Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.02.14THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 14, 1977 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Taylor Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine CALL TO ORDER City Planner Swan City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Kirkup A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Jacobs at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present; Chm. Taylor absent and excused due to a business commitment out of town. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of January 24, 1977 were approved as read. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 33, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 (APN 026-185-080) AT 1915 CARMELITA AVENUE AND 1030 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY GLEN D. HAGEY FOR TED FARLEY The tentative parcel map showing resubdivision of the Farley property into Parcel A, 70 feet and Parcel B, 80 feet wide was introduced by C. P. Swan. A two-story house is under construction on Parcel A. He suggested Commissioners visit the site for personal observation. C. E. Kirkup reported that street improvements should be carried to the end of Parcel A and he would require that the owner pave half of Bernal Avenue to that point, and satisfy the same requirements on utilities as recommended for the previously requested resubdivision. C. Francard asked if the land resubdivision would be all right with the neighbors. They would be notified of the hearing. Commission set the tentative parcel map for public hearing on February 28, 1977. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B and 3D, BLOCK 3, TOWN OF BURLINGAME (APN 029-223-010/020/100/110/120) at 33 PARK ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY WM. A. BARTLETT FOR TED FARLEY C. P. Swan introduced the idea of resubdivision of five lots into three parcels to permit construction of an apartment building on each parcel. It was a new type of development that would lend itself to further resubdivision into a townhouse condominium on each Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 14, 1977 parcel. Mr. Farley and Morris Singer, owners and Neil Vannucc:i who prepared representative building elevations were present. Although the application was for the resubdivision of the land only, the future development plans were described to show why cross easements would be needed and where access would be provided for the three apartment buildings. C. Sine inquired if there would be a fence along E1 Camino Real, and he was advised there would not. C. E. Kirkup explained that all services would be from Park Road which has an 8 inch saitary sewer and a 6 inch water main. Emergency vehicles could get in and out from E1 Camino. When questioned why the three lots, Mr. Singer responded in order to fit code -regulations and for financing. C. Mink felt this could be front- loading and wondered if there weren't a minimum lot size. C. P. Swan responded each parcel would be in excess of the minimum lot size which is 5,000 square feet. C. Francard thought the side yard would need to be in common ownership to satisfy the Fire Department. Commission discussed the idea that the parcel map be tied to the project and not recorded pending future resubdivision for a condominium. The 16 living units when distributed on three parcels, each having one lot owned in common, would amount to a -resubdivision to change three parcels into 19 parcels, three of which would be owned in common. The final map would require cross easements for access. Zoning regulations permit one residential building on one lot. Burlingame does not have modern regulations to allow a planned unit development or permit a townhouse type of development. C. Mink suggested that we revise the ordinance and then work with the applicant. Mr. Singer explained that they could develop their property in three phases. He believed their proposal would provide a more aesthetic type of housing. The future condominium would permit people to buy a unit and own the ground beneath the building. The tentative parcel map was scheduled for hearing on February 28, 1977. C. Mink questioned whether this subject should go to the Housing Element Committee. Consensus of Commission was 'yes' and staff should develop a good townhouse ordinance appropriate for Burlingame. V -C Jacobs suggested cluster development also be permitted. It was felt that new subdivision of unimproved acreage was unlikely; but redevelopment of small areas would be likely. 3. VARIANCES FROM CODE SEC. 25.41.040 WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 20,000 SF AND 10 FOOT SIDEYARDS: PROPERTY AT 850 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-342-250), ZONED C-4, BY ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 4 (APN 026-342-250/260) AT 828 AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND 850 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, BY HOWARD HICKEY FOR ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST C. P. Swan explained that the tentative parcel map submitted by Howard Hickey for Anza would create a substandard size lot and put a property line less than 10 feet from the existing San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau office building at 850 Airport Boulevard. As submitted, the tentative map should be accompanied by a variance from sideyard requirements and minimum lot size regulations. David Keyston was invited to present background information and explain why the tentative map property line was requested. Mr. Keyston commented that the initial property line was drawn before the C-4 District regulations were enacted, and before the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size was established. In July, 1972 when Anza Pacific wished to build the Convention & Visitors Bureau office the same variance constraints were faced and the Planning Commission rescinded the subdivision map which to that time had not been recorded. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 14, 1977 There had been a tentative map which was approved but not recorded to establish Parcels A, B and C. Parcel A was a small kite shaped triangle of land which was encumbered by an easement for a future street extension. By rescinding that tentative parcel map the subject lot line was removed. The current tentative parcel map under consideration once again designated that same kite shaped area as Parcel A with a lot line that is less than 10 feet from the existing small office building. The purpose for this new tentative parcel map was for refinancing the large building. Mr. Keyston commented that they had an agreement to sell the building at 828 Airport Boulevard and it would involve refinancing. He believed they could move the proposed lot line. By relocating the property line along the center of the parking area and driveway, more land area would be added to the existing 12,900 SF lot with the Convention & Visitors Bureau office. There would be an adequate sideyard but it would still require a variance for the lot size; it would still be less than 20,000 SF, the minimum lot area in the C-4 District. Mr. Keyston:requested the tentative parcel map be set for hearing with the condition that the property line be moved as described. C. Francard asked how it would affect the parking. Mr. Keyston replied that it would provide seven more parking.spaees. Buyers of the large office building would be given a cross easement for access and they would also gain about 10 parking spaces at the southerly corner of the large parcel. In addition, parking for the office building at 828 Airport Boulevard might in the future be available in the evening as restaurant parking. C. E. Kirkup questioned the Commission policy regarding the variance and the conditional approval of the tentative parcel map. C. P. Swan suggested that they first act upon the variance application and then consider the tentative parcel map with the new lot line location. 5. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 WHICH REQUIRES THAT THERE BE ONE GARAGE OR CARPORT FOR EACH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING: PROPERTY AT 2616 HALE DRIVE (APN 027-172-180), ZONED R-1, BY ALBERT AND KATHLEEN THUESEN The C. P. advised Commission that Mr. Thuesen wished to expand the existing nonconforming single family dwelling at 2616 Hale Drive. He wished to remove the existing garage and carport in order to expand the rear yard by adding deck area around a swimming pool. The owner wished to park cars in tandem on the driveway without cover. C. P. Swan recommended that Commissioners visit the site to personally become familiar with existing conditions and see how a new carport over the driveway would cut off light and air to the owner and to the neighboring property. Mr. Thuesen explained their plans to demolish the carport and garage for use as deck area. They would eliminate covered parking for one car but they would still be able to park three cars in tandem on the driveway. This item was set for hearing February 28, 1977. 6. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 WHICH REQUIRES A BUILDING WITH NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD MEET CODE BEFORE AN ADDITION IS PERMITTED; PROPERTY AT 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE (APN 028-285-300), ZONED R-1, BY ZEV BEN SIMON The existing house at 1517 Burlingame Avenue is less than three feet from the southerly property line. Access to a double garage at the rear of the lot is provided on a 12 foot wide recorded easement. This is in lieu of a driveway entirely on the property. For this reason the existing dwelling is a nonconforming building and a variance is required to expand it. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 14, 1977 The owner, Mr. Ben Simon, proposes to.add two bedrooms and a bath on the northeasterly corner of his house. Zev Ben Simon explained the plans to improve their property. He felt that the recorded easement tended to nullify the nonconformity of their dwelling. The Commission had no questions and set the matter for.hearing February 28, 1977. 7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 WHICH REQUIRES A BUILDING WITH NONCONFORMING FRONT SETBACK MEET CODE BEFORE.AN ADDITION IS PERMITTED; PROPERTY AT 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD (APN 029-273-190), ZONED R-1, BY ROBERT J. SIMMONS This is a variance application to expand an existing building which is a nonconforming house because it extends into the front yard. The building need not be remodeled to remove an existing foundation and library which is within.8 feet of the front property line, but the owner wishes to expand his house toward the driveway and a variance is required. Mr. Simmons explained his plan to enlarge the existing single family dwelling and admitted that there had been some difficulty with the Building Inspector regarding termite work. The Building Inspector had stopped termite -repair work on -this property because they did notknow what was going on (with the proposed expansion). C. Mink asked about the projection into the 3 foot sideyard and was advised by the C. P. that it was a fireplace in the front bedroom. A side chimney may extend into a sideyard if there is 2 feet 6 inches between it and the side lot line. Members of the P.C. recommended that Mr. Simmons clean up the front yard within the next two weeks. They scheduled the application for hearing February 28, 1977. Commission took a break at 8:40 P.M. and reconvened at 8:45 P.M. to consider Item #8. 8. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 WHICH SPECIFIES STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING; PROPERTY AT 330 BEACH ROAD (APN 026-332-080), ZONED M-1, BY GEORGE S. KUJIRAOKA (LESSEE) WITH CLARENCE A. PHILLIPS (PROPERTY OWNER) The C. P. explained that the existing office/warehouse building at 330 Beach Road was to be remodeled by adding a partition to create Warehouse #2 for a subtenant. Office space would be added within that portion of the building and.the existing office area at the other end of the building would be enlarged. Lawn area along Beach Road would be removed and replaced with an asphalt concrete parking area to increase the off-street parking and still retain 10% of the site for landscaping. David Keyston further explained the application and claimed that the ordinance requires more parking than needed for the proposed use. Plans indicated a total of 22 parking spaces which is less than the 30 required. Commission recognized the current need might be satisfied but felt that occupancy could change within a few years and more parking might be required. A point was made that more landscaping could be removed. Mr. Keyston was requested to obtain the signature of the property owner, Clarence A. Phillips, consenting to the proposed improvements. This item was then set for hearing February 28, 1977. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 3 -STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH ROOFTOP TENNIS COURT FENCE THAT EXCEEDS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT; PROPERTY AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) (APN 029-121-450), ZONED C-1, BY HENRY HORN & SONS C. P. Swan described the proposed 3 -story office building with a tennis court on the roof. He assured the Commission that the building bulk was within the 35 foot height limit and not subject to a conditional use permit for exceeding the size, height and coverage that are exempt from off-street parking. However, the fence around the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes tennis court and elevator tower are structures that would be and therefore a special permit was required per C-1 District 030(8)). Mr. Bertram Horn, property owner and Mr. Yamasaki, to explain the project design. Mr. Horn explained that the the use of building tenants. He.said the lighting would be affect the surrounding residents. There would be a timer to Page 5 February 14, 1977 about 44 feet in height Regulations (Sec. 25.36. Architect were present tennis court would be for designed so as not to operate the lighting. C. Francard asked if the plans had yet gone to the Fire Department. (A: not yet). Mr. Yamasaki explained the 8 foot setback from the front property line. He described the rear court and their design efforts to preserve the existing redwood tree. There would be a solid wall along the southeasterly property and this office building would be coordinated with a new building on'the corner lot. The neighboring property owner intends to demolish the service station and construct a commercial building. Questions were raised about people playing tennis. Commissioners were concerned about noise and whether a 12 foot high fence would be adequate. If the fence had screen inserts added to provide more wind protection, etc., then it would have the apparent bulk of a 4 -story building. Mr. Horn was advised to consider limiting the hours for use of the tennis court for such could become a condition of the special permit. The special permit application was scheduled for hearing February 28, 1977. Commission moved to Item #11 because Mrs. de Peralta (Item #10) had not yet arrived. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN APARTMENT BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT; PROPERTY AT 1860 OGDEN DRIVE (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) (APN 025-121-200), ZONED C-3, BY TERENCE O'NEILL C. P. Swan identified the site on Ogden Drive as the vacant lot next to the Teamsters' office building. The lot slopes downward from Ogden Drive so that the rear of the building would appear taller than it does from the front. As viewed from the CTA parking lot the parking garage, three floors of apartments and the rooftop storage space could appear like a 5 -story building. The Commission asked Bob Onorato who had designed the 21 -unit apartment building, why the storage structure on the roof. He replied they had incorporated a laundry, garbage, storage and other facilities on the ground floor and moved the 7'6" high storage space to the roof. The idea of conditionally approving it for storage only received considerable discussion. Commissioners recalled another unnamed apartment building had caused some controversy because the owner wanted,to build a recreation room on the roof. A condition was discussed whereby applicant Terence O'Neill could record a document to assure that it would be limited to storage only. Mr. Onorato confirmed there was no recreation space on the ground. Q: Was it designed for later conversion to condominium? A: No, it was not designed to fit condominium guidelines. C. Francard asked if landscaping plans would be presented in time for the hearing. C. Mink requested information on the heights of other buildings. He was particularly concerned about how the proposed apartment building would compare with the height of the office building on either side and with the CTA building. The item was set for hearing February 28, 1977. Commission moved then to OTHER BUSINESS. 12. COMMUNICATION FROM LOMBARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REQUESTING PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF 7 UNIT CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AT 1225 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 A letter had been received from Joe Lombardi requesting preliminary review of a 7 -unit condominium townhouse project at 1225 Oak Grove Avenue in the R-3 District. The C. P. explained this innovative design with all of the parking underground. Since the garage Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1977 would extend into the side yards, design will be subject to P.C. review; the landscaping plan must be approved by the P.C. Mr. Swan explained that thE! garage roof would be a monolithic concrete slab with 2 -way reinforcement and he defined this 'as a common foundation for one residential building. The superstructure of frame townhouses would be built upon this common foundation but (1) there would be a common pedestrian access the length of one sideyard, (2) the other sideyard would have semiprivate open space, and (3) additionally there would be private patios adjacent to the interior townhouse units. It would become a 7 -unit condominium. This would be accomplished by resubdivision to create seven private spaces and one commonly owned lot which would include the underground garage. Joe Lombardi further explained his proposed 7 -unit residential complex. Each unit would have two bedrooms, 2-1/2 baths and about 1,500 SF; bedrooms would be upstairs; each unit would have storage and two parking spaces in the underground garage; lot coverage would be less than 50%. C. Sine believed an 8 inch post -tensioned slab would be required, and the consensus of the P.C. was that it could be defined as one residential building. Staff was directed to develop a modern townhouse ordinance. C. P. Swan indicated exemplary ordinances would be obtained from other cities to prepare suggested regulations that might fit in the City of Burlingame. Joe Lombardi explained he must sprinkle the garage, keep the front walk open (the side - yard providing access to the front doors), and put breakouts in the fences between units (in the other sideyard). Mr. Lombardi recognized that landscaping would be subject to review. A narrow strip of soil might be provided along the property line but mostly there would be potted plants, boxes and planter tubs. Discussion followed regarding the criteria for landscaping and maintenance of setback areas. Three different areas would be involved: (1) the front yard and entrance walk, (2) rear patios (which are the other sideyard area), and (3) the private interior patios and rear yard. It was suggested that something be put in the CC&R regarding maintenance. Other items of business were discussed by the C.P. Administrative procedures will be prepared for the new sign code. They will include an application form, information requirements being made clear thereon; means to collect fees and particularly means to amortize obsolete signs. These will be signs which no longer advertise a business establishment on the premises. The new sign ordinance becomes effective February 17, 1977. Guidelines for review of home occupation business license applications were distributed by the C.P. A four page handout of existing home occupations was provided to each Commissioner under a cover memo with recommendations for discussion. The Type A firms were identified for activities and services exclusively based in a house. Type B business licenses might be for activities performed elsewhere than at the residence and Type C would involve home occupations with work done elsewhere as well as at the residence. The key items for change were the classification by types of home occupations, identification of number and type of employees involved and their place of work, and an appeal procedure that would permit staff to deny a home occupation business license application and allow the applicant the right of appeal to the P.C. One further recommendation for consideration would be that the Commission establish a review line for the types of home occupation licenses for which a minor permit should be obtained from. the P.C. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1977 Although no specific direction was given to staff, there appeared to be general agreement to pursue the administrative procedures suggested and refine the recommendations so that guidelines might be adopted by the P.C. The Commission wishes to review business license applications only when the associated uses may be in conflict with the zoning regulations. The Commission is not concerned with business license administration but it is with land uses. Another distinction to be made might be the difference between employers and home occupation entrepreneurs. C. P. Swan reported he had written to Ronald Rosberg February 1 requesting a written response before February 14. He reported that a telephone call from Cyrus McMillan was received Thursday, February 10 advising that Mr. Rosberg would be out of town until February 20 after which time they would get together to decide what to do next. Should the matter be scheduled so that the Commission could consider revocation of the special permit? C. Mink suggested that a paper chain be forged by writing .to Mr. MdMillan and extending the request to a time specific. V -C Jacobs directed staff to proceed accordingly. Progress reports were brief. The next Housing Element Committee meeting will be held Tuesday, March 1. Basic data has been requested.concerning the R-2 District and Chairman Kindig has requested an outline of the Housing Element with a draft set of objectives and policies for discussion at the March 1 meeting. C. Mink suggested establishing a moratorium on allresidential zones until the Housing Element was completed. C. Kindig responded he felt there was no need for that and the Commission should not have such large expectations of the Housing Element, It will merely consider objectives and policies as guidelines regarding residential areas in Burlingame. Modest progress has been made in the mapping program. The convention center project will be considered again by the Council at a special meeting Tuesday, February 15. C. P. Swan acquainted Commission with the February 9 site development plan and building plans. He reminded the Commission that subsequently they would be required to conduct the hearing and adopt a redevelopment plan for a specific redevelopment project area. C. E. Kirkup had left and no comments were made about the Broadway grade separation. However, three concerns.have been expressed by the people attending that meeting: (1) stop the trains opposite Carmelita Avenue so as not to block Broadway and consider relocation of the station south of Broadway; (2) do not make a grade change at Broadway; and (3) if a grade separation is to be constructed, Broadway merchants suggested that the railroad be placed below ground to reduce the noise. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner report of League of California Cities Planners' Institute is in process and will be distributed at the next meeting. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE COOLIDGE SCHOOL AS A CHILD CARE CENTER -NURSERY SCHOOL AND CULTURAL CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS; PROPERTY AT 1400 PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026- 073-110), BY DIANE K. DE PERALTA OF COUNTRY CLUB DAY CARE AND CULTURAL CENTER, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT (PROPERTY OWNER) Earlier C.'s Kindig, Sine and Francard were opposed to setting this item for hearing because they had many questions for the applicant, Mrs. Peralta. She arrived about 10:10 P.M. and Commission considered this application following the City Planner Report. The Country Club Day Care and Cultural Center, Inc. represented by Diane K. de Peralta seeks a special permit for use of Coolidge School as a child care center -nursery school and to teach music, art, drama, dance and cooking to school aged children and to adults. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 14, 1977 In support of the application there is a copy of the lease of premises executed on the 8th of February, 1977 with the Burlingame School District. C. P. Swan read the following from paragraph 2: "The term shall be for one (1) month . . ." commencing on the 9th day of February, 1977. The lease permits lessee nonexclusive use of the playground between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Mondays through Saturdays. C. Francard asked if the Fire Dept. knew about this. C. P. Swan replied Fire Inspector Pearson telephoned Thursday A.M. to report that he had found children and teachers in the school building. The Fire Dept. wants to know what cultural center activities will be, where adults will be going and where the children are going to be and when. C. P. Swan invited Mrs. de Peralta to explain what would take place from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. She explained their objectives were (1) day care for working people's children including the transportation. This was the main part of their program. (2) Pre-school, after school and cultural uses: all -of these would use the same space but at different times. 2,000 SF of space on the lower level has been leased for 30 days. Q: Would there be any cooking? A: Yes, they would serve two meals to children and there might be cooking classes. Q: How many teachers? A: One per seven children. Total employment would include teachers and aides plus a cook and a janitor. Q: Where will they park? A: On the three surrounding streets. Q: Would there be any remodeling? A: Only to the playground. Q: How would the playground be remodeled? A: Add three gates to keep people in. Q: Who will run the cultural center programs? A: Contract teachers. There is not to be a duplication of recreation department activities. Q: Where are you operating? A: In this building now. Q: Who gave permission? A: Burlingame School District. Commission was interested in the numbers of people and the times of the day when children would be present. Further questions were posed and responses requested in writing by Wednesday so the Planning Department could prepare a negative declaration. C. Mink suggested answers be reported for the following: When would the program run past 6:00 P.M.? How will supplies be brought? How many vehicles can be expected in and out? What specific plan did they have for transporting children to and from Coolidge School? Would any future curb zone marking be requested from the city? What was the approximate number of people per activity, e.g., the range from minimum to maximum? What would be the time sequence during the day to anticipate the loading of the building and parking on surrounding streets? The C. P. suggested that a member of the Burlingame School District be present at the hearing. Commission concurred that a representative should be present. This item was set for hearing February 28, 1977. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary