Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.04.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, April 14, 1986 at 7:33 P.M. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Schwalm Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the March 24, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved with the following addition: page 3, item #2, Sign Exception, 1609 Trousdale Drive, 5th paragraph: . . . moved to grant the sign exception "with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of February 24, 1986 be met; and (2) that the signs be installed as proposed on the plans dated February 18, 1986 and described in the sign exception request dated February 18, 1986. Second C. Graham." AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ON-SITE PARKING FOR A 971 SF SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1117 HAMILTON LANE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letters and justification for variance. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined there is an 18' front setback plus 6' from the curb to the property line; the entire accessory structure at the rear which was built in established utility easements will be demolished. David Howell, applicant, commented on the very real need for the addition with his family of five. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no comments in'favor. Jim Hubbard, 1560 Westmoor Road, spoke in opposition: there are parking problems in Burlingame Village, people don't park in front of their own houses, with any addition there will be more cars, a buyer should consider size of a house before he purchases it, concern that a kitchen could be installed and the addition converted to a second living unit, several houses in area have second units, people park on the street as well as on the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 14, 1986 sidewalks because of the rolled curb. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there are exceptional circumstances in this property because of the placement of the garage which was built before the present code, Commission has allowed this type of addition for families in the city, it is necessary for a family to have more than two bedrooms, the variance will not affect the public safety and will not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city, it will improve the housing stock. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 24, 1986 memo shall be met because the location of the illegal structure is on two utility easements; (2) that the accessory structure shall be removed including the portion of the foundation slab in the two utility easements prior to final building inspection and that a demolition permit for the accessory structure shall be applied for and received at the same time as a building permit is issued; and (3) that as built the remodeling shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 7, 1986. Second C. Taylor. Comment on the motion: this is consistent with the general policy of encouraging families with children to stay in Burlingame; it is the only way a family can utilize the house; do not believe there is any way the house could be converted to a two family residence; it is one of the better second floor additions we have seen and will blend with the character of the existing house; admit there is a parking problem but applicant has room on site to park a second car; enlarging on the finding of exceptional circumstances, the only way the applicant could add a second parking space behind the front setback would be to tear out the kitchen which is not feasible. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. TWO VARIANCES TO ADD 76 SF TO AN EXISTING CARPORT AT 17 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter and justification for variance. She also noted letter in support from Eugene J. Ersfeldt, 27 Arundel Road (April 9, 1986). Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission comment: there are alternatives to this proposal; is the existing garage usable; one hour wall will be required from the garage the length of the carport and the carport addition, no exceptions to the Uniform Building Code are allowed. Domenic Russo, applicant and John Calwell, his representative were present. Mr. Calwell discussed the series of errors which resulted Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1986 in a building permit being issued for the nonconforming existing carport in 1977, applicant is now asking to be bailed out of this series of errors which were not his fault, if a one hour wall is installed the car door can't be opened once the car is inside, carport was built with incombustible columns and roof, it is attached to the nonconforming garage which is on property line, garage has been there for 50 years, if garage doesn't have one hour walls what good is it to make the carport one hour, Commission issued a variance to the non- conforming house next door with no conditions whatsoever, this property has exactly the same problems. Commission determinations/discussion: applicant has three cars, the existing garage is being used for his classic Cadillac, he has two compact cars which can't be covered by the existing carport; cannot see exceptional circumstances or need in relation to the property to support variance findings. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Phil Sofos, owner of property across the street commented: Building Department did issue the permit in 1977, suggest applicant put in carport with foundation and fire walls, if he is concerned about property values this proposal is compounding the existing problems, think he should have a garage. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: cannot find any facts to support the variance; there are other alternatives, some of which would meet all of the zoning regulations; would be better to enlarge the existing garage or tear it down and construct a new two car garage; a new garage could be located behind the house although this would necessitate tearing down the existing garage. Stating he has heard nothing to support a finding of exceptional circumstances applicable to the property itself, C. Taylor moved for denial of the two variances. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: there are alternatives; this would be enlarging a nonconforming structure. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FIVE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1105 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 4/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: designated guest parking, security gate issue, problem of backing onto El Camino Real and possibility of redesign if a security gate is required, CE's requirements for drainage, undergrounding of utilities on El Camino, driveway slope. It was noted this is the same project which was approved by Commission in May, 1983. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1986 Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Neither the applicant nor his representative were present. C. Giomi moved for approval of this condominium permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with the following conditions: (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; (4) that a security gate be installed at the discretion of the City Engineer, including a call box at an appropriate location as determined by the City Engineer; and (5) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 6, 1986. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: if security gate is not required, will be forced to vote against the motion; applicant should be given the opportunity to be heard, will vote against the motion in the absence of the applicant; applicant was aware of the meeting, Commission should vote on the motion this evening; motion leaves too many loopholes; would like to talk to the applicant. C. Graham moved to table the motion to the next Commission meeting, April 28, 1986. Second C. Taylor; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Leahy voting no, C. Schwalm absent. 4. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FIVE UNITS AT 1105 EL CAMINO REAL C. Taylor moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 28, 1986. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Schwalm absent. Recess 8:40 P.M., reconvene 8:45 P.M. Chm. Garcia recognized in the audience: Dennis Argyres, City Manager; Frank Cistulli, former Planning Commissioner; Don Lembi, Councilman; Dorothy Cusick, former Councilwoman; Charles Mink, former Planning Commissioner. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1986 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DEIR-67P, FOR SEQUOIAS-BURLINGAME LIFE CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY BY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AT 1781 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED Reference staff report, 4/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the proposed project as discussed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the purpose of an EIR which is to identify significant effects which would occur if the project were built as proposed; this is a focused EIR which was prepared subsequent to an Initial Study by staff, a Notice of Preparation sent to a number of municipal, state and regional agencies for comment and a Public Forum (duly noticed) held by the Planning Commission in August, 1985. Letters from the following have been received and will be addressed in the final Response to Comments document: Ronald Wilson, Airports Commission (April 4, 1986); Roderick Chisholm, Environmental Branch, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (March 14, 1986). Two letters regarding the project were also noted: April 7, 1986 from Sheila R. Gullmes, 1101 Dufferin Avenue and Mr. and Mrs. Reno Manfredi, 1649 Coronado Way. CP advised the purpose this evening is to take comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR, not the project itself; comments should be limited to environmental effects. The consultant will prepare a Response to Comments document. Marty Abell, Environmental Science Associates, Inc., reviewed the unavoidable significant effects identified in the environmental document: loss of open space identified in the city's general plan as a valuable resource; increased sewage flows through the sewage treatment plant; noise impact during construction; loss of visual open space by a massive structure adjacent to El Camino Real; impacts of shadows particularly along E1 Camino in the vicinity of the project. Mr. Abell noted there is a difference of opinion regarding increased risk to aviation safety, the Airports Commission has asked for a reevaluation of the FAA's "no hazard" determination, ESA's sub -consultant found no significant risk. Lou Larson, sub -consultant for traffic and transportation, was also present. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. The following members of the audience spoke: Bill Smith, 1133 Hamilton Lane; Rex Miller; Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive; Jean Carroll, 1525 Meadow Lane; Bob Quilici, 1641 Coronado Way; Loretta Ayoob, 1611 Davis Drive; Anthony Kakis, 2009 Clarice Lane; Harry Yuill, 1657 Coronado Way; Anthony Bruno, 1508 Davis Drive; Jim Vangele, 1648 Marco Polo Way; Dorothy Cusick, 1716 Ralston Avenue; Gertrude Miller, 1637 Westmoor Road; Susan Kelly, 1608 Davis Drive; Frank Cistulli, 1644 Lassen Way; Marie Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive; Orin Fields, 1901 Davis Drive; Eli Novo, 1637 Balboa Way; Jim Scott, 1116 Dufferin Avenue; Francis Vignati, 1640 Balboa Way; Donna Ludlum, 2007 Clarice Lane; Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue; Sheila Gullmes, 1101 Dufferin Avenue; Steven Perdue, 1601 Davis Drive; Rukiye Safa, 1612 Davis Drive; Ben Johnson, 1511 Davis Drive; Charles Mink, 1541 Los Montes Drive. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1986 Audience comments follow. Address the change in aircraft flight patterns and subsequent changes in noise level the proposed building would have on Burlingame Village; effect on utility lines and water lines; address increased noise level from additional service vehicles; not enough emphasis on loss of open space and mass of the proposed structure, include a photo montage from at least four different points; discuss impact of increased traffic on local streets; E1 Camino narrows south of the project and could require widening; address issue of low frequency noise in the area and evaluate using the airport noise variance map, airport should have strong comments against the project; an EIR on another project identified the site as a potential crash site, why the FAA 'no hazard' determination now; include afternoon shadow impact graphics; concern about effects of an airplane crash on the entire city; last three lines of the "Unavoidable Impacts" state residents and employees of the project would be exposed to risk, project would shield the existing hospital. Address pedestrian conflict with ambulances on Marco Polo and at service entrance; address air traffic pattern impact as it relates to public safety; structure will eliminate open space and views from the neighborhood, affect property values; aesthetics of the area will be destroyed; include a more detailed discussion of construction dust control, high winds in the city would add to the problem; discuss parking during construction of the parking garage on hospital property and during construction of the project; since 1970 nothing over 7/8 stories has been built on the west side of the freeway, what impact will the project height have on the city, will it set a precedent for other developers. Responding to comments, staff advised this site is zoned 'unclassified' and explained what this means in terms of use. Public noticing procedures for environmental review of a project were also explained. Further audience comments: address the effect of the project on security of adjacent residents; negative effects far outweigh the positive effects, existing open space is valuable asset to the city and an important buffer between the neighborhood and the hospital; moving main entrance to the hospital will affect Mills Estate and the Plaza; Magnolia behind Petrini's is a service road, ambulances using this street would have traffic/safety and pedestrian conflict problems; visual mass of the structure is out of character with the adjoining neighborhood; discuss impact on Marco Polo if traffic on Trousdale is backed up; sewer impact is a concern, will need improvements which must be paid for by the taxpayers, the project is a nonprofit corporation; include further discussion on helicopter pad and landings as well as the hospital's plans for a co -generation plant; with the addition of the proposed parking structure the entire site will be paved. There are three schools in the area, many children use Marco Polo, address vehicle/pedestrian traffic on this street; concern about increased traffic and on -street parking on side streets in the area; include financial analysis, tax dollars involvement; address aircraft wind shear problem and noise impact to residents of the project; would rather integrate the elderly into the community, not segregate, Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1986 question whether Burlingame residents could afford to live in the project, will be adding population to the city; airplanes rattle windows in the area now and almost touch the hospital when they turn; address traffic impact on Albemarle, possibility of employees parking on Albemarle and walking to their jobs, many people feel underground parking is unsafe; hospital workers park on Davis Drive presently, will this be increased; how will TV signals affect area behind the building; expand discussion of the alternatives, many of the concerns expressed this evening might be mitigated with some of the alternatives to the project. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/requests: elaborate on the proposed height, what might happen if the city granted this much height; discuss aircraft impact further, concern about higher noise levels, noise impacts to upper stories as compared to lower stories; discuss auto impact on noise and air quality; expand study of traffic impact on neighboring streets; include shadow study from the west and north; expand alternatives to the project including 'no project' alternative; would like to delete the last paragraph under "Unavoidable Significant Impacts" on page 101; believe helicopter pad is used more than four or five times a month, report should include correct figures for this; expand discussion of airport noise on the building itself; indicate whether construction at the present location will require any change in flight patterns during stormy weather. Page v, the need for a parking variance is mentioned but no statement is made that off-site parking will be needed for existing buildings with the relocated entrance and new parking configuration; will Burlingame residents be given priority at the Sequoias. Page vii, question the statement there will be no significant impact from construction parking (consultant advised the subject of how construction parking and hospital parking would interface will be discussed in the Final EIR); page 25/26, check for consistency regarding statement on setbacks; page 39, Malcolm Towns is Fire Chief, not Fire Marshal; page 59, how is hospital going to change its hours, identify employee shifts; page 88, under "City Guidelines", 'signage' is misspelled; page 94, confirm whether utility lines are underground at present. Will new entrance at Trousdale and Magnolia be signalized and its effect on traffic patterns; fiscal effect, impact on cost to hospital patients; page 47, clarify construction traffic patterns; page 56, concern about traffic impact on side streets, discuss this further; phasing of the light at Magnolia and Trousdale and impact at peak hour; address use of Marco Polo as possible shortcut to Route 280 when Trousdale is backed up; what does 130 trips' mean on table referring to Marco Polo. One Commissioner stated he lives close to the project site and concurred with the bulk of comments made this evening. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1986 Further Commission requests: expand statement that impact of the project on the business community to the northeast is not adverse, this is a conclusion for which very little evidence is presented; include statement on the tunnel effect of the two buildings and impact of winds on the surrounding neighborhoods. There were no further Commission comments. Consultant will prepare a Response to Comments document, addressing all comments made this evening and responding to all letters received. Recess 10:05 P.M.; reconvene 10:15 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - DISH ANTENNA - 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE Item set for hearing April 28, 1986. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - REACH FITNESS CENTER - 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE Item set for hearing April 28, 1986. 8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE Item set for hearing April 28, 1986. 9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 900 PENINSULA AVENUE Item set for hearing April 28, 1986. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Planner memo, 4/1/86, subject: on-site improvements currently under way to improve parking and circulation at the Sisters of Mercy property, 2300 Adeline Drive. - Permit review, Zoning Aide Memo, 4/8/86: Montessori School of Burlingame, 2303 Trousdale Drive; High Hopes, Inc., 1131 Vancouver Avenue; Our Lady of Angels Pre -School, 1328 Cabrillo Avenue; Excursions in Learning, 1151 Vancouver Avenue. - Permit review, Zoning Aide memo, 3/28/86: 1239 Rollins Road, Peninsula Sports Center. Commission requested additional review in one year and that Peninsula Sports Center be required to remove the sign at the front of the building which states there is parking at the rear. Staff will follow up. - Planner memo, re: 1199 Broadway, signage and railing in front of the building. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1986 - City Planner memo, Election of Commission Officers, April 1986. - Copies of material received at Planning Commissioners Institute, San Diego, March 12-14, 1986. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its April 7, 1986 regular meeting and April 9, 1986 study meeting. Landscaping Requirements for Apartments - Planner memo, 4/14/86 Following some discussion Commission requested staff draft an ordinance for review with regulations for front setback landscaping in the R-3 and R-4 districts similar to condominium requirements. Additions to Minor Modifications - City Planner memo, 4/14/86 CP noted her memo suggesting six additional items which might be handled on a "consent" basis under the minor modification procedure rather than full review. Commission concurred with the six items proposed with one change, item #4 to apply to garages of 600 SF. Staff will draft an ordinance for review. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary