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