Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.06.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 9, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, June 9, 1986 at 7:33 PM. ROT.T. rAT.T. Present: Commissioners Garcia (arrived 7:37 PM), Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the May 27, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CONDITION #2 OF THE 11/18/85 SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN DESIGN OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1204 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/9/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed applicant's request to change the roof line of the plans approved for this garage in 1985, staff review, applicant's letter. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to Commissioner question, CP related staff's discussions with the applicant concerning the proposed new roof line. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. George Plavjian, representing the applicant, stated when the plate line was dropped to 10' to meet code as required in 1985 this resulted in a very steep slope on the peaked roof and less storage space; the proposed barn style roof will match the roof style of the house and provide more storage space. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: since the city has no design review board, the plate line and height meet code and proposed architectural design matches the house, have no objection to approval; think this is a substantial change and it does make a visual impact, the change in roof line intensifies the bulk of the project; a finding was made in 1985 to support more than 40% lot coverage, roof line overhanging neighbor's property has been modified, do not believe any garage can be designed to look like the front of the house, agree it has a visual impact but any structure would have an impact from the street because of the small lot; not happy with the way applicant handled this matter but have no objection to changing the plans. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 C. Garcia moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following condition: (1) the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer (May 27, 1986 memo) and the Chief Building Inspector (May 23, 1986 memo). Second C. Jacobs; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AT 1221 SANCHEZ AVENUE WHICH DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 6/9/861 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of this request, staff review, applicant's letter, June 2, 1986 statement by the applicant signed by seven neighbors indicating they had no objection. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Cory Gin, architect representing the applicant, stated they had no problem with meeting the Building Division's requirement for a one hour wall between the garage and house. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances, that the alternative of stepping the structure back to meet the required side setback would be a detriment to the neighborhood, this proposal would be more aesthetic; the variance is necessary for the property rights of the owner to allow him to expand his home; it would not be detrimental to the neighbors since all other code requirements are met; and it would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this variance application with the following conditions: (1) the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector (May 20, 1986 memo); and (2) all work shall comply with the approved plans date stamped May 13, 1986. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: this addition will provide off-street parking for three cars; neighbors have approved. There was concern about possible removal of a street tree and a third condition was suggested: (3) that if a street tree needs to be removed it shall be reviewed by the Director of Parks and Beautification Commission and the applicant required to pay if necessary. Cers Schwalm and Graham accepted this condition as a part of their motion. Motion with three conditions was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TWO VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A 200 SF SUN ROOM AT THE REAR OF THE FIVE UNIT APARTMENT AT 950 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 6/9/86, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: the glass enclosed structure itself will not be higher than 81, the spa inside will be elevated 31; degree of soundproofing, number of doors in the structure, under the UBC this structure is not considered habitable area, it would have to be of one hour construction to be habitable; applicants live in the unit to the rear, the other units are toward the front of the building with parking underneath; there will be stairs from the main floor to the spa, the sliding glass doors of the house would have to be replaced with a one hour fire resistant door. It was noted the aerial photo shows this structure would not impact any building on adjacent sites in the rear. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Hal Jarvis, Century Patio, represented the applicant. His comments: there is a 10' PUE directly behind, the sun room would not be against any other property's rear yard, it is not a habitable room and is designed to keep inclement weather off the spa, diameter of the spa is approximately 6' x 61, it is a portable unit which plugs in; if windows were closed there would be very little noise traveling outside the enclosure; there is one sliding glass door, the rest of the structure is made up of openable windows which could be opened for air circulation; it is rather like a greenhouse or solarium; the existing living room floor is 14" high, there would be one step going down to the spa. Richard Boe, applicant, advised the reason for enclosing this structure was that it would be used year round; there are six people in his family; the structure is available in smaller sizes but cutting down the proposed size would require removing the existing glass doors and present a structural problem which would also reduce light in the apartment unit itself. Applicant preferred to keep the structure as a 10' x 20' patio with cover. Staff commented that a one hour wall will be required between this structure and the house; with a 10' x 10' structure they would still exceed lot coverage, the problem is the sliding glass doors in the main structure. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/determinations: aerial photograph shows the 10' easement behind the building; if the greenhouse is added, one hour construction or its equivalent for the area where there are sliding glass doors into the apartment unit will be required; if approved, applicant will be required to meet all UBC regulations. C. Leahy stated a site inspection showed there is lawn and BBQ area, 5' between the greenhouse and the property line, then the 10' PUE; directly behind there is a garage and on either side garages are built up to the applicant's rear property line. C. Leahy found approval of the variances would not be giving the applicant anything the neighbors in the rear do not already have, that is, a structure at the property line and basing a finding of exceptional circumstances on this condition C. Leahy moved for approval of the application with the Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of May 2, 1986 shall be met; (2) that the patio shall be installed as noted on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 23, 1986 and May 15, 1986 with a maximum height of structure not to exceed 8' and a minimum height not to exceed 71; and (3) that mechanical equipment necessary for the operation of the spa shall not be located within 10' of any property line; second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: there is open space in the rear and no structures in the rear area which are conditions of the property to support a finding of exceptional circumstances. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW EXISTING SIGNS AT 1010 CADILLAC WAY TO REMAIN WHICH EXCEED THE NUMBER AND AMOUNT PERMITTED BY THE SIGN CODE, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/9/96, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Comment: from a site inspection, Sign E, wall sign, in the Table of Signs should be shown on Carolan rather than Cadillac, this would be within code; possibility of consolidating the signs on Broadway. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Nancy LaPlante, representing Rector Motor Car Company, stated they wished to retain all signs as they are, most have been there for a long time; Sign H on the Broadway frontage was previously one sign, with a split of the franchisers in 1985 separate signage was required. CP noted signs with no permits having been issued. Further Commission comment: would franchisers accept a requirement for a smaller sign; flags are considered signs in the M-1 district, but not on Auto Row. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had diverse opinions: have no problem with the signage requested but do object to no permits being issued for some of them, if the exception is granted will applicant be required to pay a penalty on such permits; believe applicant should be allowed this signage, he has three dealerships, size of the signs is not offensive in view of the size of the area and the product being sold; find the whole program offensive, the signs are too large and too many; this is Auto Row signage in the M-1 district, the sign code was written to protect the areas regulated, think applicant could consolidate into a feasible, better looking program and still have advertising value; it's too late to tell an auto dealer he can't have his existing signs when they have been there for some time, regardless of the number of franchisers; auto dealers need the identification and this composite layout is not asking too much; 16 signs on one property are too many, and shortly there will be an auto dealership across the street, approval could set a precedent for that business. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 With the statement this signage is excessive and too many, C. Jacobs moved to deny without prejudice the sign exception. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: the large moving sign on top of the pole predates the current sign code which would prohibit it; in actuality this site has four frontages. Motion to deny was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Graham and Schwalm dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL AN ELECTRICAL GENERATOR WITH A HEAT RECOVERY UNIT AT PENINSULA HOSPITAL, 1783 EL CAMINO REAL Reference staff report, 6/9/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, study meeting questions, letter (June 5, 1986) from Joan and Steve Perdue, 1601 Davis Drive expressing concern about air and noise pollution. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: generator will operate 24 hours a day; sound will be heavy and low as opposed to high and piping; staff has received no complaints about the existing generator. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Michael Brown, Brown Vence & Associates, San Francisco represented the applicant, Mills -Peninsula Hospitals. He gave a brief presentation using the overhead projector to explain cogeneration: its purpose is to substantially reduce energy requirements of the hospital, and will save money, this is an area where the hospital can cut costs without affecting the service level provided patients. It will be located in the existing generator building and will not add or delete any jobs at the hospital; expect to be in operation in August 1988. Environmental impacts of such a project are air emissions and noise; it is designed to minimize emissions, permit application has been made to the BAAQCB. The generator will be located in an existing concrete building and treated to reduce noise levels and comply with the conditions listed in the staff report. There will be limited additional traffic during construction; no change in aesthetics, no ecological or water impact. Energy use will be substantially more efficient than the hospital's current system. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Brown stated his acoustical consultant has confirmed noise levels can be kept at 45 dBA in public and sleeping areas; the hospital itself is extremely concerned about noise impacts; electricity will be generated from natural gas; there will be a minor amount of new trenching required outside; this project has no relationship to the proposed Sequoias project. Background noise level at present is 45 dBA at night, higher during the day, this engine will be no louder than the noise levels already there. Outside of the building it would produce a low rumbling sound, not a high pitched whine. If noise levels at nearby residences are 45 dBA presently and another source is added at 45 dBA, the result would be about 48 dBA which is considerably lower than the 55 dBA guideline; applicant's calculations indicate there will not be an increase of more than 3 dBA Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 at property line. Steam is presently being furnished by gas fired boilers in the basement of the hospital, hospital also purchases energy from PG&E; this project will take gas to produce both electricity and steam, it will use the existing exhaust stack of the emergency generator. This project is not comparable to a test run with the old auxiliary generator in 1982 since that generator was run out of doors with no baffling or structural protection. After that test the hospital decided not to pursue use of the old generator. Dr. Gill, representative's acoustical consultant, responded to questions: regarding neighborhood noise levels, 3 dBA would be the maximum increase in noise levels 24 hours a day; the normal ear cannot distinguish that small an amount of change in background noise level unless one were listening for it. Commissioner concern: noise produced will be different and might be more annoying than the existing noise; is there no technology the hospital could use for its energy which would add zero noise. Mr. Brown commented he was not aware of any such technology but perhaps with more money noise could be reduced more. A Commissioner asked what would have to be done to control the noise completely in the building; Dr. Gill replied the project was designed to be consistent with the existing noise environment, it is impossible to reduce noise levels outside the building to zero. The Chair commented it is Commission's desire to have as little noise as possible in the neighborhoods; is it unreasonable to ask for a lower ambient noise level than that included in the General Plan. Staff noted figures in the General Plan are guidelines only. Tom Vence stated payoff of the project would be approximately four years. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Joan Perdue, 1601 Davis Drive; Irwin Marcus, 1712 Quesada Way; Judy Scott, 1116 Dufferin Avenue; Vivian Manfredi, 1649 Coronado Way; Rich McGough, 1712 Davis Drive; Ruth Rosenberger, 1109 Dufferin Avenue; Mario Knapic, 1108 Dufferin Avenue. Their comments: can hear the hospital's generator now, this project will run 24 hours a day, think noise will be heard 150-200 feet away from the source; object to 24 hour a day noise impact on the neighborhoods and on the schools, hospital is a public institution, neighbors are more important than cost effectiveness; live behind the former Safeco building now owned by the hospital, it has an air conditioner running on and off every five minutes, have asked the hospital to cover the unit but they were not responsive, this project will add more noise in the neighborhood; project will add to the existing aircraft noise in the area; think a background noise, if it is a constant drone, will affect nearby residents, hospital patients are there only 5-10 days, neighbors must live with it 365 days a year - day and night; applicant's representative is from San Francisco, only people who live in the neighborhood can understand the noise problem; with 24 hour a day use noise will be a problem and will be noticeable. Michael Brown spoke in rebuttal: an increase in the range of 3 dBA would not be heard by the normal ear; this engine will not be turned on and off and will not be the type of noise generated by an air conditioner, the generator will have a constant speed; the most quiet time as determined by the acoustical consultant was the middle of the Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 night and that was at 45 dBA; noise levels were taken in the backyards of residences on Davis Drive, 50' from the entrance to the hospital on the east side of Davis; two other locations were spot checked, the other side of the entrance and on Davis Drive. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comment/discussion: don't have enough information, applicants have agreed there would be new noise, that it could be reduced but cost effectiveness must be considered; in view of the information given Commission this evening would like a revised proposal which would reduce noise to acceptable levels. Staff commented Commission could deny without prejudice but cautioned that direction must be given regarding the noise measurement they wish to attain and at what point. One Commissioner stated he could not support even one dBA, the hospital chose its site and the site is in a residential area; agree Commission does not have enough information, suggest continuing this item to the next meeting to allow time to study the material received this evening; Commission should give the applicant clear direction; cannot understand, with the money they are talking about, why the exterior noise level cannot be reduced to zero. C. Graham moved to deny this application without prejudice with instruction to the applicant to return with a better plan which would reduce the noise level at property line to something less than 3 dBA. Second C. Taylor; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:10 P.M.; reconvene 10:20 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AUTO SALES LOT AT 1044-1060 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/9/86, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Taylor did not participate in this item due to conflict of interest. Discussion: city action and intention on approval of the Bekins project with regard to signalization at Carolan and Broadway; CE's condition #1 in his May 9, 1986 memo concerning temporary asphalt concrete median; ingress/egress for both properties; city will require the two properties be merged. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Michael R. Harvey, applicant, addressed Commission: his impression when the Bekins project at 1070 Broadway was approved was that a signal at Broadway and Carolan had been approved; staff's impression appears to be that the matter would be considered as a part of the Broadway/California intersection study and Public Works has further stated signalization at Broadway and Carolan may not be practical. Applicant requested clarification Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 of the city's position with respect to this signalization in advance of closing escrow on the property at 1044-1060 Broadway. He stated he has volunteered to merge the three properties. Staff pointed out the issue this evening is a special permit for an auto sales lot; applicant agreed to proceed this evening with the special permit but stressed he must have the signal at Broadway and Carolan. He read a letter from Chicago Title Company reviewing his easement to use Whitethorn Way, there is still some clarification needed on this also. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Considerable Commission discussion followed regarding ingress/egress for these two properties, the need for some access to Whitethorn Way and the possibility of conditioning this permit for that. Applicant felt it would be a mistake to condition the permit on ingress to Whitethorn; he believed he could guarantee ingress but preferred to wait for an attorney's opinion. C. Graham 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 City Engineer's memo of May 9, 1986 shall be met; (2) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 29, 1986 with 12' light standards each with 250 watt luminaires including appropriate shields to confine all light and glare on the properties of 1060-1044 Broadway and the adjacent wall of 1070 Broadway and that the automobile sales lot shall be operated according to the terms of the Controller's letters dated May 19, 1986 and May 29, 1986; (3) that the driveway from this property to Broadway be limited to right turns only and the street channelization be installed before the project is finaled by the Building Department and the project include ingress from Whitethorn Way; and (4) that properties at 1060-1044 Broadway be merged with the property at 1070 Broadway before the project construction is finaled by the Building Department. Second. C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 4-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Giomi dissenting, C. Taylor abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN 8' SECURITY FENCE AT 840 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/9/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Ken Berringer, John Sutti & Associates, applicant advised this request is mainly a security problem of one of the tenants with employees who work late at night, the rear area was chosen to secure because it had the spaces needed, would be less noticeable and better for the appearance of the building. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 C. Jacobs found that due to the number of parking spaces required this fence must be located in the rear, that there are exceptional circumstances in that employees work late hours and need a secure parking area, that there will be no public hazard and it will not affect neighboring properties. C. Jacobs moved for approval of'this fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo (May 12, 1986) and the City Engineer's memo (May 13, 1986) shall'be met; (2) that the fence as installed shall not exeed 8' along the rear property line and 48' on each side property line and the return to the building, all other fencing shall be a maximum of 61; (3) that there shall be an automatic automobile gate in the fence on the north side of the property with man gates installed as required by the city for emergency exiting; (4) that the tenant served by this enclosed parking area shall never occupy less than 7,600 SF of the leasable area of the building nor use less than 200 SF of the interior public areas, should the leased area fall below these square footages the connecting fences between the 8' property line fence and the building shall be removed; and (5) that the enclosed rear area of this property shall never be used for any purpose other than parking for tenants of the building. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR RENTAL OPERATION AT 1299 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/9/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE's memo regarding restrictive access limitations of the site was noted. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Dennis R. Kay, applicant, discussed the operation of his proposed business and stability of the company; they would hope to keep 80% of the fleet on the road at all times. A video presentation illustrated traffic flow in the area at 7:00 A.M., 12:00 Noon and 5:00 P.M. He advised the other approved car rental agency on site is not in operation, some of their cars are parked there; there are two other car rental businesses directly across the street; directional signs could be placed on site so people would access through the rear; he has looked at other locations, this building is relatively unoccupied and the parking lot is not used to its maximum. This franchise rents late model used cars; cars to be returned on Sunday are dropped at another location. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: although the building is not fully occupied now, on-site parking would be needed should it become fully leased; a site inspection confirmed it is difficult to access; there are several car rental agencies in the immediate area but it is not Commission's function to call a moratorium on such businesses; some members of the Commission were concerned about available parking; with the granting Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 of a special permit for this use at this location the building may have a net parking deficiency, however when the building was fully leased the parking lot was never occupied to its maximum, cannot remember a time when the lot was fully occupied. Based on the applicant's anticipated need and the fact that Commission has had an opportunity to review it,,C. Taylor moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the car rental agency occupy only 600 SF and 10 on-site parking spaces as designated on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 29, 1986; (2) that the car rental agency shall operate with a fleet size maximum of 20 cars, employ 2-1/2 persons, be open six days a week (Monday through Saturday) between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.; (3) that any changes to any of the items specifically mentioned in the project assessment, car rental questionnaire or other conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; (4) that no cars shall be washed or repaired or maintained in any way including adding or changing oil on this site; and (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (June 1987) and that the use permit shall be terminated in three years (June 1989). Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: applicant has given a thorough presentation, but this is an awkward spot for this type of business, particularly for people unfamiliar with the left and right turns, it could encourage illegal maneuvers or a U turn situation in front of the Hyatt, it is not a good location for the applicant or the City of Burlingame. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEMS FOR STUDY 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - LIFE CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY - 1781 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED 10. VARIANCE FOR ACCESS TO REQUIRED PARKING - 1609 TROUSDALE DRIVE 11. VARIANCES FOR ACCESS TO REQUIRED PARKING AND TO AMOUNT OF PARKING - 1515 TROUSDALE DRIVE Requests/comments: diagram of existing traffic counts and how this will change assuming full project; noise impact on the project, floor by floor, with particular reference to aircraft/airport noise all night and during evening hours; CE's concerns will be included in the conditions of approval; access to Hillhaven Convalescent Hospital, 1609 Trousdale; include specific letter on variance findings in 1515 Trousdale packet; consistency with General Plan; clarify ownership of 1609 Trousdale and 1515 Trousdale properties; if clarified, why not eliminate lot lines and thus eliminate the variances; access to 1515 Trousdale; would like a model of the project; require FAA "no hazard" Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 determination; details of the proposed program, i.e., eligibility requirements, scope of care; relationship of the hospital to the project; discuss parking, why is project not meeting full off-street parking requirements; limitations of the water main easement; tax meaning of the non-profit status of the project; possible construction conflict with the cogeneration plant at the hospital. These items were set for public hearing on June 23, 1986 on the condition the Final EIR is certified by City Council prior to that date. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 2, 1986 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:10 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary