Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.08.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on August 26, 1996 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink and Wellford Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the August 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were corrected under Staff Present: to read: Fire Marshal, Keith 1�shall Captain, Fire Prevention, Craig Barretta. The minutes were then approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1646 ESCALANTE DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (ANGELA MONG, PROPERTY OWNER AND ROBERT FAN, APPLICANT). Requests: show permits for previous addition; show FAR calculation of habitable area v. entire area and FAR of existing garage and a garage that meets current code dimensions; a frame outlining the addition will be up for viewing purposes labor day weekend, clarify what views from inside adjacent properties are affected; Item is set for public hearing at the meeting of September 9, 1996. 2. APPLICATION FORA SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT AT 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, (PETER S. UMLAND, UMLAND PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER AND MICHAEL T. O'LEARY, BURLINGAME SMOKE SHOP, APPLICANT) Requests: include summary of results of staff's take-out survey; Item was set for public hearing at the meeting of September 9, 1996. -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. APPLICATION FOR TWO SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS TRIGGERED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS; AND A DETERMINATION OF THE POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR THE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT 132 COSTA RICA, ZONED R-1, (CRAIG AND CAROL ROSSI, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Cagy JULY 22, 1996 MEETING. Reference staff report 8.26.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. .Craig and Carol Rossi, 132 Costa Rica Avenue were present. Mr. Rossi explained that they could not live in the house and do the two side setback variances for the living room and chimney. He discussed the requested determination of the point of departure for the declining height envelope noting that as a property owner he should be able to have his point of departure based on the average of however many points along the property line he is willing to pay to get. In any event he feels that using two point works against him since the rear corner of his lot is in a tree well, therefore lower than existing grade. He also asked for the determination because he felt it was right because an average of more than two points is statistically a better picture. Jim Lanier, 128 Costa Rica Avenue spoke in favor of the 132 Costa Rica application commenting that it is a rather modest addition compared to 140 Costa Rica Avenue and he much prefers this proposal. His property is next door on the driveway side. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission Comment: The commissioners decided to act on the variance request first then on the determination for point of departure for declining height, since the determination would affect the building envelope but would not require a variance whatever the determination. C. Deal noted these variance requests were necessary because to remove the portion of the living room and chimney would be an undue burden on the applicant since this portion of the house at the front would not be affected by the remodel which is entirely at the rear of the structure. This lot is 50 feet wide at the front and increases to the rear, it therefore requires a 5 foot setback rather than 4 feet. The applicant also moved the first and second floors of the addition to comply with side setback requirements. He then made a motion to approve these variance applications with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 12, 1996, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshals' August 5 and 11, 1996 memo and the Chief Building Officials' August 5 and 12, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) ,that the face of the exterior north wall for the second story addition at the rear of the site shall be a minimum of 7'-9" from the north side property line; 4) that there shall be no less than 21'-0" between the new detached two car garage and the back of the new addition to the primary dwelling for the purposes of exiting the garage in three maneuvers or less, and if by maintaining the minimum 21'-0" separation the setback to the garage from the rear or side property line is decreased to &A Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 less than V-0" a survey shall be required and accepted by the City Engineer prior to the issuance, of a Building permit; 5) that the right edge of the garage door shall be located within 2778'-6" of the right side property line to facilitate the most desirable exit pathway from both parking spaces; and 6) that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commission then discussed the determination requested by the applicant asking that the point of departure for the declining height envelope be determined using many points, in this instance 19, rather than the two point process that has been used consistently since the measure was enacted. Mr. Rossi in explaining his reasoning stated that the two point process does not take all the topography on the lot into consideration. Commissioners discussed the existing grade on 132 Costa Rica which has only a very slight slope. There are no unusual or exceptional topographical circumstance on this particular lot. The variance process is in place for use on lots where there is an unusual or exceptional circumstance. Using a greater number of points and possibly a survey to determine the declining height envelope could become costly, particularly in the older subdivisions when there are no longer survey markers in place. Using a standard method consistently is the most equitable procedure and staff should continue to follow it. In the unusual case where the two point method is biased by a unique characteristic of a lot, the variance procedure is available. Commissioner Mink, noting the previous discussion moved to direct staff to continue the current, using the two point, method to determine the declining height point of departure on the side property line. The motion was seconded by C. Deal and approved 5-2 (Cmsrs. Galligan and Coffey dissenting) roll call vote. There was discussion about whether this determination would apply to this application only or to all Declining Height Envelope related applications. The maker of the motion clarified that the two point method of calculation is to apply to all applications. The second agreed. Roll call vote was taken on the restated motion. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Galligan dissenting). 4. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE AT 701 PLYMOUTH WAY, ZONED R-1, (JERRY MCDONNELL AND DAWN CUTLER, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Reference staff report 8.26.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. Jerry McDonnell and Dawn Cutler, property owners, were present to explain their application. It was explained that the original plan was submitted before FAR was in effect and the parking requirement was one covered and one uncovered -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 parking space. They were unable to finance that plan and so waited. When they resubmitted for plan check they were not aware of the need for a carport. While the applicants were out of town the comments came back from staff that 2 covered parking spaces were required and the designer added a carport, without their knowledge, to the plan eliminating a large portion of the rear yard. This site is on a corner and therefore has limited rear yard space. Beside taking up most of the rear yard, a carport would be very visible to the neighbor next to the rear property line since the carport would be next to the fence and higher. Presently there is a gate that swings open into the rear yard. One cannot see pedestrians as you leave this gate. In addition, there is no curb cut opposite this gate since it was not intended for vehicular access. Neighbors Franz Mikoleit, 434 Bloomfield, Dalton and Victoria Moyer, 444 Bloomfield and Bill McMonigle, 700 Plymouth Way all spoke in favor of the application. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented on the design of .this master bedroom with den (also counted by staff as a bedroom). The den area is only accessible through the master bedroom and therefore can be considered an adjoining room, making this a four bedroom house needing, if it was not new construction, one covered and one uncovered parking space; the carport would not be an fair solution and there do not appear to be any other viable solutions given the property as it is now. The bedrooms are small and there is no family room so all are unlikely to be used for sleeping. He then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 23, 1996, sheets 1, 2 and 3 with the carport at the rear of the property removed; and 2) that the project shall meet all requirements of the California Building and Fire codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, 1995 edition. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Comment on the motion: Because this is a corner lot with a greater side setback required to blend with the lots fronting on Bloomfield, there is less useable space on the lot; the "den" is less likely to be used as a bedroom since its only access is through the master bedroom; the addition to this house is big enough to trigger new construction requiring two covered and one uncovered parking space, but the reason for that increased parking requirement is to provide for Planning Commission review to determine if the area being added will generate the demand for more parking, in this case the addition as noted before. does not seem to justify the increase in parking on the site; this project exceeds FAR by 110 SF, if this independent action of the designer had not occurred and the construction begun, the project could have been reduced by 110 SF and the den wall opened up 50% and no variance would have been required, unhappy that this came to the Planning Commission in the present circumstances but vote yes with a heavy heart because it was not the property owners doing. Chair called for the vote and the motion was approved 7-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 5. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR APPLIANCE REPAIR AT 1500-A ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED C-1, (MARMORATERRELL, PROPERTY OWNERAND FRANCISCO CALONJE, APPLICANT). Reference staff report 8.26.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Mr. Calonje was present and explained that his workbench and desk would be located separate from the customer area behind the room divider. He is currently working with his sister out of the 737 California location. Gregory Tancer, 1512 Highway Road asked that in general the parking remain on -site and not overflow into the residential neighborhood. He noted however that this was a good use for the Adeline Center. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted this application would not be detrimental to property owners in this neighborhood and is in accord with the General Plan. The second condition should read may be open rather than shall be open 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. He then moved approval of this application, based on the information supplied in the packet and provided by the applicant, by resolution, with the following modified conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 20, 1996, Floor Plan and Site Plan; 2) that the appliance repair shop may be open 7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and closed on Sunday with no more than two employees on site at any one time; 3) that any changes to the hours of operation, number of employees or any other aspects of the business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; 4) that this project shall be subject to the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW RESTAURANT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (JACKIE LAM - BIC DEVELOPMENT. PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) Reference staff report 8.26.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request noting that a building permit would have to be issued before the extension expired, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Jackie Lam, 25258 Buckeye, Castro Valley, the applicant was available for questions. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink noted previous testimony, he moved to approve this extension of a special permit for a new restaurant with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall meet all -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect on the date the building permit is issued; and 2) that all the conditions of approval stated in the August 22, 1995 letter from M. Monroe to Jackie Lam (conditions numbered 1-17) shall be met. The motion was seconded by C. Key and approved 7-0 on a voice vote. VIII. PLANNER REPORTS CP reviewed the report on 1218-1230 Burlingame Avenue and 1209 Donnelly Avenue, she clarified the SF of the mezzanines and that there is adequate parking on site. If there were to be any changes in the use of either mezzanine, the number of standard parking stalls in the rear parking area would have to be increased. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p. m. MINUTES8.26 Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary In