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