all the requirements of the applicable zoning district in effect at that time; in the interim period between the year 2007 and any reconstruction, the three remaining units and three on -site parking spaces serving them shall be considered nonconforming; and 5) that if before the year 20,07, there is any increase in the square footage of the dwelling units and/or buildings on this site or any other construction, the opportunity to retain the fourth unit for 10 years (to the year 2007) and to retain the nonconforming 3 dwelling units on the site shall be voided, and the property shall be reconstructed within all the code requirements in effect for the zoning district at that time. With this understanding of the content of the motion the commissioners voted on the motion by roll call 5-0-1 (C. Wellford abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT :FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1404 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). and APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1404 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 9.8.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the: request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirteen conditions were recommended for consideration. The 9.4.97 memo from the City Attorney regarding the CC&Rs was added to the conditions of approval. Commission asked if these two related items could be heard at a single hearing and acted on in a single motion; the CA responded, yes. -8- amended 10.10.97 Comments on the motion: clarify the motion to include that no accessory structures may be added to the site, C. Deal agreed; should the motion include limiting tenants to one car, CA noted that he did not want the city to become involved in enforcing such a condition; could the fourth unit be continued after 10 years if the parking were covered, commissioners decided it would be better not to do so. Chair Key called for the vote and asked C. Deal to restate the motion. C. Deal summarized that the motion was to added a condition that would have the variances for number of buildings and parking cease in 10 years at which time unit 922A would be removed and the site of that unit would be converted to on site open space for the remaining units; that there would be no more than three units on the property from that time forward and if there was an increase in the square footage of the units or other square footage added, the option to retain the forth unit for 10 years and the three units after that would go away, the sunset agreement would cease, and the property would have to be developed according to all code requirements in effect at that time. The conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 10, 1997 sheets 1-6 (location map, site plan, floor plan 920A & 920B, existing floor plan 922A & 922B, floor plan & electrical 922A, Section A); 2) that each unit shall have only one room eligible for use as a bedroom, and any change to the number of bedrooms or number of units shall require additional parking variances for at least both the number of spaces and covered parking; 3)that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's memo dated June 13, 1997 and the Fire Marshal's June 16, 1997 memo shall be met; 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. With this understanding of the content of the motion the commissioners voted on the motion by roll call 5-0-1 (C. Wellford abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1404 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). and APPLICATION FOR TE14TATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1404 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 9.8.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirteen conditions were recommended for consideration. The 9.4.97 memo from the City Attorney regarding the CC&Rs was added to the conditions of approval. Commission asked if these two related items could be heard at a single hearing and acted on in a single motion; the CA responded, yes. E Chm. Key opened the public hearing. Amir Shahmirze, 10 Rollins Road, Millbrae, was present to answer questions. The balconies for each unit total 75 SF. Commission advised Mr. Shahmirze that the maintenance of the common area should be referred to in the CC&Rs to clarify whose responsibility the maintenance is, the owner's or the homeowner's association. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Wellford commended the applicant, noting the details of design are commensurate with the surrounding neighborhood and views. Based on those facts in the staff report he made a motion to approve this condominium permit with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 19, 1997, -8- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 Chm. Key opened the public hearing. Amir Shahmirze, 10 Rollins Road, Millbrae, was present to answer questions. The balconies for each unit total 75 SF. Commission advised Mr. Shahmirze that the maintenance of the common area should be referred to in the CC&Rs to clarify whose responsibility the maintenance is, the owner's or the homeowner's association. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Wellford commended the applicant, noting the details of design are commensurate with the surrounding neighborhood and views. Based on those facts in the staff report he made a motion to approve this condominium permit with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 19, 1997, sheets A-1 through A-3, and Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map sheet 1 of 1 (date stamped August 19, 1997); 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50 % of the lot area and any increase in the lot area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission 3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 34'-7" as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (18.6'), and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 4) that the loft area in units B1, B2 and B3 shall not have a door and shall be built with an open is design as shown on the floor plans, sheet A-1, date stamped August 19, 1997, and that any change in the loft level floor plan will require a parking variance from the Planning Commission; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 19 and September 2, 1997 memos, the Chief Building Official's August 18, 1997 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 21, 1997 memo, the Parks Director's August 20, 1997 memo and the City Attorney's September 4, 1997 memo regarding the draft CC & R's shall be met; 6) that one (1) guest parking stall (9'x20') shall be designated at the rear of the site and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 7) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 8) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 9) that the minimum garage door width for each unit shall be 16'-0", that the on grade parking garages shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 10) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parkin; and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 11) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; 12) that an approved and recorded access and backup easement shall be required and shown on the tentative map prior to issuance of a building permit; and 13) the this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 The commission then recommended approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to City Council. The motion on the condominium permit and tentative map was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 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). Reference staff report, 9.8.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. A fax from the applicant, James E. Ingram and a letter from neighbors in favor of the project were read into the record. Is the purpose of condition 4 to notify applicant that any change in future signage would require an amendment by the Planning Commission, yes. Commissioner Deal stated he has a business relationship with the applicant and will abstain from discussion and vote. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Roberta and Karim Salina, property owners, spoke stating that they intend to make all the awnings uniform, all dark green with brass letters on the second floor and white letters on the first floor; tenant want black, white, and gold banners, property owners prefer to coordinate with other signs and have green and white banners; asked for signage on the second floor based on number of tenants there, the blank awnings are over windows in common areas like bathrooms and stairwells; second floor tenants need the identification from the street provided by these signs; businesses on the first and basement levels which do not have street frontage will be able to have banners; want to keep this building as a location for "mom and pop" stores who need identification to complete with the corporate stores elsewhere on the street; the signs have been on the second floor awnings for a long time, did not realize that they were illegal until the Ben and Jerry's application. Doug Studebaker, Tribeca, spoke noting that their store will be located on the lower level, they were attracted to become tenants because of the appearance of the building; they support a plan to change the signage; this is not the time to change the color scheme, the plan will make it uniform and create a beautiful image on the outside of the building; they want a viable business, need good identification particularly since they will be open on Sunday and are in the basement. The applicant continued that they would not like to be limited in the awning color, would always be the; same and a good color but want flexibility to change color to keep up with the times; discussed why chose the particular numbers of second floor awning signs on each frontage, used only the awnings over windows in specific tenant spaces, a few were required because of lease agreements; commissioners noted that some tenant spaces have more than one window, what will happen if the space is divided in the future; there is a directory sign in the lobby but no one looks at it. It was noted that this was a complete report and the commission appreciated that. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 Commission comments: this is a high class, handsome building with retail space for small businesses vital to the downtown, the master signage program approved in 1986 probably needs up dating. Fundamentally it needs to be amended; the awning signs have been there for 10 years, think its amazing the property owner is willing to give up the number that he is; he is trying to conform to the sign code; several awnings need paint and repair; the banner signs requested are in good taste, Banana Republic is a good example; the individual identification is important for stores without street frontage; feel that condition 4 regarding future changes and resubmittal is too restrictive; banners are no problem; from an aesthetic point of view prefer little or no signage on the second floor, but recognize the nature of the building and its internal focus, therefore not want signage on some of the second floor awnings and not on others, should be on all or none; size for awnings 2' by 6' is excessive and larger than any of the signs on the awnings now; suggest that we allow signage on all awnings but a maximum of 6 inch letter height and maximum of 4 square feet per awning; hope that Ben and Jerry's will go along with the program; comfortable with color scheme as proposed if give flexibility we will not know what it means; if give flexibility in selection of awning color it should include wording to the effect "as reviewed or approved by staff"; applicant noted that Ben and Jerry will trade green awning for blade sign on corner; it was noted that that item is not a part of this action, it has not been noticed; the CA commented that the signs belong to the property owner and compliance with the program is not the city's problem; the city can require a specific color of sign, have done with many hotels and other businesses. C. Deal moved to approve the amended master signage program for 1375 Burlingame Avenue for all frontages as shown on the modified Table A allowing signage on all second floor awnings with a maximum letter height of 6 inches and sign area of 4 square feet on each awning; area and number signage on the first floor awnings shall not be changed; all awnings on the building, first and second floors, shall be the same color with the same color contrasting text; and the awning color and contrasting text color shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner; with condition 4 amended to read that any change to the lettering size, number or placement of signs shall require an amendment to this master signage program and with conditions 3 and 5 from the staff report, by resolution. Motion was seconded by C. Key. The motion was approved 6-0 on a voice vote with the following conditions: 1) that the Master signage program for this site shall constitute those signs described in Table A, Proposed Sign Program, 1375 Burlingame Avenue as amended September 8, 1997, allowing signage on all second floor awnings with the limitation on all second floor awnings of a maximum letter height of 6 inches and maximum of 4 square feet on each awning, that all lettering shall be painted with a contrasting color and all awnings and banner signs on the building, first and second floors, shall be of one color and that awning color and lettering color shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning prior to installation; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 21, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that any changes to the lettering size, number or placement of signs shall require an amendment to this master signage program; and 4) that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Code requirements 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Karen Key and passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes PLANNER REPORTS September 8. 1997 CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the City Council at their meeting on September 4 1997, including referring, with some guidance, the issue of food establishment regulation in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the council. Commission suggested that this item be agendized for their next meeting. C. Galligan noted that the commission seemed to be receiving an unusually large number of Minor Modification requests. He was concerned that these applicants be aware that when they exceed lot coverage without providing a two car garage they are limiting future addition of bedrooms to their properties to a number which would require fewer than two covered parking spaces. He felt that the commission should discuss this at a later date. CA noted that such action may require that Council adopt an ordinance. Because of the late hour Commission deferred discussion of neighborhood consistency and the first part of the 1997 zoning code update to their next meeting. These same staff reports will be included in the packet for the September 22,1997 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. MINUTES9.8 conditions for 920 Chula Vista amended 11.10.97 PC meeting -12- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary