Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.11.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Mink on November 25, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Wellford and Mink Absent: Commissioners Key and Ellis Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; Senior Engineer, Philip Monaghan; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the November 12, 1996, Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. The applicants were advised that 5 of the 7 Commission members were seated this evening. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes of the whole commission in order to pass a motion on action items. The Chair asked if any of tonight's applicants would like to delay their action until a full commission is seated. There were no requests. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR AN ANTENNA EXCEPTION AT 625 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (J. & R. HERNANDEZ, PROPERTY OWNERS AND ELISA LOWY OF KNAPP & VIOLA, APPLICANTS). There were no questions and the item was set for public hearing December 9, 1996. 2. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A BOAT AT 3027 ARGUELLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DAVID M. SEID, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT Requests: have there been any complaints in the past 5 years; old conditions required driveway curb cut removal, was it done; status of tree noted in conditions; could placement of trailer in side yard be linked to duration of ownership of property in conditions; would like to see a variety of action options; Item set for public hearing December 9, 1996. -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 1996 3. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AT 1860 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, (ART MICHAELS, REPRESENTING EL RANCHO INN, APPLICANT AND ART MICHAELS, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: in the event of a flood how would they move 235 cars with only 3 people and where would they move the cars to, why not asking to use that location now; why do they need fence on north/east side; is this application to satisfy part of a Millbrae requirement, if so, why is off premiss parking required by them; why does the hotel need so much parking; burden to city obvious, what benefit will this be to the City of Burlingame; regarding negative declaration - heavily traveled streets; use is a big traffic generator through congested intersections; address traffic impacts, i.e., trip generation, will we need to EIR for proper analysis; what will be done about flooding/drainage; will the construction trailers now parked on the site (listing) be removed; appears to be long term airport parking, looks like a C-4 activity not a M-1 activity; whose cars are parked there now, are they operating without a permit; what will be done about the mud on Rollins Road being caused by the site's use as an unpaved parking area; If all necessary information is received this item set for public hearing December 9, 1996. 4. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1873-1881 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, (S. J. AMAROSO PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS AND GARY WOLFS AMS RELOCATION, INC APPLICANTS). Requests: appears that all previous conditions have been exceeded; hours of operation, number of employees, parking in the public right-of-way, number of trucks; too many trucks; was there an original condition regarding parking in truck bays; do not want trucks to go through Broadway interchange; how many truck north/south; should go north on Rollins and avoid Broadway interchange; if not another solution explain this temporary on street parking procedure more clearly; would like to see an inventive on -site circulation pattern so trucks do not have to back onto Rollins or maneuver using Rollins; long bed should not back into or out of the parking lot or block the lanes on Rollins, explain ingress and egress; pending receipt of all responses this item will be set for public hearing December 9, 1996. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. 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) Reference staff report, 11.25.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chairman Mink opened the public hearing. Ken Ibarra, 600 El Camino Real, San Bruno and Yanina Abecassis, the property owner addressed the commission and explained their position on the findings. There is a 10' wide easement along this property therefore the frontage is only -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 1996 45' where the majority of lots on this block are 50'. This leaves more space between the adjacent house and the driveway and creates a declining height problem for his client. He felt he achieved the FAR and reduced the mass and bulk of development on this property given the constraints on the property. He has done two other projects in the area with the same side setback situation and they have been granted. The mature maple tree obscures the view of the second story overhanging the front and the hipped roof creates less impact. The area of the deck and the post will maintain existing limitations on the back up area from the garage, not increase encroachment. Two covered and one uncovered parking spaces are required only because this project qualifies as new construction, otherwise would only need one covered and one uncovered parking space, which have. He showed pictures of houses he felt had more mass and bulk than this house which were build without any exceptions to the zoning code. He needed to overhand the second story at the front because the development envelop limited the width of the second story an he could not extend into the rear because of the placement of the existing garage. Reference was made to the letter in the packet from Mr. Pearson, a neighbor at 1325 Drake Avenue indicating he has no problem with the application. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission asked if it was just coincidental that the FAR was under the maximum allowed by just the amount of square feet needed to build a conforming garage; architect said it was note planned, just coincidental; only way to get two covered parking spaces that are useable is to move the garage back; the deck could be removed and the support beam; can only get into and out of right hand covered space if left hand covered space is empty and driveway clear; could garage be moved to rear so both spaces useable, yes but neighbor concerned about his mature trees on property line; would parking problem be resolved if garage moved, yes. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that the lot is narrower than typical, 45' instead of 50', the first floor front setback is an existing condition not affected by the remodel, the proposed second story overhang relieves the rear yard from the burden of the addition and will give architectural relief from the front which could benefit visually, first floor side setback is an existing condition which is a small area on a narrow lot, second story side setback is a minor problem with this narrow lot and to deny it would make it harder to get to the second floor, parking access is a problem because of the deck and the support pole it may be impossible to get two cars into the existing substandard garage, the garage could be relocated, the deck and support removed or the first floor addition changed to provide more backup space to make garage accessible. Cannot make a motion to approve on the whole project since it over steps bounds to tell applicant to relocate garage so move to deny without prejudice with direction to resubmit within 30 days addressing conditions 5 and 6. Seconded by C. Deal. Commission discussion on the motion: the existing garage is 18'x 20' exterior dimension, existing garages which are allowed to be retained without variances are 18'x 20' interior dimension, so this existing garage provides less than two car parking area; whole plan would work if tore down and relocated garage, FAR in house would not be altered; to give all variances and retention of the garage would be to give preferential treatment to this property; not favor second story front setback, pictures shown were of houses built before 20' second story setback was required; should remove support column at rear if intend to keep garage; -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 1996 present garage is 8 inches from conforming, two cars can be parked here if done right; if not new construction would meet parking requirement; no neighbors are complaining, one wants the garage to remain so that his trees would be protected; if move garage to rear it would take away some of the backyard area; do not want to postpone action; request based on substandard lot which is the extenuating circumstance; the relationship of the parking to the house is integral, can't separate the parking from the house; the issue is not the size of the garage but the number of cars which it can accommodate; have a 90 foot long drive way which can hold 2, 3, 4 cars, this is an extenuating circumstance; this house is 94% bigger it is like building a new house, do not allow tandem parking because it is a hassle to use; required dimension for two car parking is 20'x 20', so this project is 32 inches too narrow not 8 inches; the placement of the second story at the front is contingent on the existing location of the garage and the support beam; the entire project is driven by a nonconforming garage; many lots have 5 foot PUE's next to them in Burlingame, it is not in reality substandard. The chairman called for the vote on the motion to deny the project without prejudice. The motion passed 4-1-2 (C. Coffey dissenting and Cers. Key and Ellis absent) on a roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. 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 Bl, (NORTH AMERICAN TITLE, PROPERTY OWNERS AND TITO BIANCHI, C/O DEERFIELD REALTY, APPLICANTS) Reference staff report, 11.25.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chairman Mink opened the public hearing. Steve Patrick, 831 Midglen Road, Woodside, the architect addressed the commission. The space will have a limited occupancy load, 5 offices, 3 conference rooms and 6 staff persons and would be compatible with a real estate use. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved approval of this application, by resolution, noting the amendments to conditions 2, 3 and 4 as follows: 1) that all the conditions of the special permit approved on June 12, 1995 shall remain in effect except for condition 2 of that permit; 2) that the project on the second floor shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 21, 1996, Sheets Al through A4; 3) that the first floor shall be used for a real estate office which shall have a maximum of 36 full-time and part-time agents and 3 full-time staff, the number of full-time or part-time real estate agents in the first floor real estate business shall not be increased without amendment to this permit; 4) that the real estate use is limited to a title company business which may operate in the 4,490 SF in the second floor weekdays from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m with a maximum of 12 full time employees and that the on -site parking shall be used for the employees on site and their clients/customers without any charge to users or businesses; 5) that no portion of the first or second floors of this building shall be sublet to any other business without amendment to this permit; and 6) that the use and any improvements ra CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 1996 for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and was approved 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Key and Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. 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). Reference staff report, 11.25.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chairman Mink opened the public hearing. Mr. McNeelie, General Manager Crowne Plaza Hotel was present to answer questions. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey moved, based on the information supplied in the packet and provided by the applicant, to approve this sign exception application with the following conditions; 1) that the addition of the parapet sign on the secondary frontage shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 2, 1996; and 2) 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. Galligan and approved 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Key and Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p. m. MIN11.25 -5- Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary