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