Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.08.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Ellis on Monday, August 22, 1988 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, S. Graham, Harrison Absent: Commissioners H. Graham, Jacobs Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the August 8, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of agenda approved. The Chair advised applicants for action items that the rules of procedure of the Planning Commission require four affirmative votes for approval. With only five members present this evening they may wish to request a continuance to the meeting of September 12, 1988. None of the applicants wished to continue. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT - SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE YARD AND SHOP AREA - 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: clarify Dr. Black's statement that eight renter staff members will be able to park off street and CE's statement that the ramp to the parking area removed two off-street spaces; identify the eight renter staff members; how will trucks be screened from the neighbors; is the maintenance supervisor counted as one of the four maintenance staff. Item set for public hearing September 12, 1988. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT - RETAIL AUTO REPAIRS - 1325 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: will the yellow zone in front remain; will applicant be using the one off-street parking spot himself; overview of how many auto related businesses there are in this area; since this site was previously in warehouse use, does the CE have traffic concerns Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 22, 1988 about this use as compared to warehouse. Item set for public hearing September 12, 1988. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1649 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: height of the GTE, Olympia and Amana signs on Adrian Road; nature of The Good Guys business at this location; maximum height of the new sign which will be placed atop two existing pylons; what business was previously here, what signage. Item set for public hearing September 12, 1988. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE - EXERCISE STUDIO - 1550 ROLLINS ROAD, UNIT 0, ZONED M-1 Requests: will landlord pave area in the rear and when; can the unpaved area be used for parking; there are two uses for this building before the Commission now, have any other variances been granted to this building; what are existing uses in the building; clarification of the job descriptions of the employees; it appears there are no classes proposed from 8:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M., is this correct; what will happen to the inoperable vehicle in the rear lot; are these classes licensed; first aid provisions; statement from the CE on the impact of this use versus other permitted uses. Item set for public hearing September 12, 1988. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE - CERAMICS CLASSES - 1550 ROLLINS ROAD, UNIT G, ZONED M-1 Requests: have any other variances been granted to this building; what are existing uses in the building; cumulative parking impact; current use of the site by the applicants, are they selling ceramics. Item set for public hearing September 12, 1988. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL AGENCY - 820 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: where will employees park; clarify number of exterior spaces, 74 or 80; proposal states there will be a fleet of 100 cars, are balance of cars stored elsewhere or is balance expected to be out in use; what is the parking requirement for this use; will the chain link enclosure in the parking area be removed; is staffs suggestion to grant the permit for a 24 hour operation to eliminate the need for an amendment to expand the hours. Item set for public hearing September 12, 1988. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT - RETAIL SALES AND REPAIRS OF BOATS, ENGINES, TRAILERS, PARTS, SUPPLIES _-_405 BEACH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: does the business next door with a similar use have a special permit; on-site parking provided; why is there no expansion expected within the next five years; is there a launch ramp of some Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 22, 1988 sort; what type of drain catches will be required; is the boat hull on this property a fire hazard; at the back there is a gate in the chain link fence, is the site accessible from the rear. Item set for public hearing September 12, 1988. ITEMS FOR ACTION 8. VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SETBACK TO PROVIDE A 14'-6" REAR YARD WHERE 15' IS REQUIRED, AT 300 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/22/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants letter. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Kenneth Nocentini, applicant, was present. He commented they are trying to meet the requirements of the city; there is a problem with the placement of the existing house on the lot; he wanted to put his car and truck in a garage and not leave the truck on the street; they have three children and plan another child, they will need more room. Responding to Commissioner question, applicant stated he has a 21' boat on a 21-1/21 trailer which they plan to store at his parents, home. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison stated he had been by the site several times; the addition will be an asset to the area, providing a two car full size garage; there are exceptional circumstances in the placement of the house on the lot; the 6" variance is necessary because of the 20' front setback of the house; findings b, c and d necessary for variance approval are met. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance with the following condition: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 26, 1988 with a space between the rear of the new garage and the rear property line of no less than 141-6". Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A PROPERTY LINE FENCE AT 1152 CABRILLO AVENUE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/22/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 22, 1988 Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison stated he had made a site inspection and could find no exceptional circumstances to support approval of this request. C. Harrison moved to deny the fence exception. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: the way the fence is built it can be cut off at 61; the property owner certainly knew the property was on Broadway at the time he purchased it and that he would have a new neighbor in the near future. Staff advised the need for an encroachment permit is determined at building permit stage. Motion to deny was approved 5-0 on roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. TWO VARIANCES AND A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A DECK, HOT TUB AND FENCE AT 468 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/22/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, revised comments from the CBI, Planning staff comment, applicants letters. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff and Commission discussion: exceptions for decks less than 12" off the ground and determination that a variance is required for the portion of the deck which contains the hot tub; there is no problem with sale of the property since a variance runs with the land; the fiberglass on top of a portion of the side property line fence is attached to it, if the fiberglass were removed the fence would be shorter by about 21 to 2-1/21; regarding the fence behind the hot tub, separating it from the rest of the back yard, the portion of that fence within the side setback (in this case the side 41) can be no higher than 61; plans show the lot is 50' x 991, it is actually 50' x 1001, a rectangular lot. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Michael Sharp, applicant, was present. He advised he had not realized he needed to contact the city prior to starting this project; he felt there were exceptional circumstances in the shape of the house on the lot. Chandler Eason, architect, discussed the project:: the fiberglass panels are integral to the fence, fence was existing before the hot tub was put in, applicant decided to add latticework for privacy; hot tub was set 3'-3" from the fence in order to have more space between deck and side of the house, applicant was concerned about access completely around the house, 3'-3" gives enough body room; hot tub was raised for easy access to utility lines below. Mr. Eason advised he had talked to the CBI on the phone today about permits for the project, fees would be $374.35 and applicant is Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 22, 1988 agreeable to this; he was brought in as architectural consultant on July 25 and did the drawings for the submittal, property is 50' x 1001, there was an error in the drawings; if the fiberglass were removed the fence would not fall down, the fiberglass is framed into the wood supported by the posts so it would be a lot of work to remove the fiberglass, the fence and fiberglass sections were existing when applicant bought the house, the latticework was added to a section of the side property line fence to match the height of the existing fence along the side property line. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: cannot find exceptional circumstances to support approval of a variance; agree, made a site inspection this evening and cannot find exceptional circumstances, did find the back yard is totally unused except as a dog run, too bad applicants didn't choose to make more use of the back yard. C. S.Graham moved to deny this application. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi. Comment on the motion: just because a circumstance exists does not support a finding of exceptional circumstances nor support a variance to code regulations; agree there are no exceptional circumstances, hard to believe someone would put in a project with utility hookups and not know he would require a building permit. Motion to deny was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS INTO THREE LOTS - 740 AND 750 WALNUT AVENUE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/22/88, with attachments. DPW Kirkup explained this application is basically taking a small area at the rear from 750 Walnut, adding it to 740 Walnut and dividing that new large parcel into two lots. He discussed minimum land area, frontages. Sewer problems in the area were noted, the developer will be required to correct this. Subdivision code criteria for Commission review were noted. CE has recommended approval with eight conditions listed in his staff report. DPW discussed lot sizes on the same side of the street, lot widths and average lot width; area to the rear of these lots has not been considered since it faces El Camino Real with development either multifamily or church. Responding to Commission questions, DPW advised Hillsborough has no objection to the subdivision itself, they have not yet replied to the proposed change in the sewer main, Burlingame would need an encroachment permit to go in and repair the sewer main within Hillsborough's jurisdiction; this portion of the creek has no Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 22, 1988 history of flooding; cantilevered deck shown in the footprint on the map as well as footprint of the other house is well above the 100 year flood line; retaining wall of the existing house at 750 Walnut has not been addressed, it is existing and not changed by this proposal; side setback on Parcel 9A would be 5' for one story, 6' for two stories. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. William F. Pagano, attorney representing the applicants, addressed Commission. He stated that with this development the city sewer will be improved, they have the Town of Hillsborough's verbal approval of an encroachment permit for sewer improvements; the proposed division actually creates lots slightly larger than those in the immediately adjacent area, all dimensions comply with code requirements; the proposal clearly meets subdivision code review criteria. Commissioner comment: it appears Lot 9A will have a very long driveway which will take up a good portion of the back yard and cut across to the garage; however, realize these are not formal plans. Charles Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering, stated these plans are conceptual, the client has had an architect working on it, architect first thought that a long, narrow lot suggested a long, narrow house and the garage might be placed as shown, this does make a fairly long driveway. With the use of the proposed map on the overhead projector Mr. Kavanagh pointed out proposed footprints. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Gregory Taylor, 730 Walnut Avenue; Mike Mullery, 766 Walnut Avenue; Ramona Martinez, 709 Walnut Avenue; Maria Torru, 726 Walnut Avenue; Francis Toldi, 701 Walnut Avenue; Lee Mullery, 766 Walnut Avenue; Dianne Pickett; 730 Walnut Avenue. Their comments and concerns: several years ago a lot in this area was subdivided, it was not a good plan for the neighborhood and increased neighbors' awareness of subdivisions; -the appeal of the neighborhood is in its location close to Hillsborough with trees and large lots, it is like being in the country, the neighborhood is changing radically now; there is a sewer problem, understand this will be improved; regarding compatibility, it is misleading to say there is a 70' lot frontage, 20' of the creek should not be counted, with a driveway next to the creek vegetation will be lost, concern about losing the semi -rural environment; ask that Commission consider compatibility, the proposal is not compatible with this two block street where many of the homes have landscaping and beauty which comes with age; concern about flooding, five to seven years ago the creek overflowed and serious erosion occurred; if all the trees disappear and two modern houses are put up compatibility with the neighborhood will be lost; this appears to be three homes with the third in the triangular area; (staff advised there is no triangle and pointed out that the area being Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 22, 1988 referred to was actually the area being taken from 750 and added to 740, it was part of the new lot being created on 740 with frontage on Walnut); if this can be done on these lots it is only fair to let others put up three homes; have had sewer problems but the city cleans it out at least twice a year. Commissioner comment: 758 and 760 Walnut share a common driveway. Further audience comments: our home is in Hillsborough but the lot fronts on Burlingame, transformation of a neighborhood is not a sudden happening, it is a gradual process, would not want to see the neighborhood change; don't see how developer can build along the creek without removing trees; (staff advised most trees along the creek will remain, there is no common driveway); concern about using up open space and that the street will become a dead end street in the future; (staff stated Hillsborough can close off a street in Hillsborough, they have not indicated to the City of Burlingame that they intend to do this); the other new house in this area was not compatible, doubt these new homes will be compatible. CA commented Commission is considering a recommendation to City Council on this division. They may only rule on compatibility of the proposed lots to the physical pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood, there is no authority to review the style or design of structures later to be built. Audience comment: bought a house in the area for reasons of space and aesthetics, on -street parking is a problem now, concern about parking, safety of children and animals. Attorney Pagano commented on compatibility with other lots in the neighborhood, the proposed lots are larger than the lots of those speaking this evening, developer is making every effort to save as many trees as possible. Beatrice Marino, 750 Walnut Avenue, stated she knew the city would give fair consideration to this proposal and she would abide by that decision; regarding trees along the creek, three have died and one is not healthy. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: with another subdivision Commission was able to find that the proposed lot sizes were not compatible with lot sizes in the area, in this case Commission cannot make that finding and, unfortunately, cannot tell the builder what to build, the city has no architectural review board, Commission must look at the land itself, these proposed lots are larger in size and frontage than existing lots in the neighborhood; agree with this statement, CA has told Commission what it can do, but empathize with the speakers this evening; also agree, Commission's charge is to see that the new lots conform to the existing lots in the neighborhood, not only do they conform but they are larger than most. Would hope that in Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 22, 198$ order to get top dollar the developer will match neighborhood character with his new homes. With the statement he could understand concerns expressed this evening but the city has no provision to review structural design and the four review criteria of the subdivision code are met, C. Garcia moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval with the eight conditions listed in the CE's staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison, stating not many Commissioners are happy with the way they have to vote on this matter. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and Jacobs absent. Staff will forward this recommendation to Council. Recess 9:10 P.M.; reconvene 9:18 P.M. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 4' HIGH UHF AND VHF ANTENNA ON TOP OF THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM ON THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 1828 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 8/22/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Proposed location of the antenna was discussed as well as alternate locations. Staff advised if another tenant of the building wished to put up another antenna he would need to get a use permit also. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Craig Terrell, Terrell Electrical, was present representing the applicant.. He advised Dr. Jurow, applicant, practices with four other doctors, this large obgyn practice has many patients sitting in the waiting room and that is why they want the TV. At present there is large scale interference from the structure on the TV's inside antenna, applicant wants to provide a convenience for his patients, Cable TV is projecting five to 10 years to get service to this building, other tenants could tie in but Dr. Jurow is the only one willing to pay for this work now; installation on the west side is proposed because of an access door to the stairway, another location on the mechanical equipment room would be all right, it could be fastened to the wall of the equipment room; it would not be obtrusive in any direction. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the 4' high UHF and VHF antenna shall be placed on top of the mechanical room as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 15, 1988; (2) that the applicant shall receive a building permit for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 22, 1988 the installation of the antenna and conform with all building code requirements; and (3) that the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the antenna and, if appropriate, its removal in the future. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. In comment on the motion moving the antenna to the California Drive side of the mechanical equipment room was suggested. Maker of the motion did not see a problem placing it on the E1 Camino side. The Chair commented he had no problem with the proposal, 41 on a building of this height is visually insignificant. Motion was approved 5-0 on roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY ON PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTIES AT 615, 701 AND 731 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 (CONTINUED FROM 4/25/88, 5/9/88, 6/13/88) Reference staff report, 8/22/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request. Using the overhead projector she indicated parcels involved in this application and discussed staff review, CE's and Dir.of Parks' comments, Planning staff comment (she noted application is for a single airport parking facility with one access to Airport Boulevard), applicants letter, study meeting questions, additional information submitted by applicant's attorney, David C. Car, staff conclusion. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During discussion the lots which are a part of this application were again clarified. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. David Carr, attorney representing the applicants, was present. His comments: regarding Lot B7L4 on the map, the owner of one-half interest in that lot has opted out of participating in this long term airport parking use and the CA has recommended this be considered a mixed ownership lot and not included in the application; Mr. Carr disagreed with the CA's decision but for the purposes of this application they will be bound by that decision; they are asking only for the clear lots on the map to be considered this evening. He commented on the intense negotiations during the last year and a half between all property owners of the present airport parking facility, no resolution has been reached as of this date. He asked Commission grant permits to all the lots requested in the application; Mr. Carr believed that once a permit. has been granted and lessees have an opportunity to work with other owners it will be possible to get a joint agreement with those people or access easements; Commission will help in getting people together and resolving the conflict if it grants the application as recommended by staff. Applicants accept all conditions in the staff report with a change in condition #4 to read "with an average of 268 cars arriving to park weekdays" and 11254 cars arriving to park each weekend day." Attorney Carr advised that under the permit the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 22, 1988 present parking would cease on the lots marked with stripes and polka dots shown on the staff prepared map until an agreement can be reached with those property owners. He believed there would be an application to amend this permit and add some lots in the near future. Michael McCracken, attorney representing some of the owners of the lots indicated with stripes and polka dots, defended the CA's position, granting a use to part of a parcel would indeed be a subdivision and Commission would be effecting a subdivision without going through the appropriate process. The problem is an internal dispute of how much rent everyone is going to get, how the rent is to be paid and to whom. Mr. Wong, 50% owner of the lot marked by polka dots, never joined in the original application, he will not be a part of this application and will not agree to grant a cross easement. The ideal solution would be for everyone to join in an application and an effort is being made in good faith to achieve this result, if an agreement is reached Mr. Wong would consent. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. that the two conditions of the Director of Parks' April 13, 1988 memo and the conditions of the City Engineer's April 19, 1988 memo shall be met; 2. that this use permit will include only the parcels identified as Block 5, Lots 8, 10, 11, 12 and Block 7, Lots 11 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and these lots shall be used only if easements are obtained across nonparticipating properties so that circulation between lots and areas can occur internal to the property; 3. that these lots described in Condition #2 shall be operated as a single facility with one entrance/exit at the designated airport parking gate identified as 615 Airport Boulevard and that should any portion of the lots become severed from the rest by a change in use of intervening property or loss of an egress easement then that portion so severed shall no longer be eligible to be used under this use permit; 4. that the use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with an average of 268 cars arriving to park weekdays and 254 cars arriving to park each weekend day, shuttle bus service between this location and the airport shall be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 August 22, 1988 provided with 66 round trips between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. and 94 round trips between 5:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. daily; 5. that there shall be no more than 21 full time and four part time employees on site to operate this business and that they shall park on site; 6. that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the city harmless from any claims arising from such problems; 7. that all parking spaces shall be striped for a standard 9' x 20, space; 8. that there shall be no vehicle washing or service facilities on the airport parking facility site except for washing shuttle buses at a wash rack acceptable to the City Engineer; 9. that overflow parking of rent -a -car agency vehicles and storage of other vehicles is permitted providing on -street loading or unloading of such vehicles does not occur and providing the area used has legal internal access within the parking lot area; 10. that the property owner shall prepare a landscaping and irrigation plan to be approved by the city for the front setback area along Airport Boulevard, the property owner shall install and maintain this landscaping according to the approved plan within 90 days of the granting of this use permit; 11. that this use permit shall expire in five years on May 1, 1993; and 12. that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all its conditions, including public access and landscaping maintenance, in one year (May, 1989) and each two years thereafter or upon complaint about maintenance of public access areas, landscaping and operation of the facility. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: hope that this comes to a speedy resolution. Motion approved 5-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 August 22, 1988 PLANNER REPORTS The following special permit reviews to verify compliance were accepted: satellite dish, 1080 Carolan Avenue; grocery store/specialty food store, 346 Lorton Avenue; car rental agency, 1177 Airport Boulevard; classes and satellite dish, 1501 Bayshore Highway; auto body and auto repair service, 1305 North Carolan Avenue; True Learning Center, 2109 Broadway; printing service, 214 California Drive. Regarding Special Permit to allow childbirth classes and office use at Roosevelt School, 1151 Vancouver Avenue, tenant did not move in; this permit is void as of August 3, 1988. Fence Exception denial, 1512 Highway Road, fence is in compliance with Planning Commission requirements. Parking Variance, 723 California Drive, is in compliance. - CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its August 15, 1988 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary