Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.08.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1988 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, August 8, 1988 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner S. Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the July 25, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #7, tentative parcel map, 740 /750 Walnut Avenue, continued to the meeting of August 22, 1988. Order of the agenda was approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1152 CABRILLO AVENUE Requests: clarify location of fence on site plan. Item set for public hearing August 22, 1988. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT - TELEVISION ANTENNA - 1828 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: which side of the building is the antenna being placed on; why is the antenna being placed on top of the mechanical room and not on the roof; what is it about the quality of the building which creates poor television reception; do the cellular phone relay antennas on the roof have permits. Item set for public hearing August 22, 1988. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 8,1988 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. VARIANCE FOR SIDE SETBACK AT 1200 PALM DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/8/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter. CP advised that property line begins two feet behind the sidewalk, therefore there appears to be a greater side setback than the 41 shown on the plans. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: regarding the 62" change in elevation on site and how it is referred to on the plans. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bruce Blagsvedt, applicant, explained that the front door to the house is on Crossway; assumed locating stairs on this side of the property would not pose a problem; the 62" shown on the plans is the difference in height from the sidewalk to the floor level of the house; 151 setback on the other side of the property has resulted in the house being too close to the Crossway property line, feel this is the exceptional circumstance on this property. Applicant submitted a letter to the Commission from the neighbor on the southwest side in support of the project.. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. B. Harrison noted that he had visited the site and had no problem with the request. The 62" grade differential between the sidewalk level and the first floor of the house is the exceptional circumstance on this property. C. B. Harrison moved for approval of the side setback variance with the following condition: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department titled Attachment "B" Revised Floor Plan date stamped July 13, 1988. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A SIDE PROPERTY LINE FENCE AT 817 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 CP Monroe explained that additional information had recently been submitted by the next door neighbors at 821 Paloma Avenue, which showed that the fence is actually located on their property rather than the applicant's property. CP suggested the Planning Commission deny the project without prejudice in order to give the neighbors time to work out their differences. CP advised that if the 8' fence were relocated to the adjacent property, a building permit as well as a fence exception would be required. C. Garcia moved to deny the project without prejudice. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi. Motion was approved unanimously on voice vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 8, 1988 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF BURLINGAME TO USE TWO ROOMS AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, 2109 BROADWAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/8/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: this project was noticed to all property owners within 300' of the site; no communication has been received from any neighbors; there are two white loading zones in front of the school, one on Broadway and the other on Vancouver. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Lynette Muhic, applicant, noted that the only other tenant on the Broadway side of the school is the True Learning Center; they have agreed to staggered starting and dismissal hours so that they don't create a traffic problem by overlapping with the True Learning Center. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi found the use to be consistent with the guidelines established for the leasing of Roosevelt School. and moved for approval of the Special Permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the school shall operate from 2,331 SF within Roosevelt School including two classrooms, bathrooms and nurse's room with adjacent bathroom, between the hours of 8:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M.; (2) that the enrollment shall not exceed 40 children ages three to six years and 12 children ages two to three years divided between two sessions a day for each age group with a total of three staff members and a director on site; (3) that the school shall use the kindergarten play area for outdoor activities; (4) that the evening activities associated with this school shall occur only four times a year; and (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in June, 1989 or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1801 CARMELITA - P.M. 88-7 - LOT ONE AND A PORTION OF LOT TWO, BLOCK 32, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 Reference staff report 8/8/88, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this request to divide one existing 13,761 SF lot into two lots and reviewed the revised map which had been submitted showing a conceptual building outline on the new lot. CE discussed conformance with zoning requirements, engineering concerns, proposed creek improvements, neighborhood concerns, subdivision code review criteria and study questions. Letter in opposition to the proposal from 1015 Cabrillo was reviewed as Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 8, 1988 well as letters in support of the project from 2633 Martinez and the former owner of the 1801 Carmelita property were reviewed. CE recommended two conditions for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: footprint of proposed house is 1400 SF, 400 SF of which would be the garage; a 1400 SF second floor is also proposed; a 500 SF deck would be provided on the first floor. CA Coleman reviewed for the Commission the subdivision code criteria they were to consider. Location of proposed structure was clarified on the revised map submitted. Lot coverage of proposed structure would be about 36%; usable yard area with and without decks was reviewed; all improvements would have to be kept clear of 25 year and 100 year flood lines; extent of rip rap in parcel A between the creek and the property to the rear was discussed; no changes proposed to 66" palm tree shown on plans. Restriction of creek flow already occurs upstream, don't see any changes proposed which would affect properties down stream of creek; existing house would be required to provide a new garage if the existing garage is removed; all improvements will be away from the creek and should not affect the volume or flow of the creek. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Lois Burrows, owner of 1801 Carmelita and applicant, addressed Commission. She explained that she has written letters to all the people who have submitted letters regarding the project, but most have not had an opportunity to see the plans of what is being proposed for the site. She noted she is a native of Burlingame with a deep concern for the area; when she saw the property she fell in love with it and bought it with the intention of living in it herself, but due to personal circumstances, this became unfeasable. Proposed project meets all City code requirements; hired a civil engineer and soils engineer who agree site can be developed. There is a 500 SF deck and additional decks could be provided off the second floor and there is 1,750 SF of area beyond the house which can be used for play and recreation. Ninety percent of the time this will be a lovely, peaceful setting. Do not feel noise will be a problem, residents up and down the creek use the creek area, have not noticed any noise problems. Applicant submitted to the Commission pictures of the area. This is a 2,000 SF creek area which has been neglected; cleaning out the area and putting in rip rap will allow the water flow to continue and will maintain a very private, peaceful area. Charles Kavanaugh, project engineer, showed a slide of a conceptual building on the proposed new lot. He stated that he concurs that the flow of the creek will be improved by cleaning it out. The floor of the house would be 8' above the flow line of the creek, there is no chance of the house flooding. The foundation will be on piers placed 15' to 20' into the ground and firmly founded so they cannot be weakened by erosion. The house supports as well as the deck will be kept out of the 100 year Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 8,1988 flood plain. The rip rap could be a masonry product which looks like blocks but can support plants, would not want to see a concrete wall on the other side of the creek. Lois Burrows, applicant, discussed compatability issue and the pattern of lots in the area. She noted that from E1 Camino Real to Vancouver along Carmellita Avenue, there are 21 lots parallel to Carmellita and 17 lots perpendicular to Carmellita; both perpendicular and parallel lots exist on the same block, dont see a set pattern. Applicant introduced the builders she has hired. Ken Hoene, 1224 Cortez Avenue, addressed the Commission. He explained that the original builder intended to tear down the existing house and create two new lots, fronting on Cabrillo Avenue; he is interested in maintaining the character of the existing house; most of his projects are in Atherton and Hillsborough; loves Burlingame and would like to see its charm and character maintained. Vince Orteza of Sari Mateo, noted they are trying to maintain the integrity and charm of Burlingame; take great pride in their projects. Lois Burrows submitted to the Planning Commission pictures of other homes in the area. She explained that they are planning to construct a 3 bedroom, 3 bath English cottage house on the new lot. There were no audience comments in favor at this time. The following spoke in opposition: Nancy Finney, 1020 Drake Avenue: she is the creekside neighbor most affected by the proposed subdivision; moved to neighborhood for peace and privacy, proposed new house would rise above her back yard, would loose all privacy, especially if a second story deck is added; creek flooded in 1981 and 1982, lost retaining wall on property; there is evidence of earth moving in and around the creek area; concerned new garage will be built on flood plain; many animals live in creek area and would be disturbed; applicant is interested in making money and don't feel we should have to give up our privacy for this. Jack Finney, 1020 Drake: discussed flood problems over the years; cost $30,000 to repair damage to the property; concerned about trees surrounding property and who will take care of them. James Yawn, 1815 Carmelita Avenue: lives to the right side of the proposed house. Discussed flooding problems; .in 1982 had 3' of water in his downstairs bedroom; living room looks onto creek area, would lose view; noise from pools, etc. carries down the creek, property would add to the noise problem; pattern of homes on Carmellita is 2 houses from corner to corner; feel this project will continue pattern in Burlingame of maxing out. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 8,1988 Bill Littell, 1800 Carmelita Avenue: lives across the street, proposed house would look down into his back yard; concerned with compatability of new lot with the other lots in the area. Nicholas Peros, 1105 Cabrillo Avenue: concerned that drilling 20, piers to support structure will change character of creek; this proposal is the first step to constructing row houses in Burlingame. The following additional individuals spoke in opposition: Patrice Gambezi, 1008 Drake Avenue; David Ferenc, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue; George Gambezi, 1008 Drake Avenue; Kate Tanaka, 1109 Cabrillo Avenue; Margery Hechinger, 1025 Cabrillo Avenue; Tracey DeLeuw, 1104 Cabrillo Avenue; Walter Gilliam, 1100 Cabrillo Avenue; Gene Supanich, 1036 Cabrillo Avenue; Nicholas Drosdovitch, 1016 Cabrillo Avenue. Their concerns/comments: Flooding in area and possible damage to houses; possibility of creating a damning effect in the creek; walls on both sides of creek may create a narrowing situation; stairs to yard area appear to encroach into setback; existing house is charming, would like to see it maintained; hate to see Burlingame chopped up, property should remain as one lot; project will impact neighbors, especially those down stream. CE clarified that stairs to rear yard rise about 3' above grade; applicant could fill in the area and place a dirt ramp in this area, which would not be subject to setback requirements. Applicant discussed the proposed cleaning out of the creek and the benefit to neighboring properties; stairs would consist of a series of stones that would step down into the yard area, part of landscaping plan, not a structure subject to setback requirements; will be improving situation in area; rear of new house will be at least 30' from the nearest property, could plant hedge to block visibility of house; proposed lot is consistent with the size of the other lots in the area and conforms to the pattern of the area. Speaking in favor, Sally Peter, 1359 Columbus Avenue, real estate agent who sold the property: she noted that the existing house needed a tremendous amount of work, only a contractor could have bought it. Applicant has no plans to take out trees; portions of lot which neighbors can see will be landscaped; understand neighbors desire not to have change, however change can be good if well done; this project meets all city requirements. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CE reviewed revised table of frontages and sizes of other lots in the area; there is one lot in the area larger than proposed parcel 1-A and 13 smaller lots; 11 lots are larger than proposed parcel 1-a and 3 are smaller. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 8,1988 Commission discussion/comment: most concerns expressed deal with design issues which commission can't consider in a subdivision proposal; creek is an engineering problem; have denied subdivisions in the past, but only when the lots in the area are larger than the lots being proposed; 79% of the lots in the area are larger than the smaller lot being proposed, have problem with compatability; see crowded condition with a new house; am struggling with this, applicant is trying to retain house and add to housing stock at the same time which is not necessarily bad; CE believes project will improve condition of creek; had concern with property having a usable back yard, however site visit verified that there would be a usable area next. to the creek in dry weather; need to rely on professional staff regarding flooding issue; no way for anyone to guarantee there will be no flooding; lot is smaller than the other lots in the area, however if do not consider 1025 Cabrillo, which is much larger than the other lots, the proposed lot is similar to the other lots in the area; don't believe will be able to notice a difference between the almost 51' frontage of the proposed lot and the average 54' frontage which is typical for the area. C. Giomi moved that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve this tentative parcel map for the reasons noted above. Motion was seconded by C. H. Graham. Comment on the motion: C. Harrison and Chm. Jacobs noted that the issue of compatability was of concern since 795 of the lots in the block would be larger than the smaller of the proposed two lots being created; concerned about creating crowded conditions in the area. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, C. Harrison and Chm. Jacobs dissenting for reasons noted above and C. S. Graham absent. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to City Council. 7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 740-750 WALNUT AVENUE Item continued to the meeting of August 22, 1988. 8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1044, 1066 AND 1070 BROADWAY P.M. 88-10 Reference staff report, 8/8/88, with attachments. CE reviewed the request. Application is for the merger of three adjoining parcels into one parcel. Proposal is necessary to enable applicant to use the property jointly as one auto dealership, for which he has been granted a Special Permit; no improvements are approved by this mapping action; all landscaping, parking, street improvements and access requirements were reviewed as part of the Special Permit process. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 8, 1988 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Harrison moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, C. S. Graham absent. Staff will forward this map to Council. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL AGENCY TO OPERATE FROM A DESK AT THE HYATT HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1. Reference staff report 8/8/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. PC/Staff Discussion: Five on-site parking spaces were allowed for the car rental agency at the Sheraton Hotel; condition regarding number of customers per day would be enforced by checking rental agreements; 74 parking spaces will be reserved for valet parking at the Hyatt; concerned about location of parking spaces to be reserved for car rental operation; don't want rental cars to use most conveniently located parking spaces; hotel has 8 parking spaces in excess of number of hotel rooms, applicant is requesting 10 parking spaces; no application has been received for signage for Hertz; would like to see condition requiring applicant to write contracts in Burlingame. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Richard Gagne, Operations Manager for the North Pacific Zone of the Hertz Corporation, addressed Commission. He commented that they would be glad to amend their application to request 8 parking stalls instead of 10; did not have information on available parking at the Hyatt Hotel at the time the application was submitted; is willing to agree to condition requiring that vehicles not be kept on the site for more than 72 hours; concerned with condition number 4, limiting number of customers per day; there is a large variation in the number of people that may check into the hotel at one time, especially with convention groups; Hyatt is a full service hotel, which means that their guests expect to be able to obtain a rental car at the hotel, and Hertz has guaranteed this service to Hyatt; limit on the number of customers who can be served per day would mean not all guests would be able to obtain a rental car; would be more comfortable with a monthly limit on customers; studies show that parking demands are reduced when there are rental cars available at the hotel; use of a shuttle bus tends to increase traffic congestion and inconveniences customers; parking stalls could be anywhere on the hotel site, first floor location in garage was chosen in order to reduce traffic Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 8,1988 congestion in garage; would be willing to relocate parking spaces; during large conventions cars are replenished as quickly as they are rented out; intend to write all contracts at the Hyatt; contracts are written for the place where the car is picked up. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/Staff Discussion: CP explained that the condition limiting number of hours a rental car can be parked in a parking space is to prevent the storage of vehicles at the hotel site during off seasons; condition limiting number of customers per day is intended to provide a measure of the volume of the business, to prevent it from expanding from an incidental service to a business of its own. Commission discussed with staff these conditions and recommended several revisions. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the car rental operation at the Hyatt Hotel, 1333 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by one commissioned agent from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 7 am to 6 pm Monday - Friday, 8 am to 12 noon on Saturday and Sunday; (2) that 8 parking spaces shall be reserved for car rental cars in the ground level of the parking garage and no car shall be stored in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; (3) that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned, or repaired on the Hyatt site; (4) that customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to these operating limits shall require an amendment to this use permit; (5) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (August 1989) and every two years thereafter; and (6) that all rental contracts shall be written in Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. H. Graham. Comment on the motion: C. Ellis noted he can support this application because there is excess parking on the site. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its August 1, 1988 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary