Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.12.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, December 9, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the November 25, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: page 6, first paragraph, last line should read "institutional" advertising. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with the addition of study item #9, Condominium Permit and Variance, 113 Anita Road. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE WINDMARK HOTEL DEVELOPMENT, 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (FEIR-64P) Reference staff report, 12/9/85, with attachments. CP Monroe referred to the public hearing held on the Draft EIR. The final document addresses Commission questions at the public hearing and written responses received when the DEIR was circulated. If Commission finds the Final EIR and staff prepared findings to be adequate the FEIR should be recommended to Council for certification. Responding to Commissioner question, CP stated her belief all comments and responses had been adequately addressed in the final document. Commission comment: concern about traffic, new northbound off -ramp will relieve the situation but southbound traffic is heavy now; staff commented Broadway is most critical only at the P.M. peak hour, mitigation would be that the hotel encourage using the Broadway interchange instead of going south to San Mateo; regarding Bay Area Air Quality Management District letter and Response in the FEIR, correct east/west reference from the Burlingame landfill. C. Jacobs moved for adoption of Commission resolution recommending EIR-64P to the City Council for certification. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on unanimous voice vote. Pag e 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1985 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 95 SF SATELLITE ANTENNA DISH MOUNTED MORE THAN 5' OFF THE GROUND AT 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE C. Jacobs abstained from participation in this item. Reference staff report; 12/9/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, this unusual flag lot, staff review, applicants' letter, study meeting questions. This is a code enforcement item. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: size of the dish in comparison to another installation approved by Commission; staff confirmed no comments had been received by staff from the residents of 1219 or 1221 Vancouver. 'The applicant, Daniel Rosenbledt, was present. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Peggy Kane, 2112 Broadway: she was concerned about the location of the dish for aesthetic reasons and the impact on property values; the view from her kitchen window into the backyard is now obstructed by the dish; she distributed photographs illustrating her remarks. In attempting to resolve the issue the applicants and their contractor visited the Kane site; the contractor suggested an alternative of lowering the dish 41; Mrs. Kane suggested moving the dish back and down where it would be somewhat hidden by a tree; the tree has been trimmed, a play house has been put up in the area where the dish might have been placed. She presented a letter in opposition from Pauline and Kenneth Irons, 2108 Broadway which was read into the record. Their concerns: aesthetics, visibility of the dish from their garden, adverse impact on property values in the neighborhood, the lack of concern for their neighbors the applicants have shown. James Walsh, 2116 Broadway agreed with the previously expressed concerns, the dish is visible from the back of his patio, he was concerned about proliferation of unsightly satellite dishes in a city which takes pride in its trees and landscaping. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: antenna is not visible from the street but after listening to testimony this evening have a concern about its impact on the neighbors; a site inspection indicated there were several locations where the dish could be installed without impacting the neighbors although these would be visible to the applicants, the proposed location cannot be seen from the applicants' house, this is an application after the fact on an installation which has not been sensitive to the neighborhood. Applicant's contractor advised there is no alternative location which could clear the eucalyptus trees across the street. Further comment/discussion: why was permit not taken out prior to installation, many cities now have satellite dish antenna ordinances and contractor should have been aware of this; at present the pole and dish are installed but not hooked up and has never been operated. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1985 Applicant stated the antenna is not hooked up because he wanted prior city approval. He distributed photographs of the site and copies of his letters written in 1983 and 1984 to Mrs. Crosby, 1200 Jackling, Hillsborough with regard to trimming the eucalyptus trees on her property; he has been unsuccessful in having the trees trimmed and the dish must face in that direction; applicant has upgraded his property and improved the grounds; there is a rooftop dish very close to his site which can be seen from his house; several neighbors have storage sheds and shacks which are visible to him. Mr. Rosenbledt noted a letter in support received by the Planning Department November 26, 1985 from Victor Bogan, 1201 Vancouver Avenue. He presented a petition in favor signed by the following: Dan Ping, 1219 Vancouver Avenue; N. J. Demas, 1225 Vancouver Avenue and Faye Thompson, 1237 Vancouver Avenue. Commission comment: reason for the ordinance was to keep antennas from being an eyesore to neighbors and to impact only the property owner himself, it is difficult to vote for approval when neighbors can see the dish; have heard no convincing evidence to support granting this application. C. Taylor moved for denial of this special permit with the statement that the city's dish antenna ordinance was adopted to enhance the community as a whole rather than a single property owner, the impact of this proposal would be severe, in the light of community need this application should be subordinated to the neighborhood interest. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 1723 TOLEDO AVENUE Reference staff report, 12/9/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter in opposition from William B. and Frances M. Clarkson, 2700 Trousdale Drive (December 9, 1985) was noted. Commission/staff discussion: because of the angle of view and orientation of the house the dish at its proposed height and location will not be visible from Toledo Avenue or from homes above because of the slope of the hill and heavy vegetation; it is possible the upper edge of the dish will be visible from houses on Trousdale across the street. One Commissioner commented the same vegetation/foliage might not be there several years from now. Steve Navarro, Home Satellite Systems (applicant) stated this is the only location on the site to get complete reception without bothering the other neighbors, if it were lowered 2-1/2' to 3' they would lose reception, in the worst case the dish would be visible to two homes on Trousdale no more than 20%; the top of the dish would be lower than the top of the metal rod of the chimney; property owner chose a 7' dish although he would lose some signal in order to be less obtrusive to the neighbors. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1985 Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Frank Grant, property owner, spoke in favor: they tried their utmost to keep the dish as low as possible and not above the roof line, it might be visible from two homes across the street on Trousdale, Mrs. Miller at 2705 Trousdale will see it; his main interest in this installation is for watching NASA programs which are not available elsewhere. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 5, 1985 shall be met; (2) that the present standard TV antenna now on the roof shall be removed; (3) that the dish as installed shall be painted black with a nonreflective finish and that the color and nonreflective quality shall be maintained so long as the antenna stays on this property; and (4) that any change in location, height or angle of the dish antenna shall require amendment to this special permit. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion:Ithis has been a thorough review with an opportunity to examine all impacts, commend the property owner on his sensitivity to the neighbors, the installation will not be obtrusive and visible to only one neighbor in back who has signed a permission form. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS A POOL HOUSE AT 824 FAIRFIELD ROAD Reference staff report, 12/9/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow an accessory structure to be used as a pool house and to allow a bathroom in this structure. She discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, Planning staff comment. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP confirmed the carport constructed with a building permit is permissible. Commission concerns: size of the proposed pool house (almost 700 SF); would applicant consider a lanai; window in the pool house which faces 820 Fairfield's yard. Staff advised fire wall requirement will be decided at the time of building permit; if application is approved sewer problem will be evaluated and corrected. Patricia Fonde, applicant, addressed Commission: with respect to not complying with demolition of the kitchen and existing bathroom within 30 days as required by the Building Department, the delay was caused by unavailability of her contractor; she did not understand demolition and plans for the new bathroom were to be simultaneous actions; in her discussions with the Building Department she was aware of the violations regarding the pool permit which needed correction, she was not aware closing escrow was an issue. She stated the entire backyard where the pool is located is fenced; her understanding of the (*)Applicants for satellite dish antenna special permits should be encouraged to provide a more detailed description and drawings of the dish including site plans and elevations so that staff is not required to compile this information. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 9, 1985 violations is what appears in the letters with the Building Department; she had no discussions with anyone at City Hall regarding penalty fees before she bought the property and felt she had acted in good faith. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion/determinations: applicant's letter of September 4, 1985 confirms she will comply with items a through e of the Building Inspector's August 28, 1985 letter; applicant questioned why a new owner should be required to pay a former owner's penalty fees; there is no one living in the pool house now; regarding size of 'the structure, she is merely trying to use what is there; when the house was up for sale listing realtors were kept informed by the city of the state of this property. Further comment: more concerned about on-site parking spaces provided than the request to allow the applicant to keep what is already on site; this is a three bedroom house with carport but that is not the issue, the issue of this application is a request to convert an accessory structure to a pool house and allow a toilet in that structure; proposal will upgrade the accessory structure but am concerned about approving a pool house with bathroom, difficult to enforce this use in the long term, city won't have control over use as a dwelling unit; think the city must consider this applicant to be in good faith, we can't say no just because the accessory structure might be converted to another unit in the future; if a citizen is asking for a special permit to go beyond what is permitted in the code, he has some responsibility to provide on-site parking to present code; this is a large structure for a pool house, if a portion of it were reconverted to provide another parking space it would be better for the city and more difficult to convert to a living unit. With the statement that this applicant is willing to make the improvements required by the city, it will be a considerable investment and she is attempting to make the best of a situation she did not create, C. Schwalm moved for approval of the two special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 18, 1985 and Building Inspector's letter of August 28, 1985, and the City Engineer's memo of November 4, 1985 shall be met; (2) that for public safety the swimming pool shall be enclosed by a fence with self closing gates as required by Code Sec. 23.01.050 and this fence shall be installed within 30 days; and (3) that the accessory structure use be limited to a pool house, that the kitchen shall be removed and that no bed or kitchen shall ever be installed within the structure, the footprint of the structure shall not be increased, the structure shall not be used for living purposes and that the entire building shall be brought up to current Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements and shall meet the requirements of the City Engineer within 90 days. Second C. Taylor. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1985 Comment on the motion: will vote for these special permits but would ask that the applicant consider putting a two car garage on the property at some future time; this is a very large pool house, would remind_ Commission they have considered many oversized garages and denied them because it would be easy to convert to a living unit, this is the same type of situation, will vote no; applicant was aware there was a problem when she bought the property, this type of request could occur all over town. Motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Jacobs and Leahy dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 623 ANSEL AVENUE Reference staff report, 12/9/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the project, staff review, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Applicant was present. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this project meets all the condominium guidelines and zoning regulations, and will be beneficial to the city, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the condominium permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominiums with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 5, 1985 memo, the City Engineer's November 18, 1985 memo and the Director of Parks' October 16, 1984 and November 27, 1985 memos shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 30, 1985 as amended by the plans date stamped December 4, 1985; and (3) that the heights of all the fences on the rear and side property lines shall be measured from grade on the adjacent properties. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT (PTN. LOT 14, BLOCK 7, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY MAP NO. 2) Reference City Engineer's agenda memo, November 19, 1985. C. Jacobs moved that these maps be recommended to Council for approval subject to the following condition: (1) that at least one of the existing dwelling structures be removed prior to the filing of the lot combination parcel map. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Recess 9:42 P.M.; reconvene 9:52 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STORAGE LOFT TO REMAIN - 341 PRIMROSE ROAD Requests: clarify whether clients go up in the loft; is applicant trading basement storage for upper storage, or is she adding storage; Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1985 why the rail instead of solid wall; ceiling height on upper level and lower level; letter from applicant addressing the legal requirements for variance approval. Item set for hearing January 13, 1986. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION - IBIS HOTEL - 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: is Sign C above parapet and a roof sign; height from ground of Sign D; clarify text of Sign F; include pictures referred to in the text; include signage chart for all signage in the area. Item set for hearing January 13, 1986. 9. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE - 113 ANITA ROAD Requests: letter addressing the legal requirements for variance approval; is there designated guest parking and a gate; review CC&Rs prior to public hearing. Item set for hearing January 13, 1986. PLANNER REPORT - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its December 2, 1985 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary