Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.03.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 24, 19 86 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, March 24, 1986 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Garcia Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; Planner Helen Williams; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the March 10, 1986 meeting were approved unanimously. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 660 SF TWO -CAR GARAGE/WORKSHOP AT 1511 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/24/86, with attachments. Planner Williams reviewed details of the request, applicant's letter, staff review, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Mary Dunlap, designer (and applicant), was present. During discussion Commission determined' no one is living in the house at present, E. Glen Lloyd, San Carlos (listed as property owner on the project assessment) is in the process of selling the house, the prospective buyer requires a larger two -car garage with workshop area for storing garden tools and space to pursue his hobby of tinkering with cars. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor. Rashid Akchurin, 1508 Vancouver Avenue, who lives across the street, commented on the large size of the proposed garage, and questioned the intention of the prospective buyer and how many garage/garden tools could be stored in a two car garage; in view of code restrictions covering placement of a structure and setbacks, he also questioned replacing the existing garage with this proposal. Staff commented that the proposed structure is larger than a normal two car garage, applicant preferred this to a separate storage structure; the zoning code allows an accessory structure in the rear 30% of the lot to be built to the rear and side property lines. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1986 The following spoke in opposition: Adela Meadows, 1524 Columbus Avenue; Jim Shypertt, 1540 Vancouver Avenue; Edgar Weiske, 1531 Vancouver Avenue. Their comments: structure would be too dense, no open space; lot coverage is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood; there are garages in this block which have become second living units, concern the prospective buyer will not purchase the property and the new garage will be converted to a rental unit by a subsequent owner. Responding to a request for clarification of the word 'shop', Ms. Dunlap commented on the prospective buyer's need for a two car garage and his desire not to add a shed for the tools; with this structure lot coverage is still below the maximum allowed; the buyer does not want to convert the existing garage and wishes to keep the Tudor look while adding enough space for a workshop and storage of tools. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: the proposed structure has two windows, it would be easy to convert to living quarters; think it's admirable to provide a two car garage, applicant is asking for only a small area over the standard two car garage, there is not enough space which could be closed up and made into living quarters, would prefer this proposal to retaining the one car garage and adding another structure for storage; think Commission should consider carefully any request over 500 SF, this is not a hardship case but an attempt to secure a buyer for the property, it will not add to the city aesthetically, cannot support going over 500 SF. Further Commission comments: there are approximately four houses on the same side of the street with the same type of architecture, four have a makeshift carport in front which is very unattractive, farther down the block a one car garage has been replaced with a two car garage and is hidden behind the house; most of the proposed garage would be hidden behind the house, tend to favor the project; there is no reason to assume the prospective buyer intends to convert the garage to another living unit, however generally when granting an exception to the code Commission considers the needs and concerns of the property owner himself, in this case the exception is being asked for use of the land by a prospective buyer and Commission has heard only from the property owner's agent who stated it is needed in order to sell the property, reluctant to vote for something without a showing of need by the property owner. Commissioner discussion continued: think there is a need for more information on the use of the workshop, it is a large area; when hearing such a special permit have always considered the fact that the property owner may change and there may be a new owner within a year, action goes with the land, it is a valid point Commission is being asked to make an exception to enhance a real estate deal; many applicants buy a house and then look into the possibility of improvements, this seems a better approach with the property owner's designer requesting the special permit in advance. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1986 C. Jacobs moved for denial of this special permit. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Leahy dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A GROUND SIGN AT 1609 TROUSDALE DRIVE WHICH CONTAINS COPY EXCEEDING 4" IN HEIGHT, PROPERTY ZONED C-3 Reference staff report, 3/24/86, with attachments. Planner Williams reviewed details of the request, a previous sign exception application which was denied, staff review, applicant's justification, findings necessary for approval. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Tom Donoghue, Advertising Products, Inc., representing the Hillhaven Convalescent Hospital was present. He stated that based on comments made at the previous hearing and meetings with staff the size of the sign and size of the letters have been reduced. A sign exception is required only for 5-1/2" lettering (4" allowed). Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. A Commissioner commented this is a better application than the previous one and determined all present signs will be removed. C. Jacobs found this would not be a grant of special privilege, on a street such as Trousdale the proposal is in accordance with other signage in the area. She then 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. In comment on the motion it was pointed out that with the present sign ordinance anyone who wishes to exceed 4" lettering in this district must apply to the Commission for an exception. Chm. Giomi added a finding that there are special Circumstances due to the location of the street; Burlingame Plaza (zoned C-1) is almost directly across the street from this site (zoned C-3). Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SPORTS THERAPY CLINIC AT 1545 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/24/86, with attachments. Planner Williams reviewed details of the request, applicant's present location at 888 Hinckley Road and his desire to relocate, applicant's letters, staff review, Planning staff comment, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Stan Conte, applicant, discussed his proposed relocation: there are 106 parking spaces on the site, some are not well marked; when he opened on Hinckley Road in 1984 he did not know what the need for this service would be but has found a real need in the Burlingame area; he sees patients by medical referral only; due to growth of the clinic Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1986 he needs the 4,000 SF area at this new location; they do no advertising; the property owner has allocated 15 parking spaces for this business, three in front to be specifically designated for those who cannot walk. Applicant advised his parking study showed an average of 44 spaces available mid-morning and mid-afternoon; patients are scheduled at 15 to 30 minute intervals on an individual treatment basis, no group classes are held. Commission inquired about total square footage of the three buildings on the site and whether on-site parking is adequate; Mr. Conte was told by the owner that anyone going into this area would be allocated 15 parking spaces, he felt this was sufficient for his five year projection; the owner did not wish to designate more than three spaces. A concern was expressed that with a new tenant the property owner might overallocate; it was pointed out that with a condition for review in one year Commission would have some control. In order to determine if adequate parking is now being provided, staff advised all uses in the building must be determined; there would be no way to provide for a possible future application which might affect the intensity of use. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs commented that concerns about adequate parking would be offset by review in one year, Commission would have control. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the physical therapy clinic operated on the site be limited to six employees and a daily patient load of no more than 45 on weekdays (Monday through Friday) from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; (2) that the business be operated as described in Stan Conte's letters dated February 12, 198.6, February 28, 1986 and March 17, 1986; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's February 24, 1986 memo be met; and (4) that this use permit be reviewed in one year (March, 1987), especially for traffic and parking impact. Second C. Schwalm. In question on the motion it was determined the property owner's assurance that three designated parking spaces would be provided is included in the applicant's letter of February 28, 1986 which is incorporated in the conditions of approval. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 9, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 5; PARCEL D, PARCEL MAP VOL. 54, PG. 21; AND PARCEL 42, BLOCK 9, PARCEL MAP OF MILLSDALE INDUS'T'RIAL PARK NO. 5-A: BY LOUIS ARATA FOR PRIME TIME ATHLETIC CLUB Reference City Engineer's staff memo with attachments (P.C. 3/24/86). CE Erbacher discussed this map which shows a combination of Prime Time Athletic Club's two lots and a portion of SP right-of-way to form a new parcel. He noted Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation letter confirming sale of a portion of the SP property to Arthur Michael, Prime Time Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1986 Athletic Club and that rail service on this right-of-way has been discontinued, as well as Mr. Michael's March 11, 1986 letter objecting to the CE's suggested conditions. CE removed Condition #2; following review, Engineering staff had requested Condition #1 remain, to allow the fence at the most westerly property line to remain and to allow an additional width of 10' to be added to the existing 10' access easement on the applicant's property so that reasonable access can be maintained to the city's pump station. During discussion Commission requested clarification of the addition of 10' to the access easement. Staff advised if the fence were moved to the applicant's side of the existing easement he no longer would have sufficient room to park, the access easement runs from Rollins Road directly into the pump station. Easement widths in the city vary according to use. A Commissioner expressed concern about taking a private owner's property without paying for it and pointed out the applicant has objected. CE stated the easement area can be paved and can be used for access to parking and also access to the rear area if applicant wants to put parking there. Another Commissioner pointed out staff had reviewed this carefully and determined the additional 10' was needed, she felt the condition should stand. Responding to a question regarding the rear parcel now owned by the applicant, CE stated there are other drainage easements in the city used for parking. Concern was expressed this would set a precedent and affect the spirit of the master plan for the area because additional parking could increase intensity of use of land not in the drainage easement and put a burden on the roadway system. Staff commented any heavy uses would need to be reviewed by the city on an individual basis; the tennis court area is owned by the applicant and is in the drainage easement area, a permit was given by Council. Louis Arata, civil engineer, was present. He pointed out the large parcels are already owned by Mr. Michael, the only parcel he does not own at this time is the adjoining SP right-of-way; SP has confirmed in writing they will sell this piece of land; merger of the SP portion with applicant's other two parcels is the reason for this application. Access over the SP land was granted to the applicant by SP years ago when the tennis courts were built to the rear. Regarding adding the 10' to the access to the pump station, applicant feels the present 10' is sufficient and there has been no problem in getting to the pump station. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Arthur Michael, property owner, discussed his objection to the addition of 10' to the access easement, stating the city has been operating the pump station for many years with the existing 10' easement. He commented that the present fence encroaches 7' onto his property; the 10' requested is open area now and trucks come and go with no obstruction. CE stated the fence was installed by the adjacent property owner to prevent parking on the easement from the other side and the city feels it is reasonable to keep 20' wide open on the Michael side since it doesn't affect the property owner, 20' backup area is needed anyway; if the 10' is not granted now a future property owner might not be as accommodating in allowing the city access by bigger trucks as needed. Applicant felt the additional 10' would not keep people from parking illegally in the Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1986 easement and since the present situation has been operating successfully for the last seven years, he wondered why he should give the city the additional 101. Commissioner response was the city wants to protect itself. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Comment: Commission must decide what is reasonable, it would seem staff's recommendation is reasonable.to assure proper access to the pump station. C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval with the following condition: (1) to allow the fence at the most westerly property line to remain at its present location and in order to allow a reasonable access corridor to the city's pump station, an additional width of ten feet (10') for vehicular and pedestrian egress shall be granted on the map, to be added to the existent ten foot (101) easement for a total of twenty feet (201) width. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to Council. Recess 9:12 P.M.; reconvene 9:22 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 1105 EL CAMINO REAL 6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE Requests: is there designated guest parking? a security gate? elevation at rear property line; a more easily read garage/parking plan. Items set for hearing April 14, 1986. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its March 17, 1986 meeting. - Request to transfer use permit for classic car auto restoration shop to regular auto body shop at 50 Star Way - CP memo 3/24/86 Following some discussion Commission consensus was to allow this request; permit will be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in December, 1986. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Zoning Aide memo, 3/4/86, permit review, Los Angeles Institute of Polygraph, 1209 Donnelly Avenue. - Zoning Aide memo, 3/11/86, dish antenna at 2017 Easton Drive. - Council Resolution 32-86, adopted 3/17/86, Establishing Procedures for Commission Appointments. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1986 - Whisler-Patri letter, 3/6/86, GTE Mobilnet special. permit, 1350 Bayshore Highway, with attached FAA determination as required by the conditions of the permit. Commission comments: why is a large parking lot being constructed by Sisters of Mercy next to Hoover School, cars will exit onto Hoover and Columbus which are very narrow streets, possibility of directing traffic with right turn only signs, should TSP look at this; should Commission consider a possible change in Sub -Area D of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, removing the area from Mike Harvey Chrysler Plymouth to the train depot on California Drive since it may never develop in auto related uses, no consensus; investigate excessive signage at 1199 Broadway; because of the increased level of interest, research parking requirements for athletic clubs, Commission directed staff to follow up. Cers Schwalm and Leahy reported on their attendance at the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Institute, San Diego. Material received will be reproduced and distributed to all Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary