HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.04.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 28, 1986
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, April 28, 1986 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, 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 April 14, 1986 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Following some discussion concerning Commission officer selection
policy the Chair called for nominations. C. Graham nominated C. Giomi
as Chairman, seconded by C. Jacobs; C. Schwalm moved the nominations be
closed. Nannette Giomi elected Chairman unanimously. C. Schwalm
nominated C. Leahy as Vice Chairman, seconded by C. Graham; C. Leahy
respectfully declined the nomination. C. Graham nominated C. Schwalm
as Vice Chairman, seconded by C. Leahy; C. Taylor moved the nominations
be closed. Charles Schwalm elected Vice Chairman unanimously. C.
Taylor nominated C. Leahy as Secretary; the nominations were closed and
Robert Leahy elected Secretary unanimously. C. Garcia thanked staff
and Commission for their support during the past year and passed the
gavel to C. Giomi. Cers Jacobs and Giomi commended C. Garcia on a fine
job as Chairman.
CONSENT ITEM
1. MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A THIRD BEDROOM TO BE ADDED TO THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 1621 QUESADA WAY WITHOUT PROVIDING TWO
CODE -STANDARD PARKING SPACES BEHIND THE FRONT SETBACK. ZONED R-1
C. Graham moved for approval of the consent item; second C. Schwalm.
Motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FIVE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT
1105 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 4/14/86; Planning Commission minutes, 4/14/86;
memo from City Engineer dated 4/18/86. CP Monroe briefly reviewed
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1986
Commission discussion at the April 14, 1986 meeting at which time a
public hearing had been held and issues raised concerning guest parking
and a security gate. She read into the record motion made for approval
of this project at the last meeting which had been tabled. CP also
noted April 25, 1986 letter from T. W. Washington Realty Co., San
Francisco (received this evening) stating the applicant wished to
eliminate a security gate due to possible traffic hazard caused by cars
backing out onto E1 Camino Real.
Diana Lipton, Coldwell Banker, San Bruno (applicant's representative)
was present. She confirmed applicants were aware of the excessive cost
for installing a call box later should a security gate be added in the
future.
Commission discussed at length guest parking and the issue of requiring
a security gate: CE's memo of 4/18/86 objected to a security gate with
a single driveway on E1 Camino from a traffic safety standpoint;
believe a security gate should be required for condominiums, if this
developer is eliminating the gate it would seem the project is too
dense for the lot and should be redesigned; Commission asked developer
to provide a security gate and then decided it would be a hazard, it
appears proposal must be accepted without a gate or developer be
requested to redesign so that cars would not be backing onto El Camino;
a condominium is a home and should have all the security of a house;
possibility of redesigning parking so that two guest spaces would be
located outside the gate with cars exiting front first, CE explained
need for an extra exit in this case; security gate is not required by
code, have problem requiring it when the application has reached public
hearing stage in the approval process; think the priority in this case
is safety rather than security; would support providing safety and
security with redesign.
C. Graham moved to remove the April 14, 1986 motion from the table,
second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
C. Graham then moved to amend the motion of April 14, 1986, deleting
Condition #4 and adding applicant's letter eliminating a security gate,
and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium
Permits. Cers Giomi and Leahy accepted this amendment of their April
14, 1986 motion. Conditions of the motion under consideration follow:
(1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's January 21, 1986 memo,
the Building Inspector's January 27, 1986 memo and the City Engineer's
March 11, 1986 memo shall be met; (2) that the final landscape plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to
issuance of a building permit; (3) that two spaces in the underground
garage shall be designated for guest parking and shall be made
available for that use by installation of a call box if a security gate
is ever installed as a part of the project; and (4) that the project as
built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped March 6, 1986 and April 4, 1986 as amended
by the letter of April 25, 1986 from Kee S. Chang and T. W. Washington,
T. W. Washington Realty Co., San Francisco. Second C. Leahy; motion
approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Taylor dissenting.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1986
A Commissioner requested the issue of security gates for condominiums
be studied, commenting that a developer should be aware of the
regulations prior to presenting plans.
3. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FIVE UNITS AT 1105 EL CAMINO REAL
(LOT 13, BLOCK 19, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2)
Reference staff memo, 4/14/86 and Planning Commission minutes, 4/14/86.
CE Erbacher advised this map application is complete and may be
recommended to Council for approval. C. Garcia moved to recommend this
tentative condominium map to City Council for approval; second C.
Graham. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs
dissenting.
4. SPECIAL PERMITS TO INSTALL A 50 SF DISH ANTENNA 7.5' ABOVE
GRADE AT 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/28/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, comparison with previous application which was
denied without prejudice, staff review, applicant's letter, Planning
staff site visit and comment. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Dan Rosenbledt, applicant, was present. He objected to some of the
wording in minutes of previous meetings. His comments: only one
neighbor will see approximately 1' of the proposed antenna when turned
to certain satellites, at night or on weekends; his property line is
24' from the fence and the neighbor's house is 40-50' away from that so
there would be about 64' from the neighbor's viewing point; he has
inspected sites in the city where other antennas have been approved,
the one on Carmelita is in full view of several neighbors; he felt the
present proposal was a reasonable solution to previous concerns; if
this is denied he would like the city to consider deannexation and
allow him annexation to Hillsborough.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no comments in
favor. The following spoke in opposition. James Walsh, 2116 Broadway:
aesthetically this will be an eyesore, city should review all
installations thoroughly, dish antennas are an imposition on the
surrounding community, the previous antenna was installed without a
permit. Peggy Kane, 2112 Broadway: proposed location will be directly
visible from her backyard, her yard is lower and three-quarters of the
previous antenna was visible, contractor has said there is an
alternative location which would be visible only from the upstairs of
her home, would have no objection at the alternative location. Pauline
Irons, 2108 Broadway: live directly in back of the applicant's
property, her lot and her neighbors' lots on Broadway are only 50'
wide and the back view is limited by trees and shrubs, applicant's
property is 150' x 150', there must be another location for the dish,
perhaps applicant himself can see the dish from upstairs but she will
be able to see it from her garden, would not object if there were an
alternative location. Nick Demas, 1225 Vancouver Avenue: live
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1986
kitty-corner from applicant's backyard, would object if antenna were
moved to his side of the property, no objection to proposed location.
Pauline Irons, 2108 Broadway, speaking again as a real estate
salesperson, commented that dish antennas in backyards will have a
detrimental effect aesthetically and may affect property values, where
people once looked at vegetation they will view a metal object. There
were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
In rebuttal, Mr. Rosenbledt stated trees will block Mrs. Irons' view,
only one neighbor will see the dish; he is protected by Federal law and
is entitled to have the antenna; has tried to work this out with the
city but can't be denied his constitutional rights; there is no other
location with the exception of the house or garage roof, he did not
know if these structures would support it, FCC has said a homeowner
cannot be forced to go to unreasonable expense; this is a new type of
installation and people react adversely to it, don't think an antenna
is excessively ugly, believe this is a reasonable proposal.
Commission comments/discussion: this is an improvement over the
previous proposal as far as height is concerned but would like to come
to an agreement so the neighbors can't see it, could the pad be put 2'
into the ground; Leo Monney, Monney Electronics advised that by
depressing the dish into the ground 2' the fence would block reception,
if it were moved back the trees across the street would be a problem.
Mr. Monney further advised there are 15 satellites that can be picked
up, at 45 degrees toward the south he would lose three out of the 15,
if the dish were dropped 2' into the ground more satellites would be
lost, applicant would lose most of PBS and the Canadian stations; if
the eucalyptus trees were trimmed it would help reception until the
trees grew.
Further Commission comment: aesthetics can be a criteria for
controlling antennas, do not know if the present ordinance is
constitutional but would rather not act on this until the city has a
new ordinance, this proposal does appear to have some aesthetic
defaults.
With the statement that this application is being heard under the
present ordinance, and in the absence of more information on relocating
or lowering the dish, C. Graham moved to deny the special permit;
second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: applicant responded to
Commission and Council concerns about the first proposal, he now says
there is no alternate location; believe the problem may be with the
eucalyptus trees across the street, if so applicant should proceed in
that direction and not infringe on neighbors' views; applicant has
revised the plans according to city requests, because of this and
testimony heard this evening would vote for approval of the
application, a new ordinance may favor him altogether.
Motion for denial was approved on a 5-1-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia
voting no, C. Jacobs abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
April 28, 1986
5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD 1,800 SF OF ADDITIONAL AREA TO A
FORMERLY APPROVED WOMEN'S FITNESS CENTER AT 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE,
ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 4/28/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission determinations: no extraordinary traffic/parking problems
have been observed since Reach Fitness Center opened that could be
attributed to this use; this additional space will not result in any
changes to the limitations and conditions of the original permit.
Mithoo Benner, applicant, was present. She explained subleasing area
next door and her plans for using the added area, she had no plans to
increase the size of her business.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement he had no objection to granting the amendment since
no traffic/parking problems have been observed, C. Leahy moved for
approval of the special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission
Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions:
(1) that the conditions of the Fire Prevention Officer's April 3, 1986
memo shall be met; (2) that the new gym area, about 1,000 SF, shall be
used as additional area for the level of class activity as defined and
limited in the July 1, 1985 use permit conditions 1-6 and no more than
the level of activity described shall be allowed on the entire site;
and (3) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its
original and added conditions in one year (April, 1987) . Second C. Taylor.
One Commissioner commented he had been opposed to this business at this
location but has no objection to a business thriving and the amendment
request will give them a better chance to do so. Motion approved 7-0
on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS M AND N AND A
PORTION OF LOT L, BLOCK 10, MAP NO. 2 OF THE BURLINGAME LAND
COMPANY (1440 CHAPIN AVENUE)
Reference CE's April 22, 1986 agenda memo with attachments. CE
Erbacher advised this request is a simple lot combination to allow a
single structure to be build on the site. The proposed structure meets
or exceeds all zoning code requirements for the C-1 zone and therefore
will not be the subject of a public hearing. Responding to
Commissioner question, CE explained the proposed street dedication.
Applicant was present. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There
were no audience comments and the hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to
City Council for approval; second C. Graham. Motion approved on a 7-0
roll call vote.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1986
7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5,
BLOCK 19, LYON & HOAG SUBDIVISION OF THE TOWN OF BURLINGAME
(900 PENINSULA AVENUE)
Reference CE's April 22, 1986 agenda memo with attachments. CE
Erbacher advised this application is for combination of five lots into
one lot to facilitate installation of a retail automobile dealership on
this site. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no
audience comments and the hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to
City Council for approval; second C. Garcia. Motion approved on a 7-0
roll call vote.
8. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FOUR UNITS AT 740 EL CAMINO REAL, BEING
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT A, BLOCK 7, BURLINGAME TERRACE NO. 2
Reference CE's April 22, 1986 agenda memo with attachment. CE Erbacher
advised this map is substantially the same as the tentative map
approved in 1984 and may be recommended to Council. Chm. Giomi opened
the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing
was closed.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend this final condominium map to City Council
for approval; second C. Garcia. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call
vote.
Recess 9:05 P.M.; reconvene 9:15 P.M.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
9. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM - SISTERS OF MERCY - 2300 ADELINE DRIVE
Requests: sign material; are any neon, how are they lit; are there
other than directional signs. Item set for hearing May 12, 1986.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT - PRINTING SERVICE - 1199 BROADWAY
Requests: check conditions of original permit for the building, was
type of sales business included; does applicant understand the problem
with the security ramp; would like to see a copy of the market survey
mentioned in applicant's letter. Item set for hearing May 12, 1986.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT - DISH ANTENNA - 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Requests: possibility of screening the installation from Bayshore
Highway; comparison of size and height with that of the Crowne Plaza
installation; would prefer color the same as the building itself; would
it be visible if installed on the roof. Item set for hearing May 12,
1986.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1986
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Zoning Aide letter to Ann Mori, Peninsula Sports Center,
1239 Rollins Road (April 18, 1986)
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its April 21, 1986 meeting.
Intent of city action, two special permits and variance for a garage at
a single family home, 1204 Palm Drive
CP reviewed her staff memo, 4/28/86. The above approval was to allow
renovation/reconstruction of a new garage at 1204 Palm Drive. The
revised plans subsequently submitted meet the requirement of plate line
and height, but not roof line. Staff noted Condition #2 states "as
built the garage shall comply with the plans submitted . . ." and
requested Commission determination if the revised plans with a more
bulky roof line meet the intent of city action.
Following considerable discussion it appeared a majority of the
Commission felt the peaked roof line of the original plans was the
intent of approval in 1985. C. Jacobs moved that Commission review the
change in garage plans because they are not in compliance with the
original plans presented. Second C. Giomi; motion failed on a 4-3 roll
call vote, Cers Garcia, Graham, Schwalm and Taylor dissenting.
C. Taylor then moved that the sense of Commission and Council action on
the two special permits and variance for this garage is incorporated in
drawing #1 (elevation at the top of the page attached to CP's staff
memo, 4/28/86). Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call
vote, Cers Garcia and Graham dissenting.
Review of ordinance amendment, Code Chapter 25.55, Minor Modifications
C. Graham moved to recommend this ordinance amendment, Code Chapter
25.55, Minor Modifications, to City Council for action. Second C.
Taylor, motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting.
C. Jacobs explained her no vote, she felt 500 SF (item "i") was
sufficient and that a 600 SF garage was excessive. It was pointed out
Commission could call up for full review any minor modification item.
Security gates: Following some discussion staff was requested to study
(1) amendment of the condominium guidelines to require security gates
for all condominiums, and (2) a comparison of the condominium
guidelines with R-3 and R-4 ordinance requirements. Staff will bring
this to Commission when there is available time for staff study.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary