Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.01.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, January 9, 1984 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Leahy (ill, excused) Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the December 12, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. PUBLIC FORUM 1. PUBLIC FORUM ON THE PROPOSED 559 ROOM LEGASPI PLAZA HOTEL PROJECT AT 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Reference staff report dated 12/27/83, Initial Study dated November 16, 1983 and response to Notice of Preparation from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board dated December 28, 1983. CP Monroe advised it is the city's procedure prior to preparation of an EIR to hold a public forum and encourage the public and Commissioners to express concerns they feel should be addressed in the EIR. She described the proposed project briefly and noted the Initial Study which indicates staff's areas of concern. This public forum was noticed in the San Mateo Times and to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. Michael Rice, representing Environmental Science Associates, Inc., consultants preparing the EIR, was present. Chairman Graham opened the public forum. There were no audience comments. Commission concerns/comment: include the 18 parking spaces in Fishermen's Park in addition to the required parking for the hotel; will 18 spaces be sufficient for the Park; highlight reflection from the considerable amount of glass and its impact, as well as cumulative traffic impact, particularly on Peninsula overpass, with full build -out; contact City of San Mateo and Millbrae for their input (staff advised these cities have received a copy of the Notice of Preparation); clearly define height, identifying sea level berm, curb, elevator towers, and the relationship of this building to other high buildings in the area; contact ALPA (Airline Pilots Association) regarding height stipulations; explore in depth the concern of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board about shellfish. CP advised the Initial Study leads to a focused EIR which would address only the "maybe" and "yes" environmental effects indicated in the Study. Further Commission comment: include discussion of effect on natural resources (concern about impacts from increase in the rate of use, e.g., more use of bay), effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking, the total impact of the hotel Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 9, 1984 on the park itself and use by the public; what will increased traffic patterns be; discuss in detail impact of project on Fishermen's Park; include comment on the realignment of Airport Boulevard; discuss use of the Showboat Restaurant as a part of the bridge; include a shadow study, especially as it relates to the pier. There were no further comments and Chm. Graham closed the public forum. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW A 153 SF DECK EXTENSION AT 2837 LAS PIEDRAS DRIVE, BY THERESA PAPA CP Monroe reviewed this request for variances from lot coverage and rear yard requirements to allow extension of a rear deck. Reference staff report dated 12/28/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/9/83; staff review: City Engineer (12/23/83), Fire Marshal (12/14/83), Chief Building Inspector (12/16/83); plans date stamped December 15 and December 9, 1983; applicant's letter dated December 8, 1983; photographs of the site; aerial photo; communications received after preparation of staff report: staff telephone conversation (1/4/84) with Paul C. Mourton, 2836 Mariposa Drive, letter from Mr. and Mrs. Mourton dated January 4, 1984, note from Jack E. O'Day, 2845 Mariposa Drive. CP discussed details of the request, applicant's comments in her letter, staff review. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted the communications received in opposition after preparation of staff report (detailed above). It was determined the deck has been built and came to the attention of the Planning Department by a complaint from a neighbor. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicant, Theresa Papa, was present. There were no audience comments in favor. Paul C. Mourton, 2836 Mariposa Drive (directly behind and below 2837 Las Piedras Drive), spoke in opposition: do not feel that applicant is under any hardship, which is a factor in granting a variance. Mrs. Papa addressed Commission: did not know a building permit was required and had no knowledge of the code requirements; built the deck extension for 90 year old mother to have a place to relax and enjoy the sun; have never seen Mr. Mourton in the back of his property and do not feel I have infringed on anyone's privacy; the way the deck is designed keeps it from being a fire hazard also. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion/determinations: deck extends 11'-9" from the house and is 8'-4" from the ground; concern about overhang. C. Cistulli found that this widow, who had raised six children on her own, had such a busy life maintaining her family it could be understood why she was unaware she needed a building permit for the deck, the, deck would give her 90 year old mother a chance to get outside, from a site inspection do not think the deck interferes with the neighbors' views. C. Cistulli moved that the two variances be approved. Motion withdrawn to allow further Commission comments. Further discussion: privacy in the backyard of the property below has been disturbed, possibly could be mitigated by shrubbery; applicant advised her garage is used for storing furniture of her children and she has never parked cars under the deck in the backyard, enlarging the living room which was done with a building permit created the overhang next to the side yard. Commissioners expressed difficulty in making findings of fact for approval of the variances as required by code, without this extension the deck is still useable, ignorance is not a reason for granting a variance nor is the fact that the deck already exists; feel the hardship is the 90 year old lady being able to enjoy the new deck, discuss proposing a condition requiring shrubs Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1984 be put in around the deck to protect view; applicant advised friends of the family built the deck extension; difficult to find hardship when deck was built without a permit and applicant was already in violation of lot coverage requirements. The Chair recognized Mr. Mourton for further comment: gave the applicant a private use permit in 1976 at her request since she said she did not have enough land for her children to enjoy the property, subsequently learned that the original deck violated lot coverage; he recorded this easement agreement to be sure it was clear the area was his property, the agreement can be revoked by either party with 30 days notice, have tried to give the applicant as much land as she can use; last winter the hill washed down and was a problem to the neighbors; have never seen anyone but children on the deck; raising deck 10' has made it visible; applicant does .park cars under the deck; have never seen the garage used as a garage; think this applicant is aware of what is required by the city. Commission comment: since applicant was granted a use permit for some of Mr. Mourton's land in 1976, this is indicative that she does not have useable land, suggest additional landscaping might preserve the hillside and give more privacy on the neighbor's site. Mourton comment: do not believe further landscaping would help, applicant could look into two of my bedrooms from the deck. Commission: original deck runs 10' from the rear wall across the back of the house and 8' from the side wall of the house rear to front, a large deck prior to the extension; the deck extension was not built by a contractor, have no comment from the Chief Building Inspector, will the deck meet building code requirements; have sympathy for the needs of the mother but feel deck would be large enough without the extension. C. Cistulli noted there were no comments/objections memos from staff. C. Cistulli moved for approval of the two variances. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Taylor moved that the two variances be rejected for the reason that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and no testimony given that the variances would be necessary for the property rights of the owner. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Cistulli dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. AMENDMENT OF 11/9/81 SIGN EXCEPTION TO RELOCATE A WALL SIGN AT DAYS INN, 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD CP Monroe reviewed this request to relocate a sign on the rear of the existing hotel to the back of the new addition. Reference staff report dated 12/27/83; Sign Permit application filed 11/16/83; Sign Exception application filed 11/16/83; "no requirements/ comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (11/28/83), Chief Building Inspector (11/28/83) and City Engineer(11/28/83); Monroe letter of action dated November 17, 1981; Planning Commission minutes, November 9, 1981; and plans date stamped November 16, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's justification for this amendment, Planning Commission findings and action in 1981 on the original Sign Exception request. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Arthur Hansen, Days Inns of America, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Schwalm moved that this amendment to the 11/9/81 Sign Exception be granted, incorporating the findings made in 1981. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-1 vtice vote, C. Taylor dissenting on the grounds he has never heard justification for a sign above the third floor, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1984 4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNING SIGN AT 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed this request by Lynae Folks and Danny Parodi to allow an awning sign for The Personal Touch which exceeds sign code limitations. Reference staff report dated 12/27/83; Sign Exception application received January 3, 1984; Sign Permit application filed 11/10/83; drawing indicating proposed amendment to existing canopy signage; applicant's letter to the Commission; Monroe letter to Folks dated October 6, 1983 advising of Council's denial without prejudice of previous sign exception application; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (11/30/83), Fire Marshal (11/29/83) and City Engineer (11/28/83); Folks letter to Commission, 11/23/83; Monroe letter to Folks, 12/1/83; November 28, 1983 Planning Commission minutes; and December 12, 1983 study meeting minutes. CP discussed details of this request and the previous request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Lynae Folks, applicant, addressed Commission: there are much larger signs in the area, our awning sign is flush with the building, it enhances the beauty of the Avenue, understand that decorative art cannot be judged as part of a sign, consider the bow and ribbon as decorative art. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: are the bow and ribbon on the awning a sign or a work of art; concern that the bow and awning be fire resistant; applicant advised the ribbon is sewed onto the awning material itself, the bow is bolted on, to take them off would create holes in the awning and a new awning would be very expensive; several Commissioners felt that the bow and ribbon the full width of the awning makes the whole awning a sign; applicant said they have attempted in this resubmittal to make the awning look less cluttered; concern about setting a precedent for other businesses on Burlingame Avenue; feel this is a fair compromise, awning is almost flush with the wall, could allow 50 SF on a wall, applicants are merely asking for identification, most other businesses have identification as big or bigger. C. Taylor found approval of this sign exception would not constitute a grant of special privilege since Commission has approved several similar signs in the same general area and will continue to look at all sign exception applications on an individual basis. Special circumstances applicable to this property: removal of the bow would render the sign unattractive and would also be unacceptable to the applicant because it would destroy the sign; without this sign the business location would not be seen because of the signage next door and the tree in front of the building. Further comment by one Commissioner: City Council denied the previous proposal on appeal, new application is also a nonconforming sign, existence of a sign is not an exceptional circumstance, drawings for this sign were not properly illustrated or to scale, don't believe there are special circumstances applicable to this property that would deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. C. Taylor moved for approval of this sign exception; second C. Cistulli. On roll call vote motion was approved 4-2, Cers Garcia and Giomi dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE OF PROPERTY IN SUB -AREA B OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA AT 333 LORTON AVENUE, BY JOHN KOWALSKI 6. TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN APARTMENT ADDITION AT 333 LORTON AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed this request Ifor second floor residential use and variances from the required side yard and parking lot aisle width. Reference staff report dated Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1984 12/27/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 7/13/83; Kay's Launderette parking lot drawing; staff review: Fire Marshal (11/30/83), City Engineer (11/30/83) and Chief Building Inspector (11/29/83); Kowalski letter to Towber (July 29, 1983); Towber letter to Kowalski (December 13, 1983); aerial photograph; December 12, 1983 study meeting minutes; Kowalski letters to Towber (December 23 and December 21, 1983); communication from applicant date stamped December 27, 1983 re: incident at 333 Lorton Avenue, March 23, 1983; Police Department report of 3/23/83 incident; and plans date stamped November 9, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's comments on the request, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John Kowalski, applicant, stated he needed the addition for security from transients. There were no audience comments in favor. Estee Coldwell, property owner of 1209 Bellevue Avenue, whose apartment building abuts the parking lot of the launderette, had no objection to the addition but expressed concern about users of the parking lot knocking down her fence. She presented photographs of the fence and asked that if Commission approves the request a condition be imposed that the applicant construct a fence and curb to alleviate this condition. Applicant commented the fence is rotted out at the ground and he did not feel this should be a condition of building an addition. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern that the exit from the new addition goes directly into one of the parking spaces at the rear; CP advised the Fire Marshal felt, given the plans as proposed, that code requirements could be met without changing the footprint of the building, more detail on exiting will be required in the final plans and plans will have to meet all city building and fire codes. Proposed conditions regarding removal, replacement or repair of sidewalk and driveway areas were discussed; applicant objected to replacing the sidewalk in front. The Chair commented any Commission decision would be based on the understanding that applicant and City Engineer would resolve what must be done by the applicant to comply with the conditions of approval. Regarding the fence and apartment house to the rear, a condition was suggested to require the applicant place a curb or wheel stop to protect the fence. Further discussion: have no objection to the special permit, think mixed use is a good one, but have not heard any justification for the variances. Security and police incidents were discussed; applicant felt he had not received much help from the police and it was up to him to handle his security problems; he planned to hire someone who would work in the launderette during the day and sleep upstairs in the new addition at night, this should alleviate vandalism such as broken windows and stolen equipment. It was suggested installation of a security system with alarm to the police might be a better solution to the problem. Applicant's comment: alarms haven't worked for me, can't count on the police. C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in that the applicant does have a security problem due to the nature of his business with extended hours, his inability to be on the premises at all hours and a transient clientele; that there are exceptional circumstances in the existing building and its original placement on the lot, and to require the applicant to move his building in order to meet residential district setback requirements would be too costly. C. Giomi moved to grant the special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of November 30, 1983, the City Engineer's memo of November 30, 1983 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 29, 1983 be met; (2) that the project as -built be consistent with the plans date stamped November 9, 1983 and meet all required city codes; (3) that parking bumpers or curb be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to protect the fence at the rear of the parking lot; and (4) that noise be considered in the design of the addition. Motion died for lack of a second. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 9, 1984 C. Taylor then moved that the application for a special permit be denied. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting, C. Leahy absent. C. Schwalm moved to deny the two variances. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SAVINGS AND LOAN OFFICE IN THE C-1 DISTRICT AT 1174 BROADWAY, BY PORTOLA VALLEY SAVINGS AND LOAN 8. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ABOVE OFFICE CP Monroe reviewed this request to locate a savings and loan office in the C-1 zone. Reference staff report dated 11/27/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/16/83; "no comments/requirements" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (12/2/83) and Fire Marshal (11/21/83); memo from the City Engineer (11/21/83); applicant's justification for variance (November 15, 1983 letter); property owner's consent to application (November 10, 1983); aerial photograph; study meeting minutes, December 12, 1983; and plans date stamped December 19, 1983. CP discussed details of the request; code requirements; proposed plans for parking (third revision of plans received 1:00 P.M., Monday, January 9, 1984 and distributed this evening); staff review; applicant's justification for variance; study meeting requests; Planning staff summary. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: request assurance in writing from the property owner of 1190 and 1200 Broadway that four parking spaces will be designated for the use of Portola Savings and Loan; background of the city's current policy for regulating financial institutions. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Rich Bryant, director and president of Portola Savings and Loan, addressed Commission: Portola is a new company, Peninsula oriented, hope to locate in Burlingame permanently with administrative headquarters which will employ 60 people in two years and this branch office in the city. Michael Berube, Coldwell Banker, also addressed Commission. He read letter from Alice Ducasse, property owner, dated January 9, 1984 discussing the redesign of the parking areas in her ownership at 1190 and 1200 Broadway to accommodate the additional parking requirements for the savings and loan at 1174 Broadway. His comments: plans will increase by four the number of parking spaces, can guarantee that spaces designated will be available for Portola Savings and Loan as long as they remain at 1174 Broadway. There were no audience comments in favor. Those speaking in opposition: Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; David Hinckle, 1616 Sanchez Avenue; Charles Egolf, 1557 Newlands Avenue; Lori Rutter, merchant at 1320 Broadway. Opposition comment: will contribute to the lack of retail diversity on Broadway; five financial institutions are already located there, can't see the need for one more; retail uses should be preserved; will aggravate the Broadway parking problem; don't believe creation of four more parking spaces will meet the number needed for intensification of use and square footage occupied by the savings and loan; area is zoned retail commercial and is in serious trouble attracting retail uses; it seems the revised parking will still be shared with two restaurants, a liquor store and deli. In rebuttal Michael Berube discussed the parking variance: he has worked specifically with shopping centers on the Peninsula; we are applying for a variance because there is no parking on the site; Portola wishes to make a home in Burlingame, create local jobs, not trying to make a problem, and is prepared to make improvements in redesigning the existing parking. He distributed photographs of the existing parking and discussed improvements planned by the applicant: will guarantee access and improve it, want to repair the sidewalks, will be creating parking that would Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1984 not be available for nighttime users, will not overflow into neighboring parking because we are meeting the parking requirements (will have four employees and provide four spaces). Mr. Bryant commented: this intensification of use would bring savers who would also shop on Broadway; financial institutions only stop pedestrian traffic when there are two or more in a row. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: city policy in such cases to record a resolution of Planning Commission action and the requirement that parking be maintained as a part of the property; the 12' access alley; concern about preserving the city's retail commercial diversity; uncomfortable with a trade-off on parking, would not like to see this become a practice in the city; desire to see all sites remain rented, many small businesses have to move when the lease expires because of economics, a savings and loan would be able to pay the rent and improve the property, support the application. Applicant was asked about the proposed administrative offices to be located elsewbere in Burlingame. Michael Heron discussed the various administrative departments which would be located in these offices, employing approximately 15 people to start and an expectation of employing 60 new people in two to three years. He commented on approvals received from regulatory agencies and Portola's need for one branch office within a relatively short distance of the administrative offices. He also pointed out there were a number of retail establishments between the financial institutions on Broadway and the proposed site. He discussed Portola's market study and in-depth search for space for the branch office in Burlingame. Further Commission discussion: more concerned about impacting parking in the area than about the use; concern about providing off-site parking; Broadway deserves as much retail merchandising space as possible; customers of the savings and loan would be short term users of available parking; do not think this is the most ideal location for a savings and loan, there might be other areas more suited to its needs, would have negative impact on the surrounding businesses. C. Giomi moved to deny the special permit. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli and Garcia dissenting, C. Leahy absent. C. Giomi then moved to deny the parking variance. Second C. Schwalm; motion obtained a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli, Garcia, Schwalm dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Variance effectively denied for failure to obtain a majority vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:45 P.M.; reconvene 10:55 P.M. 9. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A SIX UNIT PROJECT AT 1277 EL CAMINO REAL Reference City Engineer's agenda memo (January 3, 1984) and attached final map. CE Erbacher discussed project approval by the city and extension granted as well as minor revisions to parking areas. CE recommended the map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Garcia moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this final condominium map. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote, C. Leahy absent. PERMIT REVIEW CP Monroe discussed five use permits up for review in December, 1983 and staff site visits which found all applicants were operating within the conditions of their Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 9, 1984 permits. Staff recommended the following permits be approved with review in 18 months time (June 1985): Item 10 - massage service, 1302 Bayshore Highway Item 12 - coffee shop, 875 Mahler Road Item 13 - auto rental, 1755 Bayshore Highway Item 14 - Excursions in Learning, 1151 Vancouver Avenue It was recommended Item 11, classes at 810 Burlway Road, be reviewed in one year (January 1985). C. Taylor moved for adoption of the City Planner's recommendations with review of these five use permits as stipulated in the staff report. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote, C. Leahy absent. ITEMS FOR STUDY 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A COURIER SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 2-4 ADRIAN COURT Requests: available on -street parking. Item set for hearing January 23, 1984. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW WALGREENS DRUG STORE, 1420 HOWARD AVENUE, TO OPERATE BEYOND THE HOUR OF 11:00 P.M. Requests: similarities of Walgreen's present operation with a convenience market; provide the applicant with a copy of Title 22 Signs. Item set for hearing January 23, 1984. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SATELLITE ANTENNA AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: reason for the large size of this satellite antenna; proposed screening; what service does it provide to hotel patrons. Item set for hearing January 23, 1984. 18. AMENDMENT OF 10/25/78 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RACQUETBALL CLUB AT 888 HINCKLEY ROAD TO ALLOW THREE COURTS TO BE REPLACED BY AN INDOOR POOL Requests: information from applicant/property owner where additional parking might be provided and how much; review original permit for conditions of approval. Item set for hearing January 23, 1984. 19. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A TRAINING CENTER AT 866 MALCOLM ROAD IN THE M-1 DISTRICT Set for hearing January 23, 1984. 20. -SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A RENTAL CAR OPERATION AT 826 COWAN ROAD IN THE M-1 DISTRICT Request: clarify access to parking spaces 27, 28, 29 and 30. Item set for hearing January 23, 1984. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 9, 1984 21. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT PROJECT, CORNER EL CAMINO REAL AND FAIRFIELD ROAD 22. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM TURNING AISLE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ABOVE 23. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE Request: clarify by sketch aisle width and turning radius. Items set for hearing January 23, 1984. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Towber letter to Commission, complaint: truck advertising, 1457-1499 Rollins Road and retail sales in M-1. Staff site inspection in December, 1983 indicated the truck is no longer there and retailing of video tapes has been discontinued. - Announcement: 1984 Planning Commissioners Institute, San Diego - Quarterly Newsletter, City of Burlingame CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its December 14, 1983 and January 3, 1984 meetings. nn WNIIntl ArNrr The meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary