HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.10.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 24, 1988
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, October 24, 1988
at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: Commissioner Garcia
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 11, 1988 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - With a change to the description of Study Item #1 to
read a 1152 SF gazebo at 2713 Trousdale Drive
.It order of the agenda was approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 152 SF GAZEBO - 2713 TROUSDALE
DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Request: diameter of gazebo. Item set for public hearing November
14, 1988.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE PROJECT - 1128 CHULA
VISTA AVENUE ZONED C-1
Requests: are the residential units to be condominiums or
apartments; will residential parking be separate from commercial
parking, how will this parking be kept separated; identify proper
address; list of existing nonconforming commercial uses in this
area which might impact parking; how will the project be policed to
assure retail space does not expand; are all handicap requirements
met; parking requirements for uses on site. Item set for public
hearing November 14, 1988.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
October 24, 1988
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A MEETING ROOM AT THE IBIS HOTEL FOR
CLASSES - 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Requests: can the use permit be limited; how long have classes been
held on this site. Item set for public hearing November 14, 1988.
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO TWO
LOTS - 1249 VANCOUVER AVENUE
Requests: explain alternate upper driveway, is this an option; has
Hillsborough been made aware of this application; number of
driveways. Item set for public hearing November 14, 1988.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
5. VARIANCE TO REAR SETBACK FOR A DECK TO BE CANTILEVERED OVER
A CREEK EXTENDING TO WITHIN 5' OF PROPERTY LINE AT 433
OCCIDENTAL AVENUE. ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/24/88, with attachments. CP noted the
neighbor to the rear has requested a continuance of this item;
neighbor was present and withdrew his request.
CP Monroe reviewed details of the application, the previous request
and city action, Commission/Council requests and guidelines for
review when the previous application was denied without prejudice,
staff review of the current proposal, Planning Department comment,
Council's recent adoption of an interim urgency ordinance regarding
development on lots with a portion of creek on them (processing of
this application is not affected by this ordinance), applicants'
letter, comment from the neighbor to the rear, findings necessary
for variance approval. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. If the first floor deck is
denied and Commission wished to consider the existing second floor
deck, one condition was suggested.
CA commented that in view of Council's action adopting the urgency
ordinance Commission could use Council's policy stated in this
ordinance as one justification for denial if they felt it
appropriate.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Donald and Pamela Asplund,
applicants, were present. Mr. Asplund's comments: they have
attempted to meet the concerns expressed about their previous
application, the 176 SF portion of deck built on footings has been
eliminated, the larger first floor deck and the smaller existing
second floor deck have been retained, the proposed deck will be
cantilevered from the house by steel beams, a long narrow deck
would be too expensive because of the cost of supports, the current
plans have been drawn by a civil engineer supported by a soils
engineer, from the rear this deck will appear as a shelf.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
October 24, 1988
There are few alternatives, a roof deck would be very expensive, a
top deck outside would not be private or useful; they have
considered screening but because of existing grades their neighbor
to the rear could still look over a 6' fence, if this neighbor
would be willing to plant trees on his property for screening
purposes they would cover the cost; the neighbor's residence is
60'-75' from the proposed deck, prevailing winds in the area would
carry from his house to the applicants' property; the current
proposal would be less intrusive, they are entitled to this
proposed residential use, they are not loud or boisterous and are
only asking for what their neighbors have, a little outdoor living
space; the neighbor believes they should abide by the rules but not
himself, the shed on his property has no building permit and his
sump pump is on applicants' property. Mr. Asplund presented a
letter from a neighbor in support of his request.
Mrs. Asplund's comments: the deck is important to their family;
they have no outdoor living space; their engineer advised this
proposal is the only practical one, all they are requesting is some
backyard space. There were no audience comments in favor.
Speaking in opposition, Paul Schumann, 1525 Bellevue Avenue,
Hillsborough: applicants want to build in the neutral zone, issue
is by building out into the neutral area do they comply with the
law. He discussed the findings for variance approval and asked
Commission for specific findings in any motion for approval, that
this project would not be detrimental to or injurious to his quiet
enjoyment of his property. He referred to his June, 1988 letter
setting forth detrimental effects: increased noise, sound
reverberates along the creek gully, to extend a deck horizontally
above the creek would greatly magnify sounds; this proposal would
be an extension of the family area and would be used often.
Speaking to ecology and open space, the southwest corner of the
deck will be built completely over the creek, it will be visually
detrimental.
He referred to his previous letter to the Council regarding
alternatives, one a deck off the family room which applicants felt
was too close to Occidental, they could fence the deck. In his
view there were other options so that denial of this application
would not result in undue property loss to the applicants. He
commented on his communication with the Asplunds and his suggestion
for their project. Referring to the recently adopted urgency
ordinance and City Council policy to preserve the natural
conditions of creeks, Mr. Schumann wondered how Commission could
find this deck built completely over a creek would not be
detrimental to him and his property.
Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Schumann stated the shed at
the rear of his property was a tool shed used by carpenters when
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
October 24, 1988
building his house, it is about 71 tall, 61 long and 31 deep, now
used to store yard tools; regarding screening, he could build a
fence, one can see through foliage; the real problem is not view
but noise which will emanate from this large deck area; applicants
made no effort to compromise; he did feel this proposal was better
than the previous one but the Asplunds were aware of the lack of
outdoor living area when they purchased the property.
Mr. Asplund commented in rebuttal: regarding neutral zone, if this
rear area were land it would be their backyard, they have no
backyard; it seems the neighbor wants screening but wants to see
the creek; they are not noisy people, just asking for equal uses;
they will not create more noise for him than he creates for them;
they talked to Mr. Schumann and the Planning Department before
purchasing the property; Mr. Schumann was told they wanted to build
a deck and he did not comment at that time; previously single
people were renting rooms on this site, there was more noise.
Responding to Commission question, applicant stated a deck could be
put over the driveway across from the church but would not be
private or the kind of space other backyards have. Mrs. Asplund
commented that if the deck were located over the garage they would
have to put walls up and then it wouldn't be outdoor living space;
if the proposed deck is screened it will block light to their
living and dining rooms. Mr. Asplund noted they could take off the
roof and put a deck there but this is not realistic and would be
expensive.
Mr. Schumann's further comment: proposed deck will never see the
sun, a deck upstairs above the driveway would get morning sun,
latticework could be added to shield from El Camino and it would be
totally unobtrusive. There were no further audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Harrison stated he had no problem with the previous application
nor with this application; he found there were exceptional
circumstances, applicants have no use of a backyard without the
deck, the size has been reduced, it will be a cantilevered deck and
is a smaller deck; the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a property right of the owners, it will not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners,
and will not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Based on these findings C. Harrison moved for approval of the
variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving
Variance with the conditions in the staff report as revised.
Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham.
Comment/discussion: possibility of building the deck lower; staff
discussed the definition of creek in the urgency ordinance, that is
the 100 year flow line, surely the deck is above that, perhaps the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
October 24, 1988
deck could be lowered a foot or two. Commission asked the
elevation from the bottom of the creek to the bottom of the deck;
Joseph Parello, applicants, engineer, stated the elevation shown is
not accurate but is close, it might be off 3"-511, the top of bank
is usually the line where the slope breaks sharply, he was the
original structural engineer on the house and kept the survey of
the property, the proposed height of the deck is established
because it is the only place to get the beams under the house,
lowering the deck would require cutting into the foundation.
Further comment: was in favor of the previous application and of
this proposal until a visit to Mr. Schumann's property, Commission
must make four findings, cannot agree that the quiet enjoyment of
Mr. Schumann's property will be retained by this addition, noise in
the creek will reverberate, this lot should never have been allowed
but it does exist, cannot support a variance which would intrude;
have the same concern as with the previous application, proximity
to rear property line, some concerns have been met, this is a
smaller deck, it is not closer to the house nor adequately screened
(applicants suggested neighbor do the screening himself, this is
not proper), proximity to rear property line has not changed.
When windows of the house are open cannot believe noise would be
more with a deck, on a flat lot if one wants privacy one puts up a
fence, if the neighbor wants privacy he should build a fence, the
creek really belongs to the applicants; believe the person on
higher land could do the screening more effectively and with less
expense, simple vine coverage would be sufficient, have no problem
with the screening, find there are exceptional circumstances in
that there does not appear to be a rational alternative to get
usable yard area on this property, intrusion of sound would not be
unreasonable in an R-1 neighborhood, this is not granting the
applicants any greater rights than are acceptable in an R-1 area.
Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, S. Graham and
Jacobs voting no, C. Garcia absent.
C. S. Graham moved for approval of the variance for the existing
deck and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance
with the following condition: (1) that the 47 SF second floor deck
shall extend into the rear setback no more than 2.11 and shall
never be added onto. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi.
It was determined this would not preclude applicants from appealing
to the City Council. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote,
Cers H. Graham and Harrison voting no (with the comment this is
inadequate and entirely unfair to the applicants), C. Garcia
absent.
There was some discussion about a motion to deny without prejudice;
a motion to reconsider; it was pointed out no positive action was
taken in the 3-3 vote which resulted in denial of the proposed
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
October 24, 1988
deck. Comment: would like to give applicants an opportunity to come
back with another plan which might be approved by the Commission
rather than an outright denial in which case they could not reapply
for one year.
C. Giomi moved to reconsider both motions, seconded by C. H.
Graham. Motion to reconsider failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers
Ellis, S. Graham and Jacobs voting no, C. Garcia absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A ROOFTOP SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 3
CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D
Reference staff report, 10/24/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, history of previous application,
staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study
meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Marty Putnam, applicant,
was present. He advised the dish would be used 95% for
entertainment; cable TV is not available to them. Myron Cohen,
Distant Mirror (dish installer) stated applicant wanted to keep the
dish as small as possible, a larger dish would be better but he can
get by with a 9' dish, he would need a dish this large for
communications with Mazda. The previous antenna was smaller
because it was a receive only dish for only one transmission, a
training network.
Speaking in opposition, Mrs. Robert Buckingham (for her husband,
Robert Buckingham who lives on Jefferson Court in San Mateo):
concern about interference with TV reception, the size of the
antenna, parking problems on Jefferson Court, does not want more
people in the area.
Mr. Cohen responded, stating a receive only antenna does not
interfere with TV reception, he failed to see what this has to do
with parking, dishes which cause problems are CB units. Responding
to Commission questions, Mr. Putnam said he anticipated the dish to
be used in the customer waiting area 5-7 hours a day, it would be
used only 2-3 times a year for other communications; if a dealer is
not set up for receiving transmission Mazda sends a video tape.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Giomi moved to deny this special permit with the statement that
entertaining customers does not warrant the visual detriment to the
commercial street and the residential area, applicant has indicated
he can communicate with Mazda, twice a year isn't enough to warrant
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
October 24, 1988
the negative effect of this antenna, it is very large and will be
obtrusive. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham who commented 95%
use of this dish for entertainment is creating an attractive
nuisance, people shopping for cars might stay longer and negatively
impact the neighborhood.
Motion to deny was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham
voting no, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. SIGN EXCEPTION AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE SIGNAGE ON THE BROADWAY
FRONTAGE AT 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/24/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants sign exception request, study meeting
questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mark Lamazi, representing
Rector Cadillac, was present. There were no audience comments and
the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion noted
this proposal would result in a reduction of signage on the Rector
site on the Broadway frontage.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the sign exception amendment and
for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Sign Exception with
the following conditions: (1) that the two signs totaling 144 SF
shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped September 14, 1988, which shall include
the removal of the two signs totaling 90 SF; and (2) that the
applicant shall apply for a sign exception for any additional signs
to be put on this site or any changes in copy on these signs prior
to installation of the sign or change in copy.
Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call
vote, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN ATHLETIC CLUB WHICH REQUIRES
TWO VARIANCES AND A FENCE EXCEPTION AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD,
ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/24/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the application, previous request in June which
was denied without prejudice, staff review, applicant's letters,
study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised no letter had
been received from the applicant addressing the necessary findings
for approval of the variances.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
October 24, 1988
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Arthur Michael, applicant,
was present. He discussed: parking (when he bought the property
compact parking was 48%, it has been that way ever since except to
add 14 spaces at the rear); fence (his insurance company has
required the fence, they have asked for an 81 fence because there
is a 21-31 bank at the rear which would make a 61 fence only 4 1 ) ;
retaining wall at the rear (it is 12' away from the building, PUE
is 10' away; main retaining wall is not in the PUE, turnaround area
is still 11' wide, it meets building code requirements for
turnaround); the storage shed will meet all building code
requirements. Regarding backup of the parking area, he put in a
24, backup when the last permit was granted but left the
landscaping, he will remove the landscaping or move the fence
forward to give a 24, backup. The new parking space will be 8'-7"
x 17, with deficient backup (22, rather than 241), this space does
intrude into backup or turnaround area; he would like to have
lighting around the tennis courts, this detail will be included on
the working drawings.
Commission/applicant discussion: land applicant owns at the rear is
marshy, he has purchased property north of the pump station and
hopes to use this area for additional parking; parking is a problem
in the Rollins Road area, Commission would like to see additional
parking provided before any further special permit amendments are
approved for this site, turnaround spaces are narrow, difficult to
maneuver and not very safe; applicant stated they have left a 10,
wide area for access to future parking, he would prefer to put it
on the north side of the pump station rather than the south side.
CE commented it has been close to a year since he has seen plans,
the area could be used for parking except when flooded. CP stated
the turnaround/ backup area is 11' wide, it could be used if one
were careful; in order for parking on the drainage area to be
considered for this increase in floor area it must be on site,
without title to the SP right-of-way applicant cannot merge the
parcels, and he cannot put parking there at this time because he
has no access. Applicant advised he owns all the property in the
rear with the exception of the railroad track, they are still
negotiating on this; he has added parking as required by the city,
parking on the drainage area would be additional parking.
Responding to a question, staff said that at this point Commission
could not grant a variance to parking requirement with a condition
it be off site since the city has received no plans for an access
easement. Discussion continued: when applicant took over this
business the city approved the spaces which were there, this does
not mean the city will continue accepting applicant's parking plans
when he comes in for expansion; any new area added to the site must
meet parking requirements, issue this evening is a single parking
space, applicant is adding compact, not a standard stall,
percentages in the staff report show the impact.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
October 24, 1988
A Commissioner expressed his concern about finding exceptional
circumstances to support the variances. Art Michael, Jr. addressed
Commission: the building was constructed to accommodate the market
of the 70's, previous owners did not respond to changes in the
business, presently only 11% of club members are using the
racquetball courts, 50% of the floor area is in racquetball courts,
90% of the members are not using them; there are two new facilities
(in San Mateo and in Belmont), only 10-15 minutes away, Prime Time
is unprepared to deal with this competition; approval of the
variances will help them meet the competition; they need to provide
more parking and will get the SP land eventually. Commissioner
comment: these exceptional circumstances are not tied to the land,
just to a viable business.
Speaking in favor of the application, Bill Smith, 1133 Hamilton: he
teaches tennis at the club and runs a tennis program for the city,
parking in Burlingame is a problem as well as available tennis
courts, hope this facility will continue to operate, it is needed
in Burlingame; he asked that Commission grant this small variance
request now to help make Prime Time viable, there will be more
parking provided in the future. There were no other audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: exceptional circumstances could be the use of
the site has changed, it is landlocked from the other area in the
rear, this is a small variance request; have no problem with the
fence exception, applicant has been before the Commission often,
think it is time to deny without prejudice which might get everyone
moving fast to get the extra parking in place, there would be more
parking in summer when the area is not flooded, would consider
granting a variance for off-site parking; agree a 2' variance is
not a problem, exceptional circumstances apply to this property in
that 50% of the property is racquetball oriented and 90% of the
membership do not use it.
C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances to support
approval of the variances as previously stated; the variances are
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of
the owner; granting the variances would not be detrimental to other
property owners, no one was at this meeting to protest; and it
would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. She
found there were exceptional circumstances to support the fence
exception, the fence is necessary to secure the site from water
accumulated in the drainage area, there will be no public hazard,
neighboring properties will not be materially damaged and the
regulations are a hardship upon the petitioner.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment and
for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit
Amendment with the seven conditions in the staff report; motion was
seconded by C. Jacobs.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
October 24, 1988
C. Ellis requested a condition be added requiring no parking signs
be posted on the side property line fence behind the rear 14
parking spaces. Maker of the motion and seconder agreed to this
additional condition. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote,
C. Garcia absent, with the following conditions:
1. that no building permits shall be issued or construction
work commenced on any construction on the building at 1730
Rollins Road under a new use permit amendment until all work
authorized and approved under the previous amendments to the
use permit, including February 1987, has been completed,
inspected by the city, approved by the City Engineer, a
final inspection notice signed off by the Building
Department, and a letter from the City Planner and City
Attorney received by the applicant indicating full
compliance with previously approved plans and conditions;
2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's October 17, 1988,
Chief Building Inspector's October 17, 1988 and City
Engineer's October 18, 1988 memos shall be met;
3. that remodeling and new construction shall conform to the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
October 5, 1988 as amended by the plans date stamped October
13, 1988 and shall include a 380 SF storage shed, a deck
3.5' above grade and interior remodel for a 1,434 SF gym
area and 861 SF of office area;
4. that an encroachment permit for the retaining wall and deck
in the PUE easement area be obtained before any additional
work is done in the easement, if no encroachment permit is
granted the retaining wall must be removed and no portion of
deck may be placed within the PUE;
5. that the property owner shall be responsible for keeping
both the fire lane and required backup area clear of parked
cars;
6. that the side property line fence behind the rear 14 parking
spaces adjacent to the city's pump station shall be posted
with signs indicating no parking in the backup area and
these signs shall be maintained and the parking requirement
enforced by the property owner;
7. that all conditions previously attached to the use permit
for this site and any subsequent amendments shall remain in
place; and
8. that this property shall be inspected for conformance with
all the conditions required of it in nine months time (July,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
October 24, 1988
1989) and/or upon complaint and at least every two years
thereafter, and violation shall result in review for
possible revocation of the use permit.
Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Garcia absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORTS
Reaulation of Car Rental Businesses
CP Monroe briefly reviewed her staff report including number of car
rental agencies in Burlingame, turnover, site size and fleet size,
impacts, concerns and conclusions. She noted the larger the fleet
size the greater the traffic impact, site size has less to do with
traffic; Burlingame's industrial area is becoming impacted with
this use; high turnover among smaller car rental agencies; this use
requires space to park and store cars, the larger ones require an
area for auto detailing and light mechanical maintenance; they
often operate 24 hours a day.
Commission/staff discussion: locate car rental agencies in
freestanding buildings, establish criteria, number of car rental
agencies now in Burlingame, bulk of these agencies are on the east
side of 101, would be in favor of prohibiting them on the west side
of 101 (M-1), cannot require existing agencies to leave, require
single occupancy of a building or structure, on-site parking for
employees, on-site storage for a percentage of the fleet operating
from the site, can fleet size be policed, car rental agencies go
along with hotels, car rental use is tied to airports, less to
hotels, direct impact of car rentals on peak hour traffic, need
more definitive information, would like to get car rentals out of
the area west of 101, there should be criteria/guidelines, see this
use forcing other uses out of the M-1 district, this is really a
land use choice.
General agreement on regulation appeared to be: prohibition of car
rental agencies on the west side of Bayshore Highway; they should
be freestanding and the sole tenant/business on the site; there
should be a parking requirement for storage, employees and
visitors; and car rental agencies should become a specified
conditional use.
Special Permit review - 840 Hinckley Road
The 1989 Planning Commission Schedule was approved.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
October 24, 1988
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its October 17,
1988 regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Ellis, Secretary