Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.09.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, September 23, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Assistant Fire Chief, Ken Musso MINUTES - The minutes of the September 9, 1996 meeting were corrected to read: Item #1, line 5 was corrected to read: will Euealypws Elm trees be protected; what is the sightg(line. The minutes were then approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY There were no study items. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1128 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JOEL AND JACKIE SKELTON, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). - CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Reference staff report, 9.23.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested. C. Deal abstained from the discussion and vote because of a business relationship with the applicants. -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 Commission discussion: this design does not change or make the existing side setback condition worse; plans for the house make sense but with the improvement it makes the likelihood of any future owner adding a two car garage impossible because of the problem with the backup area from the garage to the extended house; would be more comfortable if the garage were made shorter and put in the rear 30% of the lot addressing the backup issue; the building met setback at the time it was built, not changing; problem is that to meet parking there would need to be a major redesign of the rear corner of the house in order to get two covered parking spaces; concern about the loss of the backyard; this property has along driveway to supplement parking; putting a two car garage in the rear 30% of the lot is not a good solution to protect the rear yard. In light of the discussion the commission chose to separate the side setback variance request form the parking variance and take two actions. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Joel and Jackie Skelton, 1128 Cabrillo Avenue, applicants, were present to explain their application. A letter from the adjacent neighbors stating they have no objections to the application was presented to the Commission. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed the existing condition and determined that the condition is not made worse by this application, however commission choose to separate the side setback variance and the parking variance into two separate motions. C. Mink moved approval of the side setback variance noting the discussion before and that this is a well built house which has been in existence and it is inappropriate to demolish this area to meet setback; 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 August 26, 1996 sheets 1 through 5; and 2) 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 seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a 6-0-1 roll call vote (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. The commissioners then discussed further the parking variance for one covered space noting this is an attractive neighborhood, this family has three children and needs the room to expand and it would be a detriment to both to take away the back yard; city has ordinance to limit overnight parking on street but there is lots of room in the driveway if they need to use it; the neighbors do not seem to object to the present arrangement. C. Wellford then noted that this one car garage is best suited to the existing location and site conditions, to expand it would be detrimental to the use of the rest of the lot. He moved approval of the variance, by resolution, with the same conditions as the previous motion. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 4-2-1 roll call vote (C. Galligan and Mink dissenting and C. Deal Abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 4-2-1 roll call vote (C. Galligan and Mink dissenting and C. Deal Abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 2. APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A FOUR UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1408 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R- 3. (FRANK CONTI. PROPERTY OWNER AND JOHN BELZ APPLICANT) A) CONDOMINIUM PERMIT Reference staff report, 9.23.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. B) TENTATIVE MAP - recommendation to city council Reference staff report, 9.23.96, with attachments. SE Chang discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Public Works comments, and study meeting questions. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. John Betz, 80 Lomita Drive, Mill Valley, was present to answer questions. Mr. Betz explained the location, size and use of the 3' wide decks and provided the commission with a survey of roofs in the area and a color chart for the finish. He explained that a metal roof will last longer is cheaper to build because it weighs less, and is less expensive for the condominium owners to maintain. The removal of the two diseased Elm trees and subsequent replacement, pending CalTrans approval, was discussed. The removal of these trees reduces the sight line problem on El Camino Real. He discussed the fact that there would be an intercom from the entry gates into each unit but no plans were made to have a garage door opener inside each unit. It was also noted that eaves could extend only 24" in this zoning district without being considered in lot coverage. The plans show the eaves at the rear of the site scaling at 4 feet. The applicant noted that this was an error and would be corrected. Concern was expressed about deck maintenance where narrow decks are used for planters because they are not really big enough for people. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. In their discussion the commissioners noted: the door from the unit 3 opens into the garage, possibly affecting parking, it should swing the other way; do not see it as a big problem if for some code reason it cannot, so did want to note it; code requires a minimum private open space, it does not dictate the number, 57 SF is useable and the narrower deck making up the remainder of the private open space benefits the architectural design because it is used to visually break up a long wall and also visually extends the adjacent room. There is sufficient variety among roofing materials in the area that placing a metal roof on this structure will not have an effect, it is in keeping with the style of this building and metal roofs have been used effectively for residential buildings before. This structure, in its design, comes very close to the maximum height allowed (35'), the separation between floors should show 8'-l" instead of 8',concerned about creeping height during construction so the conditions should reflect that the maximum height is 34'-11"; the problem of access and sight lines has been addressed by the poor condition of the elm trees and the need to remove them. One commissioner noted that he agreed except for the metal roof, which may be appropriate in mountainous areas, but he does not see the need to use this material in this area or case. -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 C. Deal moved to approve this condominium permit, by resolution, and recommend the tentative parcel map to the City Council with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted tot he Planning Department and date stamped September 12, 1996; Sheet 1 Floor Plans, Sheet 2 Elevations, Section and Roof Plan, and sheet P-1, Planting Plan; 8 1/2"X 11" Building Section with the maximum height of the structure adjusted to 34'-11"; and date stamped September 3, 1996 Tentative and Final Parcel Map except that the drive way location for El Camino Real shall be as shown on the architectural Sheet 1, First Floor Plan; 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area will 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 134.03' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real for a maximum height of 34'- 11", 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 conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 22, and August 15, 1996 memos, the Senior Civil Engineer's August 29, 1996 memo and the September 17, 1996 Tentative Condominium Map memo, the Park's Director's June 19, 1996 and August 29, 1996 memos and the Fire Marshal's July 22, and August 15, 1996 memos shall be met; 5) that a traffic engineer shall review the sight lines and driveway placement with the removal of the two elms and recommend the best location for the 24" box tree in the north end of the site; 6) that one (1) guest parking stall (8' X 16') shall be designated at the rear of the site and marked on the final map and plans, and shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; the guest stall shall not be enclosed; 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 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 shall be wired inside each unit so that they can open their garage door; 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 of the required parking 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; and 12) 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. Wellford and passed on a 6-1 roll call vote (C. Galligan dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. H Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 3. AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT AT 1118 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A, (LOUISA KAO, PROPERTY OWNER AND SMOOTHIE KING. APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 9.23.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked staff about requiring sidewalk washing and past limitations on deliveries to sites in the area. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Mr. and Ms. Kao, 1108 Burlingame Avenue, property owners, Blake Martinson and Ivan Zweig, 5180 Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jose, the owner/operators of Smoothie King were present to answer questions. Mr. and Ms. Kao explained their business operation in Burlingame. Mr. Zweig responded to the commissioners questions: they are franchisers for this business in 'Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, they have already opened a store in Foster City beside the one in San Jose, they will pressure wash the sidewalks regularly or whatever the city wants; their store in San Jose is a part of a small 8000 SF mall with parking in front; two rest rooms are provided in the basement of the Avenue Arcade building for employees to use, they have not checked with the health department to determine if this is adequate; they could provide toilets on this floor in the Avenue Arcade building if the city wants; gross sales are 60:40 vitamins to smoothies; expect to serve 200 to 250 smoothies a day; smoothie is much cheaper than vitamins; anticipate deliveries by UPS any day, bananas early in the morning; an one major truck supply delivery a week; the major delivery and bananas could be before 9 am. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: the San Jose store front is dominated by the smoothie sign, vitamins seem secondary; the smoothies would generate 200 to 250 people a day too much activity for this block of Burlingame Avenue with no parking, a litter and loitering problem now; no problem with retial vitamin sales, but real focus here is smoothies; this is a fast food outlet, albeit a good food, demonstrated by the big food preparation area and small vitamin sales area; want to maintain the retail mix but don't think take out was intended to be a semi -restaurant use; can't see how this business is different form a bagel shop or Starbucks; see this as a restaurant application with vitamins as a profit center; people will come here first for smoothie not vitamins; this is very much like the proposed hot dog outlet; in this area deliveries should be required to occur before 10 a.m.; because of the attraction to young people see trash and litter from this use spreading to the railroad station and park. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that this is more of a restaurant than retail vitamin use as such it does not maintain the retail mix, it will be detrimental to the other improvements in the area because of its impacts on parking and trash and litter. He then made a motion to deny this special permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and the motion for denial passed 6-1 (C. Galligan dissenting) on a roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 4. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN AT THE HYATT REGENCY, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4, (HTKG DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNERS AND LARRY BUILTA APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 9.23.96, with attachments. CP discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Larry Builta, representing the Hyatt, explained that this amendment to their master sign program changes the number of signs and is caused by the poor mechanical design of the present parapet signs and the fact that their corporate logo has changed. He also noted that customers on Bayshore Highway coming north complained that they cannot find the hotel, so a parapet sign was added. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink noted that the granting of this amendment does not give an exceptional privilege in comparison with what other hotels in the area already have in existence. Also the misplacement of the overpass was noted. He then moved to approve this sign exception amendment application with the following conditions: 1) that the project replacement of two parapet signs and addition of the parapet sign, all on secondary frontages shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 29, 1996; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Officials' September 4, 1996 memo shall be met; and 3) that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 4-2-1 roll call vote (C. Galligan and Mink dissenting and C. Deal Abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the September 16, 1996 City Council regular meeting and September 17, Study City Council meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. MINUTES9.23 in Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary