Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.11.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, November 24, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. R OT.T. C A T.T. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 10, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW 6'-4" HIGH FENCE COLUMNS WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 1315 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/24/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The 19' curb cut for the driveway was questioned; CE replied it would appear there is sufficient frontage, 25% of frontage is allowed. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicants, Thomas and Maureen Byrne, were present. Mr. Byrne explained his home is on a hill, the slope is such that the height of the columns is needed to provide a handrail. Wattage and illumination from the light fixtures and location of planter strip were discussed. Joan Auran, 1323 Bernal Avenue, spoke in favor; she felt this proposal would be a great improvement to the house. There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. From a site inspection, C. S.Graham felt the project would be a dramatic improvement to the site, the house needs a wall, it is a large house, the columns will suit the home and it is obvious the stairs need to be replaced. She found there were exceptional circumstances in the slope of the lot and the need for a handrail; there would be no public hazard; surrounding properties would not be damaged, they would be enhanced; and the regulations cause a hardship upon the petitioner since this proposal would be much safer. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 24, 1986 C. S.Graham moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the fence posts as installed shall have a maximum height of 6'-4" and a maximum girth of 2' x 2' and shall be installed at the location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 4, 1986; and (2) that before installation the applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Building Department. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A DETACHED GARAGE WHICH EXCEEDS 14' IN HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF STORAGE PERMITTED AT 1337 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/24/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of this application to allow completion of a garage which had been red tagged by the Building Department, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: addition of a condition limiting utilities in the garage; is the gazebo included in the 38% lot coverage figure; is sliding glass door at the first level of the garage shown on the plans; code requirement for windows in such a structure. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Bob Davenport, applicant, was present. Commission/applicant discussion: sliding glass door is needed for light because there is a solid garage door; applicant confirmed he is a builder by trade and is aware of the procedures for processing through a city; he did not pick up a set of the plans approved for the building permit but constructed the garage himself from a tracing as well as certain directions from the Building Department on a small sheet of paper received with the building permit. It was determined that the plans that were a part of the building permit had been conditioned by the CBI with a maximum height of 14' and maximum plate line of 9' since there was no scale on the second page of the plans submitted, these notations had been made on the plans. Commissioners questioned how much storage area was being proposed and why the applicant needed it; applicant commented the gable roof cuts out a lot of room, he is requesting 440 SF storage area, he brought in two sets of plans to the Building Department and picked up his building permit as well as special directions on a sheet of paper, permit did not mention height. Commissioners felt since applicant is a building contractor he should have been aware of the need to take a set of approved plans with him, there are notations on the approved plans and this is considered a part of the building permit. Applicant stated 14' maximum height was not noted on the sheet of paper received from the Building Department, he did not know there was a height limit and he was merely building a garage he had planned for about four years; Commission pointed out the 14' height was clarified by a notation on the plans. Commenting on the CE's requirement for a lot line survey, applicant stated he was not advised this would be needed when he applied for the building permit. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1986 Further Commissioners' comment: how can Commission approve this project, it would be precedent setting, anyone could build what he wants, then say he didn't know or forgot to pick up plans; am not happy with all the circumstances of this application but it is only a matter of 1'-9" in height, due to the design am not concerned it could be used for living space, the applicant has done a nice job, buildings behind the garage are higher, there are a lot of tall buildings in this general area, the backyard has been improved; find this to be a flagrant disregard of the rules and 'regulations of the city and the Building Department, it is hard to believe that a building contractor would not use a set of city approved plans for any construction, although it is a nicely finished structure cannot go along with approval; why didn't the applicant return to the Building Department for the approved plans. Means of eliminating some of the storage area or reducing it to the 154 SF permitted was discussed, and comment made that conceivably it could be made into a habitable area; and applicant has not made a case to support his position. It was suggested the applicant be denied without prejudice with a request for revised plans for the storage area to meet code, thus requiring only one special permit; CA advised if this action is taken a time limit should be included and if plans are not received by that date the applicant would be denied with prejudice. Stating she wished to give the applicant an opportunity to come back for only one special permit, C. Jacobs moved to deny the special permits without prejudice with the four conditions in the staff report and a fifth condition requiring that the applicant resubmit plans showing a redesign of the loft area, cutting it back to 154 SF, by the first meeting in January (1/12/87); if applicant does not comply his application is denied with prejudice and he will be given 30 days to correct the violations in his garage. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Leahy moved for denial of the special permits with prejudice, for the reasons stated this evening, this is a flagrant violation of city codes. Second C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: this action will require the applicant to build his garage in accordance with the original plans or an abatement action will be taken. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP/CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, EXISTING 12 UNIT COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MILLS GARDEN COURT NO. 2 (1821 OGDEN DRIVE) Reference staff memo (11/18/86). CE Erbacher discussed the existing structure which was built in the early 19601s, records indicate it was a cooperative apartment prior to June, 1962 at which time there were no map provisions for condominiums. Action on the Final Condominium Map will clear up title company concerns on these apartments under individual ownership. CA advised tenants now own a percentage of the building, this map is an attempt to make it legally a condominium so people can sell their units without causing lending agencies confusion. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1986 C. Garcia moved to recommend this Final Condominium 'Map/Certificate of Compliance to City Council for approval. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 4. MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR THE CROSBY COMMONS RETAIL CENTER AT 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB -AREA A Reference staff report, 11/24/86 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of this new master signage program, staff review, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to Commissioner question, CP advised regulations of this permit would be enforced through the tenants' lease agreements, staff would enforce flagrant violations if landlord did not. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Jack Kemp, architect representing the property owners, stated there is a change in detail with this proposal but the overall effect is similar to the prior approved application; there are fewer total signs on Primrose and Burlingame Avenue, rear signage remains the same; there will be more aesthetic control because awning signs will be uniform and tailored to the building color scheme; total square footage will increase by 7 SF on Burlingame and Primrose but is still 60 SF below that permitted by the sign ordinance; this application represents the desires and needs of the tenants; suggested conditions of approval by staff are acceptable to the applicant; the leases state that all signs will conform to the City of Burlingame's requirements and must have approval of the owners; Crosby Commons sign has been changed from bronze to polished brass, there may be one polished brass sign at the rear. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there were special circumstances in this multi -tenant complex and the tenants' need for identification, an*Y exception granted would be an improvement to the area, this proposal is in good taste. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the master signage program and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Master Signage Program with the following conditions: (1) that the master signage program as described in the table titled "Revised Request for Crosby Commons Signage" dated November 10, 1986 shall be approved with the further limitation on the window signs on the rear secondary frontage that these signs shall be limited in size to 5% of the area of one window or, if the signage is placed on only one of two or more windows on a single tenant's site, limited to 10% of the area of one window to a total of 9 SF of window signs on the rear frontage; (2) that there shall be no window signs above the ground floor; (3) that there shall be no interior signs oriented toward the street frontage within 3 feet of a window or door facing these frontages; and (4) that the regulations of this master sign permit and sign exception shall be included in the tenants' lease agreements and enforced by the property owner and manager. Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: awning signs will be limited to the total square footage regardless of the length of the tenant's name; concern about exiting provisions, this has been approved by the Fire and Building Departments. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1986 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A 6' DIAMETER SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA ON THE ROOF AT 1501 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 11/24/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this item and pointed out that the proposed antenna will be used by a teleconferencing business for groups/classes. Applicant will need a special permit for these classes but wished to go ahead with the dish antenna application at this time. Some Commissioners were hesitant to consider the antenna request prior to the application for classes. Following some discussion C. H.Graham moved to continue this item until the special permit application for classes at this site is before the Commission. Second C. Jacobs; motion approved on a .4-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi and Schwalm dissenting. Staff will bring both items to the Commission at the earliest opportunity. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 11/24/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, Public Works Department concerns, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE commented on his concern about the use of the drainage easement for required parking which allows expansion or intensification of uses or structures in the area outside the drainage easement, this could set a precedent and increase traffic demand in the area; property purchased from the SP is not wide enough to provide parking. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Arthur Michael, applicant and property owner, discussed his purchase of the SP property and the merging of the three parcels; almost all Building Department requirements and recommendations have been made; the addition will have the required fire door. Commission/applicant discussion: the back area will be lighted and arrows placed on the asphalt directing to the parking in the rear; concern about narrow turnaround space. Applicant said he had purchased another two acres in the drainage easement on the other side of the pump station which he hopes to pave for additional parking. Responding to the Chair's question, Mr. Michael advised staff's conditions of approval were acceptable with the exception of the CE's condition regarding the parcel map and granting drainage easements, he did not wish other properties to drain across the SP land he purchased. CE commented since the error in the parcel map was not taken care of when the map was recently reviewed he is placing a condition on this application to require that the applicant grant drainage easements across the SP property. CA advised requiring drainage easements across this land is an appropriate condition for this action if Commission wishes. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 24, 1966 Linda Gemello, attorney representing Royal Racquet Club, 1718 Rollins Road urged support of the drainage easement condition; Royal Racquet has drained across this easement since 1978 as have other properties on Rollins Road; the alternative would be to drain out onto Rollins Road and all other property owners to the south would have to do the same, water must go somewhere. Applicant stated none of the existing properties drain at grade, all below except Royal.. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: original map action did not show the spur tracks but believe intent was that SP would go in there; part of the drainage easement land is owned by SP and some by adjacent property owners; drainage comes from both directions, north and south and east and west, into this area, it is a critical area. CA clarified court proceedings between Prime Time Athletic Club and Royal Racquet Club, there will be further proceedings. Stating this is a businessman trying to improve his property and service to the public although he may be stubborn on the drainage issue, C. Schwalm moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memos of October 15, 1986 and November 14, 1986, the Chief Building Inspector's memos of June 17, 1985 and November 4, 1986 and the City Engineer's memos of November 3, 1986 and July 15, 1985 shall be met; (2) that the applicant shall provide 14 paved parking spaces to current city code dimensions including backup aisle on the drainage easement to meet the required parking for the new addition (seven spaces) and to replace the most substandard (seven spaces) of the existing parking; (3) that signage shall be installed directing those using the parking to the additional parking at the rear, this signage shall be designed and placed as required by the City Engineer; (4) that no vehicles shall be parked to block the access easement to the pump station adjacent to the rear of the property; and (5) that the structural addition shall be located and generally designed as shown in the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 10, 1986 and revised site plan of October 31, 1986 except that the size of the new addition shall not exceed 4,200 SF with a 120 SF open balcony and all parking shall be perpendicular. Second C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: possibility of converting some existing racquetball courts to aerobics area; condition of the drainage easement during normal storms would not substantially limit use of area for parking; existing weight room may be used for something else, was that included in the parking requirements; any property on the east side of Rollins Road, if they wanted to expand, might buy the SP land, understand CE's concern about the growth inducing impact. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1986 Recess 9:47 P.M.; reconvene 9:55 P.M. 7. REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-66P) ON THE SEALING OF THE SANITARY LANDFILL, CONSTRUCTION OF A LEACHATE BARRIER, CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF,AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED AND TIDAL PLAIN Reference staff memo, 11/24/86. Commission comment: will there be lighting on the pathway along the bay; how far from shore do the berm and barrier extend; during sealing construction will there be any exposure of buried debris resulting in odors; letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board is not included in the appendix; is a roadway built over the existing two lanes of Airport Boulevard an alternative; in Appendix A what type of garbage has been deposited in the sanitary landfill. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff will prepare the Response to Comment document (Final EIR) based on Commission comment this evening and letters received from reviewing agencies. ITEMS FOR STUDY 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA - 1214 BURLINGAME AVENUE 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA - 1815 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: letter addressing why the applicant needs these dishes, why not use some other means; why can't other dish antenna installations be only 4'-6" high; will this installation be for their employees only or will they conduct seminars on a regional basis with people coming in from outside. Items set for hearing December 8, 1986. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT - INSURANCE OFFICE - 1502 ADELINE DRIVE Regarding number of employees/customer visits, note conference table seats six people. Item set for hearing December 8, 1.986. ll.SIGN EXCEPTION - MIKE HARVEY TOYOTA - 1007 ROLLINS/1008 CAROLAN Item set for hearing December 8, 1986. Commission comment: suggest studying the sign code in, the auto row area to determine if present standards are appropriate; many sites now have more than one dealership. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Permit review - Lee's Snack Bar, 801 Mahler Road (Zoning Aide memo, November 7, 1986). Paage 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1986 PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its November 17, 1986 regular meeting. Commissioner Shelley Graham reviewed -the November 19, 1986 City Council study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:36 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary