Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.11.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, November 12, 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 November 12, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis Absent: Commissioner Deal Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the October 28, 1996, Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR FRONT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR AT 1329 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (MATTHEW M. MALONEY AND YANINA ABECASSIS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND KEN IBARRA APPLICANT). Requests: why are they extending the second story forward over the front of the house instead of to the rear; Item set for November 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. 2. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TITLE COMPANY (REAL ESTATE) IN SECOND -STORY OFFICES AT 1416 CHAPIN AVENUE, C-1, SUBAREA BI, (NORTH AMERICAN TITLE, PROPERTY OWNERS AND TITO BIANCHI, C/O DEERFIELD REALTY, APPLICANTS). Requests: conditional use goes with property, could it go with the type of business; can a limit to the duration of a right to a use be put in the conditions (i.e., add condition that it expire in five years); Item set for November 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. -I- Burlingame Planning Commission Minates November 12, 1996 3. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AND AREA ON A SECONDARY FRONTAGE AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (CROWNS PLAZA HOTEL, PROPERTY OWNER AND UNITED STRUCTURE AND SIGN APPLICANTS) Requests: key signs as shown on application and site plan to staff report chart; identify primary and secondary frontages on the map; Item set for November 25, 1996 Planning Commission. meeting. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO DEVELOP MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WHERE THREE LOTS ARE SUBSTANDARD IN AREA AND FOR THE REMOVAL OF PROTECTED TREES AT 2502, 2504 AND 2506 POPPY AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (OTTO J. & VICTORIA H. MILLER AND KURT STEIL, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS) Reference staff report, 11.12,96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria for findings, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission discussion: if there is any request for removal of protected trees it would need to be reviewed by the Beautification Commission; the exterior facade and two car garages in the front are of concern, the interiors are all the same floor plans; what effects will a gas fired fire place have on people in the side yard, Fire Marshal noted the residue from such appliances is not hazardous if used as recommended by manufacturer, problem if put foreign matter into it to burn. Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. Kurt Steil, 33 Woodhill Drive, Redwood City, was present to answer questions. Mr. Steil explained he has redesigned, attempting to comply with all code requirements, not asking for any variances, is in agreement with all suggested conditions; the fireplace has no chimney because it is gas and requires only a vent similar to a gas dryer; has offered to meet with neighbors, Jeff Byrd, 2505 Poppy Drive, Michael Sinclair, 2490 Poppy Drive, Stan Clark, 2501 Poppy Drive, Deborah Griffith, 2470 Poppy Drive, and Terry Nagel, 2337 Poppy Drive shared their concerns with the Commission; 56 of 59 homes have single wide drive with garage at the rear, opposite of this design scheme; would prefer more detail on the water drainage; need to consider height impact on rear yard next door; would prefer something with a more unusual design and variety of styles; doors and windows are all placed alike garage dominates the front, (cookie cutter); too much paving with driveway and walkway areas, should be more softscape; will privacy hedge remain on downhill side of 2506, important to the use of adjacent property; The character is the feel of the street not necessarily the measurement of what is on it, need something that retains what is perceived as the neighborhood character; Mr. Steil replied that he attempted to have a design with the garage under the house, however it would create a height problem; tried to place at rear of lot but lot dimensions became a problem, narrow at rear, need some useable backyard. As tandem garages are not allowed his concerns are with setback, Ira Burlingame Planning Commission Mbdau November 12, 1996 height and FAR. Mr. Steil closed his statements with a request for direction. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners commented: these are unique lots in a unique neighborhood and the design needs to observe that in some way; the current zoning regulations limit height and require a two car garage, factors not in effect when area originally developed and which affect the designers choices; there are creative solutions allowed by the code to address the two car garage issue; the three identical homes do not meet the requirements of blending with the existing mass, bulk etc, of the existing street, there is also not the expected variety of roof lines; all the existing homes on Poppy have projections and recesses (movement) built into their facades these are all flat, the front doors are all in the same location, design needs variety, each with an individual look; two of these lots are the smallest in the neighborhood, design should be tailored to that condition; water flowing down the street during storm conditions might affect development choices; there is no requirement to retain hedges, neighbor can do as he pleases; no concerned about fact all floor plans the same, am concerned about visual effect; the issue of two or three houses is not before the Planning Commission, appearance is; the proposed houses seem new, not a part of the original neighborhood, e.g. two car garages, fences which make look like built property line to property line, two car paved driveways, no driveways to rear providing greater separation between houses; diversity describes development on Poppy Drive, these houses all the same, consistency does not mean the same thing several times. C. Galligan noted that based on the facts in the staff report, discussion and testimony given he finds that the proposed plans are not consistent with the neighborhood nor compatible with the existing homes and moves to deny the application without prejudice directing the application to resubmit within 30 days. The motion was seconded by C, Weliford and approved 6-0-1 (C. Deal absent) on roll call voice vote. Discussion on the motion noted that there was a need to provide direction to the applicant for redesign. Addressing this Commissioners noted that if garages were in front that they should be single doors split and off set; there should be substantial change in the exterior elevations among the structures and this might also alter the floor plans; that hard surface in the front be reduced by such means as single car curb cuts and reduction of paving and walkways. Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 8:55 ,p.m, and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1324 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (SANDRA COLE, TR., LEWIS TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANTS) Reference staff report, 11.12.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions, Five conditions were suggested for consideration. A memorandum was submitted by the applicant, for the record, noting that the garage dimension is reduced 6" along the length. CP suggested that because of the mud sill the plate line might be 8%6". -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1996 Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Gary Cole, 1324 Vancouver Avenue, the applicant and Don Rasmussen, 251 Ricardo Road, Mill Valley, the architect addressed the Commission. Taking 6" off the length of the garage to facilitate addition to the house later, most of bathrooms in house upstairs, have to go through house to use; garage not suitable for dwelling because no windows in two sides; roof insulation to protect items stored in rafter area, no insulation in walls. C. Key proposed an added condition that there shall never be a shower added to the garage area. She then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 4, 1996, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Building Elevations with the overall dimensions at the structure, exterior wall to exterior wall adjusted to be 21'-0" X 25'-6" (the 6" taken off the length of the proposed garage); 2) that the -conditions of the City Engineer's October 7, 1996 memos shall be met; 3) that the plate line of the accessory structure shall be not more than eight feet (8') above the mud sill; 4) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes, shall never include a kitchen, sleeping area, or a shower and shall not be used for any home occupation without an amendment to this special permit; and 5) that the use and any improvements for the use shall met all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 Edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and approved 6-0-1 (C. Deal absent) on a roll call/voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 260 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (CHEVRON, USA, PROPERTY OWNERS AND SHARYN MITCHELL FOR R. H. LEE & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS) Reference staff report, 11.12.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. A letter from John Clifford, property manager at 255 El Camino Real was read into the record. Chm, Ellis opened the public hearing. Craig Schaffer, Robert H. Lee & Associates, representing the applicant; was present to explain the application and assure the commission the dealer had complied with the removal request of the 24 hour sign, A frame and banners. Mr. Schaffer explained that the station is located on a curve on Et Camino Real and is difficult to see in part because of the north orientation of the building can't see signs; snack shop sign unlit, but needed for people on site to see there because window glass is tinted and can't see inside; exceed number but have little over 1/3 of allowed sign area on site; noted they accept the conditions. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan moved, based on the information supplied in the packet and provided by the applicant, the signage seems necessary and the impact is insignificant. He then moved to approve this sign exception application, with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 3, 1996 Sheet 1 - Site Plan and Sheet 2 - Building Elevations; 2) that the 24 hour decal sign on the snack shop, all existing banners, and A - frame board signs located in the parking lot and on the building facade. along Burlingame R Burlingame Planning Comndssion Min ies November 12, 1996 Avenue and El Camino frontages shall be removed and shall not e be replaced on the site; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of he municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire. The motion was seconded by C. Key and approved 6-0-1 (C. Deal Absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised, APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (GENSLER FAMILY L.P.I., PROPERTY OWNERS AND NATHAN AND MARILYN L. SCHMIDT, APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 11.12.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Kieran Boughan, 400 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, and Marilyn Schmidt, 60 Country Club Drive, Hillsborough, the applicant, were present to answer questions. Ms. Schmidt explained that time of closing and the hours of operation were based on the last order taken patrons would be allowed to stay longer. Commission suggested the closing time be stated at 12 Midnight. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted, based on the information supplied in the staff report and questions asked, this use does not intensify the use, will better serve patrons and will have a de minimis impact on uses in the area. He then moved to approve this special permit to expand a food establishment, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 21, 1996, Sheet A.1 and September 26, 1996, Sheet PSI; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 1, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the hours of operation of the business shall not exceed the hours of 10 a.m. to 12 Midnight, daily, with a maximum number of seven employees on site at one time; 4) that seating in the patio area shall not exceed 14 and any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 5) that the gate located at the front of the site on Burlingame Avenue shall remain locked in the open position during business hours; 6) that all deliveries to this business shall be made from the Donnelly Avenue side of the premise; and 7) that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the. business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this special permit. The motion was seconded by C. Weliford and approved 6-0-1 (C. Deal absent) on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -5- Burlingame Planning Conunission Mimaes November I$ 1996 APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A FLAG POLE AT 10 GUITTARD ROAD, ZONED M-1, (GUI'fTARD CHOCOLATE CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER AND JOE BEEMER REPRESENTING GUITTARD CHOCOLATE APPLICANT Reference staff report, 11.12.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Joe Beemer, Moss Beach, representing Guittard Chocolate presented the application. He noted the employees of Guittard had gotten together and asked to have a flag pole to fly the US and California flags. He was representing them and Guittard chocolate. The height of the pole is necessary in order to fly two flags; it is a fiberglass pole with a gold knob on top. There was no additional testimony and the public hearing was closed. C. Wellford noted this does not constitute a grant of special privilege and is not inconsistent with the limitations on other properties. He then moved to approve this sign exception application, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 8, 1996 site Plan and October 7, 1996 Elevations of Flag Pole (81/2" X 11"); 2) that the wind and seismic loads with foundation details for the flag pole shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department before a building permit is issued and the flag pole installed; and 3) that the project shall meet all requirements of the California building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and was approved 6-0-1 (C. Deal absent) on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORT - CP Monroe reviewed the November 4, 1996 City Council regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p. m. MIN11.12 res Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary