Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.04.08MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Ellis on Monday, April 8, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. Acting Chairman Ellis spoke regarding Ruth Jacob's retirement from the Commission. Motion was made by C.Key recommending approval of a resolution expressing appreciation and commendation for Ruth's outstanding service to the community and the Planning Commission of this City. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and carried unanimously. He then introduced and welcomed the newly appointed Mike Coffey noting his term of office concludes in the year 2000. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford, Coffey and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: Planner Leah Dreger; Acting City Attorney Natalie West; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the March 25, 1996 meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA It was noted for the record that Item #7, 45 Starr Way is continued. The order of the. agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR AN ANTENNA EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING ROOF MOUNTED ANTENNA AT 2925 ARGUELLO DRIVE, ZONED, R-1, (ANTHONY AND HELEN SOOKLARIS. PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS) Requests: Commissioners would like names and addresses of neighbors to be contacted for their own purposes; is this installation height necessary; when and who (name of company) erected antenna; how does antenna ordinance fit within the Hillside ordinance; what are the recent Federal Communications Commission requirements; why is the present location the only location for this dish; nature of programming. Item set for hearing April 22, 1996. -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996 ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. APPLICATION FOR PARKING, EXISTING SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 801 PALOMA, ZONED, R-1, (JEFFERY P AND J. P. LINDSTROM, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. Planner Dreger discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. John Matthews and Jeff Lindstrom explained the project and answered the commissions' questions. They explained this is a phased project and all previous work has been done with permits, however, the rules have changed since the project was started and now stipulate any addition greater than 50 percent is considered new construction. The plans were drawn by the owner in 1994 and the architect was consulted for the concept and to assure the waste/water lines would be placed properly for the additional phases. The house is already over lot coverage and adding more covered parking increases than non -conformity. When the addition is complete the garage will be returned to a garage use. Had the applicant considered reducing the length of the existing garage to accommodate an un-covered space in the driveway - Applicant noted that a change of that sort would be too costly. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented on the dilemma with plan check of a phased project noting the Building Department will not allow it. The granting of this application will not be detrimental to property or the vicinity and does not appear to be an effort to circumvent the code. He then made a motion to approve this side setback, lot coverage and parking variances, by resolution, with the following amended and added conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department (sheets A-2 and A-3 date stamped March 12, 1996; sheet A-1 and 81/2" x 11" sheet date stamped April 1, 1996); 2) that any increase in bedrooms over the 3 existing shall require an amendment to this application in front of the Planning Commission; 3) that the 10' x 20' uncovered brick paved parking area in the side setback between the house and the garage shall be recognized as approved on -site parking and shall be fenced off from the rear yard area; 4) that the existing fencing in front of the existing garage and new uncovered parking space shall be removed to keep access to both the uncovered space and the garage clear to the sidewalk; 5) that any additional square footage proposed on this property shall require an amendment to this special permit application and all new floor area shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance at that time; 6) that the garage shall be returned to use as a garage; and ') that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, 1995 edition. Commission discussed a preference to add a condition tailoring this variance to the existing three bedrooms and square footage of the house. Further, that conditions be added requiring the removal of the existing fence in front of the garage and proposed parking space, and the proposed parking space be fenced to separate its use from the rear yard area and the use of the garage be reinstated. The maker of the motion and the second concurred. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996 Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a 6-1 (C. Mink dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. APPLICATION TO AMEND PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRING REMOVAL OF A SHOWER FROM AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BY THE YEAR 2000 AT 204 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LESLIE AND FRANK DOYLE, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS) Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. Planner Dreger discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Leslie Doyle, 204 Bayswater Avenue, the applicant explained the request. Lizette D'Almeida, 385 Hatch lane, Foster City, realtor for the applicant spoke in favor of the request. A picture of the interior of the structure as it was when the remodel was taking place was shown to the Commission and entered into the record. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that a use permit is required for a home occupation in an accessory structure, and it was further proposed a condition be added stating no new accessory structure or increase of square footage of the main structure shall be permitted without an amendment to this permit. There was also discussion regarding the sale of the house allowing another family to enjoy this house will not be feasible with this condition 'clouding the sale", he then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with the following modified and added conditions: 1) that the existing project shall remain as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 23,1990 including a toilet and shower in the accessory structure; 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, 1995 edition; 3) that this detached building shall never be used as a rental unit, for accessory living quarters sleeping fttrpeses, or for a home occupation without amendment to this conditional use permit; and 4) that no new accessory structure or increase of square footage of the main structure shall be permitted without an amendment to this permit. Motion was seconded by C. Key and failed on a 3-4 (Cmsrs. Deal, Mink, Wellford and Ellis dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Deal then moved there be no action taken and the previous Planning Commission action on this application stand. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and was approved on a 4-3 (Cmsrs. Galligan, Key and Coffey dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission adjourned for a 5 minute break at 8:50 P.M. and reconvened at 8:55 P.M. -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996 4. APPLICATION FOR A NEW 18 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 107-121 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED, R-3, (SUNSHINE HOLDING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) A) NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND 477-P B) CONDOMINIUM PERMIT C) TENTATIVE MAP Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. Planner Dreger discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. CE Erbacher reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map. Acting Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Neil Gabbay, 19 South B Street #7, San Mateo, architect; Charles Kavanaugh, 470 Chatham Road, surveyor; Alex Abela, 910 Chadbourne Avenue, Millbrae, agent for Sunshine Holdings, Inc.; and Roger Young, 1250 Squirrel Creek Place, Auburn, traffic consultant, were present to answer questions and explain the project. Cathryn Baylock, 1527 Newlands; Lynn Parketer, Ill El Camino Real; Rocky Cologne, 111 El Camino Real, Dorothy Murray, 1525 Newlands; Howard Page, 111 Central Avenue; Mike Mustichia, 1533 Carolyn Avenue; Joan Manini, 1521 Newlands; Deborah Eberly, 1529 Carol; Steve Latner, 111 El Camino Real and Joe Baylock, 1527 Newlands, spoke in opposition to the application. The issues raised were; the setback calculations based upon the change of lot orientation; front vs. rear; the address change from El Camino Real to Newlands; would like proof of financing prior to demolition; the accuracy of the 1986 traffic study was questioned; asked that a moratorium be issued until a new traffic study of the area could be concluded showing the additional end trips; problem regarding sewer overflow; the slope, ingress, egress and sight line of the driveway are all seen as possible safety issues; guest parking is expected to be a more significant problem with the addition of this many bedrooms; why is there not an average height requirement as there is an average setback requirement; Neil Gabbay displayed the color renderings of the project. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. DISCUSSION: Planner Dreger explained the average setback measurement requirements and the lot configuration. Commission questioned the 22.6% slope to the Newlands driveway; the required city maximum is 20%. CE noted he was unaware of any sewer problems because none have been reported. Mitigation to El Camino Real entrance/exit is to make the driveway wider and back up area provided needs to be fuller; if Newlands entrance/exit concept is used the slope must be reduced by making the ramp longer; 9' wide setback along interior side is not adequate to meet common open space requirements; 3 or 4 more guest spaces to be added to the 5 already shown; proof of financing prior to demolition is a good idea; any sewage complaints should be addressed to the City Engineer; discussed inappropriateness of code allowing the orientation of front, side and rear setbacks to be changed when lots are merged, this defeats purpose of open space requirements; Newlands is a better choice for entrance and exit because it provides the width of an intersection to negotiate turns onto El Camino Real, which the El Camino Real entrance/exit proposal would not provide, this project must either reduce need for parking by reducing number of units or increase parking provided; ; guest spaces cannot be behind gate, 5 guest spaces do not address the entertainment impacts of a project this size; creative minds will solve the discrepancy between losing parking to a longer, gentler slope from Newlands and providing additional guest spaces; make sure project does not violate the General Plan open space element. 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996 A) NEGATIVE DECLARATION C. Galligan, based on the information supplied in the staff report and provided by the applicant, moved to approve this negative declaration ND 477-P. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. B) CONDOMINIUM PERMIT C. Galligan moved denial of this condominium permit application, without prejudice, which allows the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a revised project within a reasonable time. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. The direction given by Commission on the motion is as follows: 1. provide 5 additional guest spaces beyond the 5 shown, totalling 45 required spaces. 2. entrance and exit off of Newlands with driveway slope designed to City Engineer's satisfaction. 3. change proposed interior side setback back to rear (based upon existing configuration of the 4 lots being merged) and provide a 15' rear setback - consequently - Newlands returns to being the exterior side and should have a side setback appropriate for a corner lot, all other setbacks will change as well; 4. any conflict between the Newlands entrance/exit and the number of units vs. additional guest parking spaces must be worked out by the applicant with all City Departments. The motion for denial without prejudice was passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C) TENTATIVE MAP C. Mink recommended denial of this Tentative Parcel Map to City Council as the plans shown and denied without prejudice are included by reference. Motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. 5. APPLICATION FOR A TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT AT 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED, C-1, SUBAREA A, (ZEKA GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER AND ROSTI #7. INC., APPLICANTI. Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. Planner Dreger discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996 Acting Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Ralph Gentile, architect, 7250 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, and John Kaufmann, 11690 Montana, Los Angeles, representing Rosti's, were present and answered questions. The majority of their business is take-home not take-out. The reason for the large number of kitchen staff is because their food preparation is labor intensive. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented that this is a full functioning restaurant not "fast-food" and people can either eat the food there or take it home. There are no sidewalk tables. An encroachment permit for tables and chairs would have to be applied for through City Council application and would require an amendment to the conditions of this use permit. It was suggested a condition be added prohibiting sidewalk tables and chairs. The maker of the motion and the second concurred. C. Deal noted this take-out permit will not be detrimental to the downtown area because of the style in which this restaurant is operated. He then moved approval, by resolution, with the following added conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 29, 1996 including in this single food establishment allowed on this site by City action March 6, 1995, 3230 SF of food establishment on the first or ground floor, 1138 SF of storage or employee changing rooms at basement level, and 1685 SF for seating outdoors in the patio area, heating may be provided in the patio area; 2) that this food establishment area shall not be divided into areas operated by more than one business and shall not be expanded in square footage without securing a conditional use permit from the City of Burlingame; 3) that the business shall install in front of the premise, at locations approved by the City Engineer, at least two trash receptacles of the type recommended by the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Study within 30 days of commencing operation; 4) that the trash receptacles installed inside and outside the place of business shall be emptied and maintained regularly and a trash area large enough to accommodate daily accumulation of trash shall be provided on site and regularly maintained; 5) that, in addition to their regular BFI pick up, the business shall arrange for and shall pay for a regular BFI trash pick up on Sunday commencing from the day they commence operations at this site; 6) that the business shall have an employee regularly patrol the front of this business site and the public sidewalk and gutter within fifty (50') feet of the entrance in either direction for litter at least twice a day, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by the City Engineer; 7) that the business regularly clean the sidewalk, curb and gutter in front of their premise and, if the level of cleanliness becomes a problem to the city, clean the sidewalk on a schedule as required by the City Engineer; 8) that sidewalk tables and chairs be prohibited; 9) that all deliveries to this site shall be made from the driveway at the rear of the site accessed from California Drive and shall be made between 7:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., and no delivery vehicles shall be stored in or parked overnight in this driveway area; 9) that no deliveries of food to customers shall be made by this business from this site without an amendment to this permit; and 10) that this take-out,permit shall be reviewed in one year (April 1997) and each two years thereafter for compliance with these conditions and/or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 6-1 (C. Galligan dissenting) voice/roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. I IN Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996 6. APPLICATION FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW WING TO THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AT 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE, ZONED, C-3, (CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. Planner Dreger discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect, 60 E. Third Avenue, San Mateo explained the project and noted that the plans show the building's existing first floor at a line equal to grade for height measurement clarification. There -were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink noted this application will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, he then made a motion to approve this height variance, by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 29, 1996 Sheets A.0, ALI, A1.2, A2.1„ A2.2, A2.3, A3.1, A3.3 and A3.4; 2) that the height of the new conference wing shall not exceed 46'-0" from grade to roof (referenced from Murchison Drive side of building); and 3) that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO REPAIR AT 45 STAR WAY, ZONED, M-1, (N. & S. CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNERS AND WILLIE DAVIS AND RICHARD AMBROSIO, APPLICANTS) CONTINUED TO AN UNSPECIFIED DATE 8. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MINOR AUTO REPAIR AND PAINTING AT 1333 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED, M-1, (REEDY AND HOOVER INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER AND DAVID LOVECCHIO DBA QWIK FIX, APPLICANT)_ Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. Planner Dreger discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. David and Karri Lovecchio, 103 Mesa Verde Way, San Carlos, applicant, explained his project. Steve Reedy, 3103 Hillside Drive, property owner spoke in favor of the application. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey abstained from discussion and action on this project. Commission discussed the parking configuration. Seven spaces are required. The substandard spaces in the back, if reconfigured; could be converted to fit the required parking, turn spaces #4 and #5 along Marsten Road into 90 degree angles and eliminate spaces #1 and #2. The gated entrance through an alley for pedestrians was discussed. Work is done by appointment only. There are no guests. The parking that is now supposed to be available and is allocated to this site have been used by Michael's Rentals to park U-Haul trucks. -7- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996 C. Galligan moved, based on the information supplied in the staff report and provided by the applicant, to approve this application for a special permit, by resolution, with the following modified conditions: 1) that the uses shall conform to the uses described in this application and shown on the plans dated March 18, 1996, Site Plan and Floor Plan; 2) that any future franchise of Qwik Fix, Inc., will be at a wholly separate location and all vehicles from other sites shall be kept separate from and shall not be fixed at the 1333 Marsten Road, warehouse A location; 3) that there shall be 5 standard parking stalls along the Rollins Road frontage which are to be designated for the exclusive use of Qwik Fix and 1 standard space and 1 disabled accessible space along Marsten Road, totalling 7 spaces (reconfiguration of the parking along Marsten Road shall be at the discretion of the Planning Department); 4) that the conditions in the Fire Marshal's memo dated march 3, 1996 shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. PLANNER REPORTS - Planner Dreger reviewed City Council regular meeting of April 1, 1996. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P. M. MINUTES4.8 Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary In