Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1981.02.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1981 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Sine on Monday, February 9, 1981 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Graham, Harvey, Jacobs, Mink, Sine Absent: Commissioner Taylor (excused) Staff Present: City Planner John R. Yost; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - Upon motion of C. Jacobs, second C. Cistulli, the minutes of the January 26, 1981 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Upon motion of C. Mink, the order of the agenda was unanimously approved. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIFIC AREA PLAN - BURLINGAME BAYFRONT: PUBLIC HEARING AND REVIEW OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Reference staff report dated 2/3/81; written comments on the Specific Area Plan received from various public agencies and individuals; and General Area Calculations by Callander Associates. CP Yost reviewed the purpose of this SAP, City action to date and future steps to be taken. Irina Torrey, president of Torrey & Torrey Inc., San Francisco addressed Commission. She discussed why the SAP had been prepared and noted the City's unique bayfront, development to this date and the City's adopted policies and regulations for the area. She also briefly referred to written comments from other agencies. Commission discussion: concern about preserving view corridors and public access (staff suggested a diagram could be prepared indicating both existing development and recent projects which would aid in analyzing future proposals); BCDC's jurisdiction and its influence in any project. It was requested that the five responses to the Specific Area Plan (from the Department of Transportation, BCDC, State Lands Commission, City of Millbrae and Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust) be accepted and made part of this public hearing. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust discussed the Anza Baylands Master Plan and suggested this plan incorporated several of the open space and public access concerns expressed this evening. He requested the City consider including this shoreline plan as an appendix to the SAP. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Further discussion: concern about future traffic and limited access to the Anza area; proposed road improvements; and the engineering study of Airport Boulevard now in progress. Chm. Sine then directed that responses to the written and oral comments be prepared by the consultant and a resolution drafted for Commission's review at a future meeting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2 February 9, 1981 2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 15,000 SF OFFICE BUILDING AT 1424 CHAPIN AVENUE, BY BRADFORD LIEBMAN OF 1424 CHAPIN PROPERTIES, LTD. WITH MOGENS MOGENSEN (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Yost reviewed this application for an eight unit office condominium project. Reference staff report dated 2/4/81; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 12/22/80; aerial photograph of the site; November 13, 1980 letter from Bradford Liebman; December 29, 1980 memo from the Fire Prevention Chief; February 4, 1981 memo from the City Engineer; 2/2/81 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; January 7, 1981 memo from the Park Director together with his approval of the amended landscape plan dated January 28, 1981; and architectural plans date stamped January 20, 1981. CP reviewed conformance with the zoning code and condominium guidelines, and staff comments. Approval was recommended with three conditions as listed in the staff report. Discussion: conclusions of the negative declaration; concern about traffic impacts; lot coverage; concern about emergency access at the back of the building, and fire safety. Bradford Liebman, the applicant was present. He expressed his desire to construct an attractive building within the City's codes and guidelines which would blend with the neighborhood. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. Noel Frelicot, 1416 Chapin Avenue spoke in favor of the application. John Prime, 1435 Bellevue Avenue expressed some concern about a three-story building on this site and asked to see the plans. A short recess was called to allow Mr. Prime to study the plans and the location of the project. The hearing was then resumed.and Don Spencer (Burlingame Chamber of Commerce), 2612 Easton Drive questioned the impact this project would have on nearby public parking. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Determinations: the project as designed meets all the City's codes and requirements; it is the first office condominium project in Burlingame; if it were simply an office building, a building permit could be approved by staff; if not within the Parking District, the project would require 50 parking spaces (6 will be provided); no Parking District credits had been taken against this property. Concern: the impact on downtown parking. The height and materials of the fencing were questioned. Mogens Mogensen, architect for the project was present and discussed some of the design features. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this condominium permit with the following conditions: (1) that the final working drawings for this condominium project be consistent with the plans filed with this application; (2) that the conditions recommended by the December 29, 1980 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector, the February 2, 1981 memo from the Chief Building Inspector and the February 4, 1981 memo from the City Engineer be met to each department's satisfaction; and (3) that the final landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the Park Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 8 OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS AT 1424 CHAPIN AVENUE Reference February 4, 1981 memo from the City Engineer. CE recommended approval. There was a question regarding the fence on the east side of the property. James F. Carroll, civil engineer was present and advised all existing improvements on the site were to be removed. C. Jacobs moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this tentative sub- division map. Second C. Cistulli. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 3 February 9, 1981 4. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 12' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG A 46' SECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1427-1433 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY DR. D. B. BUSCH (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 1.981) CP Yost reviewed this application to construct a fence around a paved service yard at the back of 1427 Burlingame Avenue. Reference staff report dated 1/22/81; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 1/12/81; aerial photograph of the site; letters received from Dr. Busch on December 31, 1980 and January 9, 1981; site plan received December 31, 1980; and Thompson & Thompson Fence Co. plans dated 12/23/80. CP reviewed code requirements, issues involved and staff comments. Staff did not recommend approval unless the design were modified. Dr. Duane B. Busch, the applicant was present. He discussed his problems with debris being thrown into his service yard and his belief a 12' fence would solve the problem. Discussion: the difficulties in City enforcement to alleviate this problem; debris problems in the alley and on Burlingame Avenue; a 12' fence versus some lesser height. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. There was a consensus of concern but hesitation to set a precedent by allowing a 12' fence in this area. C. Harvey moved for approval of an 8' fence with elimination of the barbed wire along the top, incorporating the following findings: that there were exceptional circumstances because of the litter problem involved; that there would be no public hazard with removal of the barbed wire; that neighboring properties would not be materially damaged; and that the regulations do cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 5' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 556 EL CAMINO REAL, BY DAN BONIN CP Yost reviewed this application to allow an existing 5' fence to remain as installed. Reference staff report dated 2/3/81; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 1/29/81; aerial photograph of the site; January 22, 1981 letter from.Dan Bonin; and drawing date stamped January 22, 1981. CP reviewed code requirements, staff comments and possible findings. Staff had no objection to approval. The applicant, Dan Bonin was present and available for Commission questions. There was a concern expressed about possible plantings on the street side of the fence which might obstruct site distances in future. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: the issues involved when Commission and Council considered the code amendment relating to fences and hedges on E1 Camino Real. Findings were made that there were exceptional circumstances; that the fence was constructed of a permanent dark material which would blend into its setting; that there did not appear to be a safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; that because of the openness and color of the fence it would not be materially damaging to the neighboring properties; and that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of this fence exception. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. REVOCATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED MAY 14, 1979 TO MUNKDALE BROS., INC. (AMENDED MARCH 10., 1980) (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 12, 1981) CE Erbacher reviewed this item. Reference staff report dated February 6, 1981; and letter received January 27, 1981 from Louis Arata, Civil Engineer and Surveyor. CE discussed Page 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission February 9, 1981 the as -built plans and staff concerns. It was recommended the permit not be revoked provided five conditions, as listed in the staff report, be complied with by March 1, 1981. Further reference February 9, 1981 letter from Steve Munkdale, circulated this evening, which concurred with staff's findings and agreed to comply with the conditions in the staff memo. After a brief discussion, C. Jacobs moved that the May.14, 1979 special permit granted Munkdale Bros., Inc. not be revoked with the following conditions: (1) that the investigations and work identified in conclusion items (a) through (e) in the letter of Mr. Louis Arata, Civil Engineer, dated January 23, 1981, be performed by Munkdale Bros., Inc. to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department; (2) that, as required by the special permit, Munkdale Bros., Inc. must maintain the channel and remove weeds; (3) that Munkdale Bros., Inc. accept responsibility for the maintenance and the adequacy of the subdrain system they installed behind Lots 14 through 19, Block 9, Millsdale Industrial Park, Unit No. 5; (4) that Munkdale Bros., Inc. be responsible to maintain all drains crossing this property; and (5) that Munkdale Bros., Inc. be responsible to control all mosquitos within this site to the satisfaction of the City and the Mosquito Abatement District. Second C. Cistulli; motion passed on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL AN ILLUMINATED SIGN WITH 52 SF PER FACE WITHIN AN EXISTING FRAME ON THE HYATT CINEMA SIGN AT 1302 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY BRUCE R. QUIE OF THE FROG POND Reference staff report dated 2/5/81; Sign Exception application filed 1/27/81; December 19, 1980, February 3 and February 5, 1981 letters from Vicki S. Gray, Catalyst Management Company; and plans date stamped January 27, 1981. CP advised the applicant had not yet obtained the property owner's written consent to this signage. Following some Commission/ staff discussion it was agreed to drop this item from the agenda. Chm. Sine so ordered. 8. APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT AN EXISTING ELECTRIC METER BOX MUST BE MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION ON THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 511 BURLINGAME AVENUE; BY ROBERT J. RYAN WITH RODERIC TOSETTI OF TOSETTI ELECTRIC COMPANY Reference February 5, 1981 memo from the Chief Building Inspector and January 29, 1981 letter from Roderic Tosetti. CE Erbacher reviewed the CBI's February 5 memo, noting Electric Code requirements, similar appeals to the Commission and meetings with Tosetti Electric. Staff recommended denial of this appeal. Further reference: February 9, 1981 letter from Roderic Tosetti distributed this evening. Robert Ryan, the property owner, was present. He expressed his belief that if a lock were attached to the meter box in question there would be no safety hazard at its present location. Roderic Tosetti, Tosetti Electric Company was also present. He discussed his contacts with the Building Department and explained his company was not involved with the subsequent installation of a spa at this address. Responding to Commission, he stated he felt the wiring as it presently exists was safer than before his installation, that the work was done prior to installation of the spa, and that he did not do any wiring for the spa. Pete Kriner, Chief Building Inspector was present and replied to Commission questions: that since he had been inspecting this type of installation there had never been an exception granted from the standard requirements; that there were no exceptional circumstances that would allow consideration of a variance; that there had not been a final City inspection of the spa as yet. It was determined the City does not require drawings for electrical work. In further discussion Mr. Tosetti stated his reasons for believing the meter box could be left where it is now. He also stated he would not complete an illegal installation if he were aware of the fact. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 5 February 9, 1981 Discussion concluded, noting the misunderstanding between the appellant and representatives of the City. C. Jacobs then moved to deny this appeal. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny passed on a 6-0 roll call vote. Chm. Sine advised this decision was final. APPLICATIONS FOR STUDY The following applications were set for public hearing February 23, 1981. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL 5 SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOF OF THE DETACHED GARAGE AT 1133 CABRILLO AVENUE Requests: a drawing showing the form and pitch of the roof of the residence; the presence of the property owner as well as the applicant at the public hearing. 10. THE READING GAME, 1200 HOWARD.AVENUE: AMBIGUITY HEARING 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A SECOND CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY OTHER BUSINESS 12. AMENDMENT OF CURRENT REGULATIONS, BURLINGAME AVENUE OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT Reference staff report dated 2/4/81 with attachments as listed in this report. CP Yost noted Commission's concern about the shortage of off-street parking in the downtown area and its request for a progress report on implementation of suggested programs. Council consideration is expected at its next two meetings and a further progress report will be prepared for Commission review. Discussion: the need to implement some of the recommendations as soon as possible, especially in view of new developments in the downtown area: CA confirmed a change in the Parking District regulations could be made legally. After further discussion C. Mink moved that the Chairman correspond with City Council, urging implementation of the several earlier recommendations for the Parking District and advising that the Planning Commission is prepared and willing to assist where Council feels it is appropriate. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote. C. Mink then asked that the Chair direct staff to include this topic on the next agenda. 13. APPEAL OF MAP CONDITION: JANUARY 5, 1981 LETTER FROM ZEV BEN-SIMON FOR THE CARMEL GARDEN CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, 977 EL CAMINO REAL Reference staff report dated February 5, 1981; January 5, 1981 letter from Zev Ben -Simon, Gilco Construction Company; April 20, 1979 memo from the Director of Public Works to the Plannamg Department; and Site Improvement Plans dated 4/18/79, reprinted 2/4/81. CE Erbacher reviewed City actions with regard to this condominium project, discussions with the developer and staff comments concerning the request to omit the City's require- ment that Sanchez Avenue be widened at its intersection with El Camino Real. He recommended that removal of the map condition be approved. During discussion CE advised staff would support removal of only this one condition, not that pertaining to the relocation of the sidewalk on E1 Camino Real. C. Jacobs moved to sustain this appeal and recommend that City Council remove the map condition requiring widening of Sanchez Avenue. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Zev Ben -Simon, the appellant was present and requested Commission also consider removal of the condition regarding the E1 Camino sidewalk. After a brief discussion, the appellant was advised to review this issue further with staff for possible consideration at a future meeting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 6 February 9, 1981 14. REVIEW OF AUGUST 11, 1980 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FAIRWAY RENT -A -CAR SYSTEM TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY -AT 1484 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CP Yost reviewed this item (reference staff report dated 2/6/81). Conditions of the permit were noted, staff inspections of the property and minor additional work yet to be completed. Staff recommended that final review of the landscaping requirement be continued to the February 23, 1981 Commission meeting. Chm. Sine so directed. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP reported that two Commissioners and the City Planner would be attending the Planning Commissioners Institute in Sacramento, February 11-13, 1981. A report will be made at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Joseph E. Harvey Secretary