Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.06.27f CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 27, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, June 27, 1983 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: Commissioners Giomi, Taylor Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the June 13, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - CP noted the applicant for Item #6, Agency Rent A Car, 903 California Drive, had requested a continuance to the meeting of July 11, 1983. She then advised other applicants in attendance that only five Commissioners were present this evening and four affirmative votes were necessary to approve an application. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TWO AWNING SIGNS AT 327 LORTON AVENUE, BY THOMAS VANNONI Item continued to the meeting of July 11, 1983 at the request of the applicant. Request: staff check out neon lights around the building, are they counted as part of the signage? 2. VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH HAS A NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD, AT 1112 CABRILLO AVENUE, BY MARTHA COSTA, APPLICANT CP Monroe reviewed this request for a family room/bath addition. Reference staff report dated 6/21/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/31/83; "no comments/objections/requirements" memos from the City Engineer (6/3/83), Chief Building Inspector (6/6/83) and Fire Marshal (6/6/83); May 23, 1983 letter from the applicant; aerial photograph of the site; and plans date stamped May 31, 1983. CP discussed details of the proposal, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification for variance, Planning staff comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The applicant, Martha Costa, was present. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Judith Hansen, 1108 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke in favor: the addition will be an asset to the neighborhood. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: addition will bring lot coverage to 40% which is the maximum permitted by code; Building Department will check details of bearing walls on the final plans; if the existing porch were removed the house would be without a rear exit. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1983 C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances in that the side yard was allowed under an older zoning ordinance; that to require the applicant to remove the porch would be a hardship; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner, and the addition is within permitted lot coverage; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the neighbors; and it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Schwalm then moved for approval of this variance with one condition: (1) that the project be developed according to the plans date stamped May 31, 1983. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 6' FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AND WITHIN 15' OF THE CORNER AT 1545 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, BY CARL GOLDSTONE FOR JEAN GOLDSTONE CP Monroe reviewed this request for two fence exceptions. Reference staff report dated 6/21/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/25/83; "no comments/ objections" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (6/2/83) and Fire Marshal (5/30/83); May 31, 1983 memo from the City Engineer; May 25 and June 10, 1983 letters from Carl Goldstone; photographs of the Floribunda/E1 Camino Real intersection; aerial photograph; Planning staff suggested redesign; and plans date stamped May 25, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification, Planning staff concerns/suggested redesign/comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Carl Goldstone was present, representing Jean Goldstone, the applicant. He agreed with staff's suggestion to curve the wall at the corner, noted pictures provided which he felt showed there was good visibility at the intersection, discussed the need for a permanent replacement of the existing wall and privacy for the four patios located at -grade. The possibility of locating the fence so that the existing acacia tree would be outside in the front setback landscaping was discussed. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: staff's suggested revised proposal would improve visibility, the number of trees along E1 Camino do provide some sightline blockage, there is a signal at this intersection; would prefer placing the fence behind the acacia tree; revised proposal would be curved and 4' back from the existing corner of the wall; concern about visibility for cars and pedestrians at this corner with a 6' fence as proposed. Another proposal was suggested to address the safety factor and open up the corner, pulling the fence back 15' from the corner of the property and leaving the height at 6'. Applicant commented the corner has a good accident record and none of the residents want to lose more of their patios than is necessary. The need for full visibility of traffic coming either way on El Camino was stressed. Commission acknowledged the tenants' need for privacy but safety considerations at this intersection were a concern. C. Garcia moved to grant a fence exception, allowing a 6' high fence located 15' back from the property line at the corner. He found there were exceptional circumstances because of the condition of the wall and how long it has been there; that with this proposal public hazard would be eliminated; that neighboring properties would not be materially damaged; and that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Motion seconded by C. Cistulli and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1983 4. AMENDMENT OF A 4/26/82 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ENCLOSE THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE WITH A SECURITY GATE, AT 1500 SHERMAN AVENUE, BY JOHN RALEIGH FOR TALDAN INVESTMENT CO. CP Monroe reviewed this request to fully secure the underground parking for this 18 unit residential condominium project. Reference staff report dated 6/21/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/12/83; May 23, 1983 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; May 24, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; May 24, 1983 memo from the City Engineer; May 11 and June 10, 1983 letters from the applicant; June 13, 1983 Planning Commission study meeting minutes; Vicinity Map and Survey Diagram; and plans date stamped May 11, 1983. CP discussed details of the request; Commission guest parking policy; staff review; applicant's justification for the proposed gate relocation; and referred to study meeting questions discussed in the staff report. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. John Raleigh, the applicant, was present. In reply to his request to extend the height of the fence on top of the wall to 9' he was advised the maximum height permitted by code was 6' from grade, including the wall. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: believe visitors would park on the street rather than use a communication system at the gate; prefer open guest parking; how would service people gain entrance?; applicant advised the most convenient place for the communication system would be at the gate, there would be two entry systems - one at the front door and one at the driveway gate; concern about double parking while using entry phone; fence is proposed along the top of the wall at the garage entrance in the alley area; approved gate was placed down the middle of the garage for architectural reasons, just below the elevator, which resulted in loss of two parking spaces; stairwells have no doors, only the elevator goes into the building. Concern was expressed about blocking the sidewalk when using the garage entry phone and about backing out, if necessary, into Sherman Avenue. Further comment: this request appears to be no different than the two previously approved applications for security gates for condominiums, although this time the request was received before the fact (applicant advised the other two condominiums do not have a phone system, guests must park, use phone at the building entrance and then be let in by a resident); it seems there are two alternatives: move the gate forward with a phone system or leave the gate where it is; think the best alternative for condominiums on E1 Camino Real would be security gate with the phone system; think it best to leave the gate where it is, use of the phone could be a problem. The Chair explained operation of this type of communication system. Redesign of the gate was suggested so that a car would not be on the ramp when using the intercom; applicant advised this was not a feasible solution. C. Leahy moved that the proposed amendment to the condominium permit for 1500 Sherman Avenue be denied. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny received a 3-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Graham dissenting, Cers Giomi and Taylor absent. Application effectively denied; four votes of Commissioners present necessary to carry a motion. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A DOG GROOMING SERVICE IN SUB -AREA D OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, AT 217 WEST LANE, BY STEPHEN CLARK WITH DAVID KIMMEL (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for a special use permit to allow a dog gromming shop. Reference staff report dated 6/22/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1983 5/18/83; May 18, 1983 letter from the applicant; May 18, 1983 letter from the property owner; staff comments: City Engineer (5/31 and 6/1/83), Chief Building Inspector (6/6/83) and Fire Marshal (5/24/83); 6/22/83 Planner's report of phone call to the County Health Department; Planner's June 22, 1983 memo re: parking for proposed dog grooming operation; June 13, 1983 Planning Commission study meeting minutes; copy of Notice of Hearing (all tenants were notified); and aerial photograph of the site. CP discussed details of the request, code requirement for use permit, staff review, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Stephen Clark, the applicant, was present. He advised that the Fire Department requirement for installation of an approved central station monitoring system is in the process of completion by the property owner. Regarding noise concerns, the shop has hallways on two sides, the wall between the restaurant, Pasta Bravo, and his proposed shop is a fire wall and soundproof, he did not believe dogs would cause a noise problem for the printing shop and to the immediate left there was an electrical closet with no occupants. He discussed his plans to have 24 permanent kennels for holding the dogs, only those being groomed would be outside these kennels. His preference was to use the West Lane entrance directly to the shop as recommended by staff. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Clark advised neither he nor his employees were veterinarians, they are experienced dog grooming people, no dogs would be kept on the premises overnight. David Kimmel, property owner, stated he would comply with the City Engineer's request to provide four parking spaces for this operation. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: there is a doorway into the hall from the proposed shop, employees will have access to the public restrooms; this business will be the seventh operation in this building, the limit previously established by Commission; the business will be run on an appointment basis; each dog would be on the premises approximately two hours, the applicant did not expect the 24 kennels would ever be full; he further commented that most dogs are brought to a grooming service on a regular basis and are accustomed to a grooming shop, therefore he did not expect an excessive amount of barking. Applicant said he had spoken with the operators of the Costa Bravo restaurant, the printing business and the photographic shop and they did Uot express any objections. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this special permit subject to the following conditions: (1) posting four of the parking spaces in the parking lot at the rear of the building for the use of the dog grooming business; (2) operate the business during the hours and on the terms described in the staff report of June 27, 1983 and applicant's letter of May 18, 1983; (3) comply with any requirements of the San Mateo County Health Inspector and Humane Society; and (4) comply with the conditions of the Fire Marshal's May 24, 1983 memo. Second C. Cistulli. Responding to a question on the motion, CP Monroe advised a master sign program had been approved for this building which outlines allowed signage for this site. Motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. USE DETERMINATION - CAR RENTAL AGENCY - 903 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Continued at the request of the applicant. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1983 Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. VARIANCE - 126 CLARENDON ROAD 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - 126 CLARENDON ROAD - HENRY AND ROBIN USE (APPLICANTS Requests: location of gutter and downspouts; direction of drainage and slope on the roof; where are the boats, trailers and cars being parked presently?; what is the existing garage being used for now and how large is it?; additional letter from the applicant addressing the findings of fact required for variance approval; information regarding previous homeowner special permits granted by Commission. Items set for hearing July 11, 1983. 9. SIGN EXCEPTION - 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - FOR PUTNAM BUICK Request: is this a standard Isuzu company sign? Comment: because car dealerships are now selling more than one manufacturer's cars perhaps Commission should review revision of Auto Row signage regulations. Item set for hearing July 11, 1983. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUCK STORAGE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT - 1645 ROLLINS ROAD - STAR EXCAVATION (APPLICANT) Requests: length of time requested for this use; another application after the fact, request staff explore possibility of penalizing violators in some way financial rather than by having violation possibly prejudice approval; clarify contradiction between site plan submitted and aerial photograph; type of trucks to be parked in this area; screening to be provided; will security guards for Hiram Walker also take care of security for Star Excavation? Item set for hearing July 11, 1983. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 20, 1983 meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENT June 14, 1983 letter from Marjorie McCarthy, Hoover Children's Center at 2220 Summit Drive, advising of her plans to rent an additional classroom beginning August 1, 1983. There will be no increase in enrollment or change in hours of operation. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, A. M. (Bill) Garcia Vice Chairman