Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1991.09.1626 4 BI'RLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Septenber L5, 199L CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular neeting of the Burlingarne City Council- washeld on the above date in the City Ha11 Council Chambers. Themeeting was caI1ed to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor cloria Barton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIIE FLAG Led by Dennis Argyres, City Iilanager. ROLL CALI., COTNCIL PRESENT: BARTON, HARRISON, OTUAHONY, PAGLIARO COITNCILABSENT: LEI,IBI MINUTES Minutes of the Regular Meeting of on motion of Councilman Harrison, OrMahony. September 4 seconded by 19 91 hrere approved councilwoman PUBLTC HEARING - APPEAL FOR FOUR VARIANCES FOR AN ADDITION TO A DUPLEX T 1OO3 CHULA VTS TA AVENUE - DEN IED City Planner revj-ewed her memo of September 11 which recommendedcouncil hold a public hearing and take actj.on. Verne Freer,applicant and designer and Noriko yui, property owner, arerequesting four variances in order to make a second storyaddition to the rear unit of an existing residential dupiex. Theexisting structure is 2,239 square feet, with the addit-ion of347.5 square feet to the rear unit, the structure will- have twoz-bedroom units, one at the front of 1,426 square feet and one atthe rear of 1,160.5 square feet. The renodeled. structure wouldinclude two covered parking stal]s and two uncovered in thedriveway. The variances are for (1) a rear setback of 12 feet(15 feet required) because the proposed second story would bebuilt over the existing nonconforrninq first floor wlII; (2) forIot coverage of 47.3 percent where 40 percent is the maximun(whiIe _ no. change to the 1ot coverage is caused by the addition,the existing nonconforming 1ot coverage requires a variance forany expansion of the nonconforming structure); (3) for coveredparking for two cars where code requires covered parking for Bopercent of the spaces in a rnultiple family project; and (4) forthe dinension of the two uncovered parking lpa-es (9.5 feet by 17feet requested, code requires 10 by 20 feet). The planning Commission voted 2-2 to deny the application. Councilrnan Pagliaro asked about height lirnitations and said thevisual inpact of the present building makes it appear to covermore than 47 percent of the 1ot and he wondered how the Iotcoverage was determined; City planner replied 30 feet is the maximurn height a11owed, and l-ot coverage is cal-culated on a plotplan the applicant presents to the city, the greater visualirnpact is probably caused by the narrowness (34 feet) of the ]ot. Mayor Barton opened the public hearing. Verne Freer, applicant, said the building was built in 1948 andmet all code requirements at that tirne; the owner woul-d like toadd a second story to the rear one bedroom unit to make it two-bedroom, two bath; the rear 12 foot setback was allowed in 1948,.they are willing to move the second. floor back three feet to meetthe 15 foot setback requirement if necessary but they canttchange the existing first floor setback; there are four parking spaces on site nowl he did not believe the addition would cause shadows on any adjacent property because there is a l-o foot easement at the rear and on the south side the one story garageis next to the property line and on the north there is 16 feet 265 between this building and the adjacent building; he said theproject meets aLl requirernents of buiLding code except for pre-existing conditions over which they have no control; he subrnitteda letter from 10 adjacent property owners $rho had no objection tothe project and reviewed findings council could make to approvethe project; the addition cannot be seen from the street becauseyou would have to stand 198 feet from the front of the buildingto see the roof line of the proposed addj.tion; he requestedapproval. Mayor Barton closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Or}lahony revielred the encroachment ofand the addition into the rear setback and an areaaddition that projects into the setback. this building on the Councilman Harrison said he was impressed with Freerts letter andpresentati-on and his points are rdel- l- taken, the lot coveragealready exists and it is easier to buifd a second story ov-r theexisting walIs, he supported approval of the project. councilman Pagliaro said he walked through the neighborhood anddid not feel this addition would be compatible with the area.there are almost no second stories to bL seen; because it is'notcompatible and because of the nonconforming 1ot coverage, hecould not support approval. llayor Barton asked about the duplex next door which also seems to be _ nonconforning; City Planner said it was a rnirror image of thisbuilding and it appears they were buil,t at same tirne on one 1ot;later the 1ot $ias split to make two separate properties, this mayalso explain the narrow street frontage. Mayor Barton said ifcouncil allows this expansion to a nonconforrning use, thebuilding next door could do the sarne; she did not tfrink there wasenough space for parking in this inpacted area and could notsupport the proj ect. Councilwoman OtD1ahony said council encourages property ownerslirnprovement, but she was greatl-y concerned about Lhe lxisting a7percent Iot coverage,. if the building v/ere destroyed it coul-d berebgilt to greater density; Freer has done his best to keep theaddition smal1 but because of the density and the parking ihecould not favor approval. Councilnan Pagliaro moved to deny the request and upholdPlanning Cornmission. Seconded by Councilwoman OrMahony,3-1 on roll call vote, CounciLnan Harrison voting no. the carr ied PUBLIC IIEARING - APPEAL SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR DEVELO OF PARC EL A roRT 970 DAVID R OAD - DENIED City Planner reviewed her nemo of September 11 which reconmendedcouncil hold a public hearing and take action. Stephen Segale,applicant, Dennis Cheng, property olrner, and Jerry bea1,designer, are requesting two special permits and Lhree variancesj.n order to build a structure on the 2O foot by 225.5 foot vacantLot at 970 David Road (temporary address) in the M-1 zone. Theapplicant proposes to build a 20 foot siide by 124 foot longstructure in order to store his own automobiles. As propoied,the structure would provide no si-de setbacks (10 foot setbackrequired), no on-site parking (3 spaces required) and. no abilityto exit in a forward direction in a commercial zone (required).special pernits are required for indoor, and for outdooi autostorage in M-1. In devetoping the site, they would provide twohandicapped accessible bathrooms as required- fy buij.aing code.AIso 455 square feet of landscaping would be provided 1+St squarefeet required), there rrould be 85 square feet of landscaping -in the front setback and 370 square feet at the rear. The p1a;ning Commission voted to deny the request. Dlayor Barton opened the public hearing. Tom Ryan, friend of the applicant, introduced the appticant, stephen segale, and property owner, Dennis cheng; Cheng said he has been trying to seII the property and there has been nointerest until Segale proposed this storage facility; he contacted the broker of the adjacent property when it was for sale to attenpt to se11 his property to the adjacent one as it nakes sense to develop the two lots toqether. councilwoman O'Mahony asked if he had contacted the property owner to the east (PG&E), owner said no, but he thought it was a good idea. Ryan continued that the ruain issue is the narrowness of the lot;a 20 foot wide lot cannot have any side setbacks; he reviewedhistory of lotts creation, it was a railroad spur, part was purchased separately and part was bought by adjacent property owners; Segalets proposal seerns the only good use of the Lot,' the handicap restroons are required by building code for a buildingof this size, it does not mean segale proposes sorne commercialusel there will be parking inside the buildingr and at the rear; Segale intends to store his auto collection at the site, he hasfour vintage 1950 autos, he does not intend to se1l or repair autos on the site; he noted the Planning Cornmissionrs discussion about landscaping at the rear being ridiculous, that not beingthe intent of landscaping requirernents; they appealed because they think the decision is unfair because this proposal is the best use of the property since it cannot be sold to the neighbor;the Planning Cornmission seemed to think the property should be sold to a neighbor and that is the only use they wou1d consider. Council,man Paqliaro said he drove to the site and passed it before he realized it; he looked at plans and wondered why segale needs a building 124 feet long to store four autos; he also did not understand the need for rolJ- up doors at the rear of the building and the paved rear yard if storage is only inside, where is the parking on site for visitor; he asked why not move the building to the rear and put parking and Landscaping in front, and elininate the roll up doors at rear. Segale responded thatthe building is required to be located there because of fire code requirements, it canrt be more than 150 feet from front of a lot and they must have access all the way around the building; he could live with srnaller building but it would be harder to se11. Pagliaro asked if Segale would object to eliminating the ro11 up door in back; segale said he put that door there so that perhaps a contractor could purchase building and use rear lot for storaqe. CounciLnan Pagrliaro asked if Segale objected to a requirernent that the wal1s be solid slab, Segale said no. Councilwornan otllahony suggested segale put in regular man door rather than roll up door at rear. Mayor Barton asked hrhen cheng purchased the site; cheng replied about three years ago, when he purchased he hoped to sell toneighbor. cheng said he had an agreement with segale for purchase of the 1ot conditional on Segale getting these perrnits. Sega1e said he agreed to all the conditions proposed. Betty orKelly, 1352 Drake, had some reservatj.ons about this use, she wondered why anyone would buy a tot and build a building to store four cars, she thought it vas not a good idea. equired no person it coul-d be read ours also;there areof autos. l"Iayor Barton said there are too nany permits and variances needed for this project; the buitding is too long; she believed there were other hrays the site could be developed; if this is allowed it would be difficutt for the city to police its use; she feared in the future it would be used for car repair; there is no room for parking or car turn around; the real estate market is tough right now and the owner has only had it on the market for six Mayor Barton closed the public hearing. Councilman Harrison confirned that condition 2 r be on site other than betr'reen 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., that no cars are allowed on site betlreen those h councilwoman orMahony inforned the audience that several, car clubs in the city that aI1ow storage 266 267 months; she agreed entirely rrith the Planning Cornmissionr. shefelt council vrould rea11y go out on a limb if it approved this. Councilman Pagliaro moved to overturn the Planning Commission andqrant this request with conditions in staff report with sonerevisions and added requirenent that walls be solid concreteslab, that there be no ro11 up door at rear of building and nostorage of vehicles in outdoor areal and that the pernits bereviewed in one year and every three years thereafter; thatrestrictions run with the land; and including change on condj-tion2 to delete the word rroutdoorrr and on condition 3 to del,etetrautomobile storage. rr Seconded by Councilwoman Otl{ahony. The notion tied on a 2-2 vote, Councilman Harrison and UayorBarton voting no. Because of the tie vote, the planning Cornmission decision to deny prevaits and the appeal was denied. PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND READING - ORDINANCE L444 . AI.{ENDING ADULT ENT AINI.{ENT BUSINESS UIRE},,IENTS YEAR END FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT REVT SION TO SPECT,AL EVENT PERMIT ULES AND REG TIONS LIMTTAT ION ON HOI'RS FOR SOL I CITATIONS City Attorney reviewed his neno of August 26 which recommendedcouncil hold a public hearing and then adopt this ordinance. ourcode lirnits solicitors to the hours between 9:OO a.m. and 8:OOp,n. The courts have hel,d that such limits cannot beconstitutionally justified. This ordinance wiIl remove the timelimit provisions from our code. tlayor Barton opened the public hearing. There being no conments,the hearing was closed. Councj.Iman Ilarrison rnoved adoption of ORDINANCE 1445. Secondedby Councilwoman OrMahony, carried 4-O on rol-I call vote. city Manager reviewed his rnemo of septenber 9 with the FinanceDirectorts nemo attached. As anticipated, it was a very pooryear financially for the cityi general fund growth was only .:percent and enterprise fund gro$/th was 2.5 percent in the waterand sewer funds; expenditures s/ere higher because of salary andbenefit increases, and numerous one-time itens Like theconvention center study. He suggested a nid-year budget reviewwithin the next few months to consider any needed revisions. counci,lman Harrison said one area of good news is that there maybe heavy rainfall this vinter. Councilvoman orMahony said thatis a reason to Look at building another reservoir. City Managerrs meno of September 11 recommended council adopt theproposed rules and regulations including establ-ishment of a $1Ooapplication fee and $lOO per day 1ocation use fees for use ofcity- property for events of a commercial nature not sponsored byIoca1 non-profit group, for example movie companies. These arethe same fees san Francisco charges to rnovie companj-es. city Attorney reviewed his memo of August 7 and recomnendedcouncil hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance rnaking an amendnent to our zoning code provisions concerning adultentertainment business. For sorne time the courts have requiredthat procedures for licensing adult businesses have a specificdeadline when the license must be granted or denied, Thisordinance established a 90 day period for such action. Itayor Barton opened the public hearing; there being no comments,the hearing was closed. Councilwornan O'Uahony moved adoption of ORDINANCE 1444. Secondedby Councilnan Harrison, carried 4-O on ro11 call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND READTNG - ORDINANCE L445 - REPEALING 268 Councilwoman O'Mahony noted at the last neeting Councilman Lembi had asked about reguiring contributions for city beautificationor park projects from these groups. Councilman Harrj.son moved to approve the revised Special Event Ru1es and Regulations. Seconded by Councilwoman OtMahony,carried unanimously by voice vote. PROTEST HEARING - RESOLUTION 87-91 - AI{ARDING CONTRACT FOR AIRPORT BOULEVARD REHABTLTTA,T TON - PHASE 1-B - CP 328 Public works Director reviewed his memo of September 11 rrrhich reconmended council hear the protest frorn Interstate Grading & Paving and then award the bid to G. Bortolotto and Company, the low bidder. This project is to complete the widening of AirportBoulevard. The bids were opened on Septenber 10 and the second 1ow bidder has protested (by letter dated Septenber 11) the awardto Bortol.otto because the original bid eage P-5 vras not filled out r' the city Attorney meno of September L2 reconmends award toBortolotto and notes that the Publ,ic Contract code.Section 10285.1 on page P-5 is perrnissive and that the contract specifications a1low us to waive minor irregularities.Bortolotto has completed numerous projects for the city. After hearinq any protest and hearing frorn the 1ow bidder, council shoul-d alrard a contract for the project to Bortolotto in the arnount of $1, 224,958.'lo. Irlayor Barton opened the hearing, there were no representativesfron First fnterstate present to protest and the hearing was closed. councilwoman orMahony moved adoption of RESoLUTIoN 87-91 av/arding contract to G. Bortolotto and company. Seconded by Councilman Pagliaro, carried unanimously by voice vote. CONSENT CALENDAR CounciLman Pagliaro stated he would abstain fron voting on itemrrbrr because of a possible conflict of interest. a RESOLUTION 88-91 - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR OAK GROVE WATER I,TAIN REPLACEMENT - CP 922 Public works rnemo of September 9 recommended council award acontract to P & M Pipelines to complete ScheduLes A and B ofsubject project in the amount of $362,520. RESOLUTTON 89-91 - AWARDING CONTRACT TO CALLANDER FOR MASTER PLANNING - RESOLUTION 90-91 - AWARDING CONTRACT TO HI.,A FOR PERMTT APPLICATION AND ACCO},IPANYING REPORTS Pub1ic works nemo of Septenber 10 reviewed that the landfill has been closed to the publ,lc for several years, in 1990 newregulations came into being and as part of the Waste$/ater Treatment Plant improvements the excavation at the 1andfi11 was stopped and the city agreed to apply for a SoLid WasteFacilities Pernit Revision by January 2, L992. As part ofthe application, several reports and a prelininary closure/post closure plan must be submitted. To assist, staff recommended council award contracts to Callander Associatesfor master planning in the amount of $39,288 and to Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) for the perrnit application and accompanyinq reports in the amount of $67,560. RESOLUTION 91-91 - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CITY HALL AND MAIN LIBRARY ROOFING - CP 915 D Public Works memo of September 11 recommended council awardthis contract to Andyrs Roofing Company, Inc, of Mountain View in the aroount of $65,463. b c d. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL Finance Director reconnended approval of Warrants 16725 -L723O, duly audited, in the amount of $1,211,O47.24 arrdPayroll Checks 40040 - 41250 for the rnonth of August 1991 inthe anount of $1,469, 155.30. Councilman Harrison moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilwoman OrMahony, carried unanimously. COUNCIL COMI,IITTEE REPORTS - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Plannincr Commission Minutes: Councilnan pagliaro discussed thesecond item in the Planning Commission minutes concerning 2652Surnrnit; he was concerned that neighbors were noticed afout tfrishearing since there did not appear to be anyone against theproject and at the previous council meeting hundreds of people signed petitions against it; City planner that since that rneetingthe applicant had net with neighbors and revised the size of thestructure down 4,000 square feet, the house is smaller andlocated further away from the neighbors r. these neighbors came into city ha1I to visit with her and review the plans, thoseneighbors that protested supported the new design. Mayor Bartonsaid that is a fine example of cooperative work between designerand neighbors. Councilman Pagliaro said he would not call it upfor review. Councilwoman OtMahony asked about the neighbor who $/as so concerned about the driveway location of this projectr.City Planner said the applicant is removing some trees to improvethe sight line along her driveway and she had not heard nore obj ections . a Department Reports: Police, August 1991; TreasurerrsReport, August 31, 19 91. c. Proclanation for Burlingane Schoo1 Districtrs rDiscovery Daysrr in october. d. Letter fron Chamber of Comnerce offering assistance in studyof permit procedures. FROM THE FLOOR - None ADJ o IN MEMORY OF EV ELYN HILL. FoRI.{ER c ITY CLERK dith A. Malfatti Comnissi.on Minutes: September 5, 1991. Planning, September 9; Beautif ication, b Mayor Barton asked for a monent of silence J.n mernory of EvelynHiIl, former City Clerk of Burlingame i she noted EveLyn was -ity clerk $rhen she lras first elected and was well toved by many inthis city. CLOSED SESSION llayor Barton adjourned the neeting to a closed session onlitigation at 8:46 p.n. The closed session was adjourned at 9:20p.n. City Clerk 269