Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.03.24TTM- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNI14G COMMISSION March 24, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor ROLL CALL None Asst.City Planner Yost City Engineer Davidson City Attorney Coleman Chief B1dg.Inspector Calwel: The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:30 P.M. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of March 10, 1975 were approved and adopted. ?. PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 AND 3, CREEKSIDE RSM 48/13,14 CITY OF BURLINGAME AT 1521 AND 1523 CABRILLO AVENUE (APN 025-224-040/050) ZONED R-1, BY LOUIS A. ARATA FOR ALEXANDER A. RALLI AND FLOYD R. PANCIERA. Chairman Mink announced this application for hearing. At his request City Engineer Davidson reported that this map simply changes the common line between lots 2 and 3. This is necessary because a previous owner had inadvertently built a wood frame structure on the rear of lot 3 which encroached on a portion of lot 2. The lot line has been changed to accommodate this building. The City Engineer stated the map meets all the requirements of the Map Act. He added the owner had indicated this building would be used for a recreation rumpus room, and that he would bring to code with a concrete foundation. City Engineer Davidson stated he would inform the owner that a special permit is required for this use if the parcel map is approved. Mr. Louis Arata was given the privilege of the floor. He affirmed he represented Mr. Panciera, also present at this night's meeting, and Mr. Ralli, who is presently in Maryland. Mr. Arata cited letter of 3/19/75 from Mr. Ralli giving Mr. Arata authority to represent him and agreeing to comply with building code regulations with respect to the accessory building. In response to Commission questions, City Engineer Davidson stated the accessory building conformed to setback requirements on amended map; that the plumbing in it would be allowed to remain if special permit were approved for a rumpus room, but that at one time the building had no sewer connection to the house. Chairman Mink noted the suggestion. - 2 - that the parcel map not be released until the owner had made improvements. The City Attorney remarked that the building could be used as a storage room with no special permit required. Commissioner Taylor moved that the Planning Commission approve this parcel map. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO PARK CARS IN C-4 DISTRICT, ANZA AIRPORT PARK, UNITS 4, 5, AND 6, WITH STATE LEASED PARCELS 1, 6, 7, 8 and 10, BY DAVID H. KEYSTON FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION. Upon the Chair's inquiry, Mr. George Keyston stated he was representing Mr. David Keyston who was unable to be present. Chairman Mink requested report on this application. Assistant City Planner Yost told the Commission that an E-2 form had been received March 17 from Mr. David Keyston. The City Planner had found upon review of this form that he was not able to make determination as to the adverse impact of the project, and indicated that an EIR would be required. On a question from the Chair, he confirmed that staff recommendation was that it be put over until preparation of the EIR. Mr. Keyston protested that staff had not informed the applicant of this fact and he had not known of this decision until he had made a phone call to City Hall at 4:30 this afternoon. He considered that since a hearing had been set, it should proceed. The Assistant City Planner stated that notification of the City Planner's determination had been mailed to Mr. Keyston on Friday, March 21. Chairman Mink questioned the City Attorney if the hearing could legally proceed without an EIR and was informed it could not. Chairman Mink quoted minutes of March 10, 1975 which state, "Upon inquiry, the City Planner expressed the belief that an EIR would be necessary. Mr. Keyston agreed to an EIR, and stated he would submit a map outlining areas and limitations to be used in the present and future phases of the development. Mr. Keyston again complained of discourtesy and of the monetary loss in not being allowed this interim use. After further_ discussion, Chairman Mink announced continuation of this application to the study meeting of April 14, contingent upon preparation of draft EIR. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR VEHICLE LUBRICATION SHOP IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1049 BROADWAY (APN 026-233-010) BY BARTON COX AND CLIFFORD LECLAIPZ FOR C & P SERVICE, INC. (ND -54) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed provisions of revised plan presented at study meeting of March 10. This remodeled building would now have only four bays for quick lubrication service. He stated that the City Traffic Engineer considered the circulation within the building was practical. Other construction changes would be within code. The Assistant City Planner considered the main question to be if this is a reasonable use for this location, noting that it would add more traffic at a difficult corner. He introduced Mr. Cox who stated he was available for questions. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment. Secretary Jacobs read letter dated March 20, 1975 from the - 3 - Burlingame Animal Hospital protesting this use because of parking problems in this area. The public hearing was then declared closed. Commissioner Sine was concerned with parking and questioned if commuters would be able to leave their cars for servicing all day. Mr. Cox stated they would not be allowed to do this. There would be no storage of vehicles on the premises. The customer would wait on the premises until his car was serviced. With an anticipated 35-40 cars per day, it was unlikely that cars would be backed up to get serviced. Commissioner Francard questioned the City Engineer regarding the driveways. City Engineer Davidson replied the driveways are existing and could not be reduced the way the plans are drawn. Commissioners Taylor and Jacobs were also concerned with the stacking problem and Commissioner Kindig brought up the problem which the Broadway entrance might cause. Mr. Cox emphasized the concept of the operation was quick servicing - 8-12 minutes per car. Attendants would drive cars on and off pits and customers would pick them up at exit on Carolan, exiting either north or south. He noted that the planned reduction of the building overhang would improve visibility on Carolan. Commissioner Taylor thought customers who turn left off Broadway onto Carolan could cause accidents. Mr. Cox stated most of his business would come between 9 - 5 and peak traffic hours on Broadway are earlier and later. He stated his maximum hours of operation would be 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., although he is considering 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. This would be 7 days a week, no night business. Chairman Mink questioned the necessity of the entrance on Broadway, and Mr. Cox replied it would give his business more flexibility. The Chairman thought it would be safer if this entrance were eliminated; he also received affirmation from Mr. Cox that the permit could be conditioned upon the completion of the proposed structural changes within the building. Commissioner Sine suggested this permit be conditioned upon six months' review, but Mr. Cox cited investment necessary for remodeling which could be lost if the review were unfav--)rable. Commissioner Kindig suggested six-month review with respect to the Broadway entrance. Mr. Cox agreed. Commissioner Taylor moved that this special permit be approved subject to Planning Commission review in six months of the Proadway entrance and with the condition,that the permit not be issued until such time as notice of completion has been filed in accordance with plans submitted. Commissioner Sine wanted the condition of a sprinkler_ed building added, but the City Attorney pointed out that this was a statement of fact in the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: CUTMI:SSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,NORRERG, SINE, TA` LOR,MINK NAYS S : COMIMI SSIONERS : F ZANCI;_rZD ABSENT: COTU-II SSIC�17MRS: ,:ONE - 4 - 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HOBBY ROOM IN GARAGE AT 121 BANCROFT ROAD (APN 029-283-090) ZONED R-1 BY ROBERT J. FE RRAND. Chairman Mink requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost on this application. The Assistant City Planner stated Robert Ferrand, who is the son of the property owner, proposes to build a hobby room 12' x 16' at the back of the garage. The floor of the room will be raised 417" to allow the parking of a boat underneath. Separate outside stairs will be provided for the new room. He stated that in staff opinion the proposal conformed to code. He introduced Mr. Ferrand. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Ferrand justified his need for this addition by stating he has a rare racing sloop which is fragile and must be protected, and it is difficult to find space to store boats. He went on to describe the boat and its craftsmanship. He described the overall height of the addition as 14'6" and the peaked roof is 1' - 2' higher than the existing garage. His parents' car would be stored in the garage proper. It was established that this addition meets the requirements for lot coverage. Commissioner Jacobs moved the Planning Commission grant this special permit according to the plans submitted. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Mink informed the applicant this permit would become effective April 8, 1975 if not appealed. 5. VARIANCE FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 2301 EASTON DRIVE (APN 027-154-070) BY CHARLES TERRY Chairman Mink requested review of this application from Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant City Planner reported that in February, 1974 Mr. Terry applied for a building permit for an addition to his house. Plans were checked and approved by the Building Department, and a permit issued. Site inspection took place January 15, 1975; a further inspection was made prior to pouring of concrete. The building addition was framed and is now at roof level. On March 13, the Chief Building Inspector noticed there was an encroachment into the front setback. This was later verified by measurement, and a 512' encroachment was confirmed. Assistant City Planner Yost pointed out there were errors in the site plan submitted by the applicant to the Building DepartmL-nt. A line on the drawing taken by the Building Department to be the property line was probably a sidewalk line. The alleged 16' front setback was measured from, ---his line rather than from the property line. Also, the setback was not measured at right angles to the street or property line. He noted that Mr. Terry is a licensed contractor, and questioned if he should not have been more knowledgeable of setback lines. The Assistant City Planner acknowledged Mr. Terry's written contention that Easton. Drive bisects his property at a 45 degree angle, and reported that the average setback for this 75' aide lot is well within requirements. Assistant City Planner Yost then revie°.gyred the four requirements for granting of a variance, and questioned specifically if this application. - 5 - meets: 1. Extraordinary circumstances applicable to property involved - he noted other properties are bisected at an acute angle by Easton Drive; 2. Protection of property right of owner - he questioned if a setback encroachment were necessary with a lot three times larger than the City average, and stated that an error by City staff is not sufficient justification to grant a variance. He reported that in the opinion of the City Planner construction should be stopped until .a determination is made in this case. Chairman Mink requested audience comment, stating that Mr. Terry would make his presentation subsequent to public remarks. Paul Hesse, 2307 Easton Drive; Roy Ludwell, 2217 Easton Drive; and Mrs. Evans, 2216 Easton Drive, approved Mr. Terry's project and considered it would upgrade the neighborhood. Mr. Leo Kriloff, 2315 Easton Drive, opposed the granting of this variance. He stated he himself is a licensed general contractor, and while Mr. Terry was doing an excellent job, he did not see how a man of his calibre could have made a mistake with the property line. He considered this 5-�' encroachment is magnified by the fact that Easton Drive is at an angle to the property, and stated he did not understand how the Building Department could have made so large an error. He considered the ordinance should be enforced, since there was not sufficient condition for a variance, and that the Building Department had imposed on Mr. Terry. Secretary Jacobs read letter of 3/21/75 from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Garibaldi, 2308 Easton Drive, which spoke in favor of the improvements Mr. Terry was making. Chairman Mink invited Mr. Terry to speak. Mr. Terry presented for Commission inspection building permit applications dated 2/12/74 and 6/12/74 for swimming pool, family room, garage, and kitchen additions; also photographs of other properties on Easton Drive which exceed the setback line. He told Commissioners his intention had been to comply fully with the code. Plan check and building permits had been received; he had called for inspections at the proper time and had received written authority; and he felt he had proceeded with the full approval of the Building Department. He stated it was not his intention to find fault, but this addressed the problem at hand. He stated he had relied on the draftsman who drew the plans and the Building Department that approved them. Since his work had been mostly with interior remodeling, he had had little experience with establishment of property lines. He stated his request for variance had been caused by Easton Drive which bisects his property at an angle of 45 degrees. He stated it is necessary to place buildings parallel to the side property lines. He considered the property line was an exceptional circumstance, and that Easton Drive was one of the exceptional streets in the city. fie felt the granting of his variance would not be detrimental to public health and welfare. Commissioner Jacobs questioned why this was being considered without a study meeting since it eras not a minor permit. The Assistant City Planner replied that upon an urgent request by Mr. Terry, Commissioner Sine, who relieved he would be acting Chairman of the Commission, had been approached, and had agreed that this could be considered at this meeting. Proper Chairma.-s r�,_=;' requested, comment from Chief Building inspector Calwell, who stated that the plans submitted to the Building Department stipulated 16' setback, and it was assumed this was from the property line. He did not understand how his inspector had okayed the foundation but considered that since he was a new man he had interpreted the setbacks as parallel to the presumed property line which would have given 16'. The Chief Building Inspector thought both parties had miscalculated, and suggested consideration of the City.Planner's idea of cutting off one corner of the proposed kitchen. This would correct the setback. Chairman Mink questioned if to his knowledge construction was in conformance with the plans. The Chief Building Inspector replied that plans had not been followed in the rear garage, which had been planned as one story, but now exists as one story and a storage area above. He stated this is not a code violation as far as height is concerned. He added his inspector had noted this change from plan, but the man did not recall if he had asked Mr. Terry to come to the Building Department to change the plans submitted. The Chief Building Inspector felt the garage presented no code violation, noting the garage could be built on the property line in the rear 30% of the lot with a one-hour wall. It was established there was no plumbing in the garage storage area, and the Chief Building Inspector confirmed that there was no written record from his inspector. Mr. Terry stated that an inspector had visited the site upon his invitation to inspect the .framing of the garage since he did not want to exceed the height limit. He wanted to make a change in the plans, raising the roof a few feet to allow for more head room in the storage area. The inspector had assured him he was not violating the height limit, but had not invited him to the Building Department to change the plans there. Mr. Terry reaffirmed the garage was not for living quarters and that the bathroom downstairs is for the swimming pool. The garage has a room for pool equipment and a dressing room for changing purposes. Chairman Mink questioned the Assistant City Planner if the use of this section of the garage in conjunction with the pool was appropriate. He was assured that it was. Upon a question from Commissioner Francard, Mr. Terry confirmed that the old garage would be removed. There followed discussion of the actual height of the roof ridge of the garage. Commissioner Sine stated he had arrived at the property the Saturday preceding for an inspection of the garage, and although the house was occupied, no one had let him in. He considered he did not have adequate information and suggested this be continued to the next meeting. He commented that at the time he agreed to have this on the agenda he was assured it would be a routine item, and he had not realized it would be controversial. Chairman Mink agreed this item should be continued for proper action, and questioned what additional information was needed. The Assistant City Planner said that a variance would be required for the garage. He stated a detached garage located within the rear 306 of the lot may be built to the rear or side lot lines. But this garage is not on the rear third. A single story garage in its position requires a side setback of 51, and a garage such as this of more than one story requires a side setback of 6'. There is a l' side yard encroachment. - 7 - Chairman Mink pointed out that the issue now before the Commission is a variance on the main structure, and again questioned what additional information was needed. Commissioner Taylor questioned the fact that Mr. Terry relied on a draftsman as an authority in drawing his plans, and wanted discussion of alternatives. Commissioner Jacobs agreed and also wanted discussion of cost of changing the structure to meet code. Commissioner Kindig desired additional information on the front setback, and Commissioner Sine considered the applicant should provide floor plans that comply with the code. Chairman Mink pointed out that the subject before the Commission was a variance, not a discussion of alternatives. At this point the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine moved that the variance be denied. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. Chairman Mink requested that motion be couched in the affirmative. After some discussion, Commissioners Sine and Taylor withdrew their motion and second. Commissioner Jacobs moved that this application be continued either to the study meeting in April or the second meeting in April with additional information. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,NORBERG NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE,TAYLOR,MINK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Chairman Mink announced this application would be continued to the meeting of April 14. He pointed out all discussion at this meeting should be of the front setback. There was some further discussion, with a question of when application would be made for variance on the garage. RECESS A short recess was declared at 9:20 after which the meeting reconvened. 6. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR 45 SF PAINTED SIGN ON EXISTING AWNING, AND SIGN PERMIT FOR 1 SF SIGN ON SAME AWNING, AT 1204 BROADWAY, BY JERRY ROSMAN OF MAYVEN LANE CAFE. Assistant City Planner Yost reported to the Commission that this exception is required for the 45 SF sign on an existing awning because the code limits advertising on awnings to lettering not more than 8" high. This application i 9 s for letters 5' high for a width of '. Lettering will be cocoa on a yellow and white striped awning. In addition there is a 1 SF sign which conforms 'Co code -for one side of the awning. Be introduced Mr. Jerry Rosman, who stated he would be glad to answer questions. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment on +--'-his sign. 'there was little Commission discussion. Mr. Rosman stated that the sign would be on one side of the awning only because a view of the other side is blocked by an adjacent building. Commissioner Sine moved this sign exception be granted. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 7. RESOLUTIONS DETERMINING CONFORMITY WITH GENERAL PLAN: At the request of Chairman Mink City Attorney Coleman reported to the Commission on this subject. He stated that Government Code 65402 requires that property to be acquired by the City be found to conform to provisions of the General Plan. Resolution to this effect should be adopted as a matter of routine every time the City contemplates the acquisition of property. He told the Commission the three resolutions under consideration cover the already acquired Barnett property, to be used as a neighborhood park; Viewlands subdivision property, now in the process of acquisition, to be used for open space; and property on North Carolan, not yet acquired, contemplated for municipal building. Commissioner Kindig questioned procedure if property were approved for one use, which was then changed to another. The City Attorney stated the new use should then be approved also. There was discussion of the Viewlands acquisition and its relation to a recent Viewlands subdivision. It was established that the property to be acquired is seismically unstable and is not in the Rhoads parcel discussed months previously. Commissioner Sine suggested that the Council consider fencing of the creek at the Barnett property for the safety of children if it is to be used for a park. Chairman Mink reviewed City Planner's report which finds these three properties in conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner Sine moved the adoption of Resolution #5-75. This was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and carried by unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Sine moved the adoption of Resolution #6-75. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Sine moved the adoption of Resolution #7-75. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. CITY PLANNER REPORT: In the absence of the City Planner, no report was submitted. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting regularly adjourned at 9:45'P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary