Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.07.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1988 CALL TO, ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, July 11, 1988 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos, Planner; Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the June 27, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item #7, page 6, add the three staff recommended conditions to the motion for approval. AGENDA - Item #13, special permit, car rental agency, 150 Anza Boulevard, continued to the meeting of July 25, 1988 at the request of the applicant. Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT - HART DAY SCHOOL - 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE Requests: list of other uses at Roosevelt School; which restrooms will be used; how will the children arrive at the school; will they have a different playground than the one used by other children; will they use the kitchen facilities; what age group, will they mix with other students; total employees at Roosevelt School; is the parking space on the playground still being used. Item set for public hearing July 25, 1988. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT - DRY CLEANING AGENCY - 314 LORTON AVENUE Requests: what hours will the part time employee work; if successful, could they operate with one full time employee indefinitely; what type of signage will they request. Item set for public hearing July 25, 1988. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 11, 1988 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - DRY CLEANING PLANT - 1883 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: will action on this proposal include additional employees projected in two and five years; do they anticipate an increase in shirt laundry business; clarify Saturday hours. Item set for public hearing July 25, 1988. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1564-1590 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: discuss S.P. spur track property, portion still owned by S.P.; clarify parking, if S.P. parcels are added to the adjacent properties, would this allow increase in building size over what was previously anticipated for traffic volumes; would landscaping be required to code; discuss egress easement/drainage easement and why it is being vacated. Item set for public hearing July 25, 1988. 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - 1801 CARMELITA_AVENUE Requests: square footage of lots on the block; assume lot is buildable and structure can be placed over creek; history of flooding on site in the last few years; would like conceptual building pad; how many major trees will be affected or removed, show on plan; wall is in need of repair, height of wall with reference to water flow height; lot coverage on Parcel 1-A with new garage; could approval be contingent on adding garage. Item set for public hearing July 25, 1988. 6. SPECIAL PERMITS - 559 ROOM HOTEL - 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: will current UBC apply to this revised project; history of hotels noting compliance with the design guidelines; is additional parking included for a car rental use; where will this hotel locate a dish antenna; will Fishermen's Park continue, will the improvements be a part of this project; will health club be limited to guests only; where will exterior furniture and lighting be placed; what signage is proposed. Item set for public hearing July 25, 1988. ITEMS FOR ACTION 7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 515 FRANCISCO DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/11/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, background of applications on this site, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. PLR advised applicants have redesigned the bath in the garage area to provide a 40' deep tandem area for parking. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 11, 1988 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bill Lacs, Lacs Design and Construction and Rafael and Lisa Portillo, property owners were present. Mr. Lacs commented they have tried their best to satisfy the regulations of the city and his clients' needs; it has been difficult with this narrow lot and they did not want to intrude into the setbacks. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement he made a site visit, there are exceptional circumstances in the lot size and inability to provide more than a tandem garage, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner, it would not be detrimental to the neighbors and would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city, C. Harrison moved for approval of the parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's June 14, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 9, 1988 with revised floor plan of the garage date stamped July 1, 1988 showing a 40' long tandem parking area; and (3) that the garage shall never be used for living area or separate residential purposes. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: this is an example of what can be done if applicants are helpful in trying to improve a project. Motion passed unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND LOT COVERAGE TO ADD A BEDROOM TO THE RESIDENCE AT 1708 DEVEREUX DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff reportg, 7/11/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff reivew, applicants' letter. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Minimum bedroom size was discussed. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Joyce and Marshall Feldman, applicants and property owners, were present. Applicants/Commission discussion: why not extend the addition back to the patio line; Mrs. Feldman stated there is a retaining wall which they would have to remove so they left walkway access to the side of the house; they park one car in the garage in winter, one car is parked on the street. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have a basic concern about where people park, have no objection toa third bedroom but this is a relatively short driveway. C. Harrison stated he shared this concern but from a site inspection he found there were exceptional circumstances, the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 11, 1988 retaining wall is raised about 2-1/2' so it is impossible to enlarge the bedroom and leave the walkway; he would not like to see the patio cover removed, it does provide protection to the living area in the back of the house; a denial would result in undue property loss; approval would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variances for parking and lot coverage and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variances with the following condition: (1) that the project shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 15, 1988 and that the additional lot coverage shall not exceed 75 SF. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: can understand the variance for parking, this is a Ray Park garage, but have a concern about lot coverage, do not think the patio cover needs to be this deep; staff advised if the patio cover were constructed differently, more freestanding, the lot coverage variance would still be required. Further comment: do not have a problem with the patio cover, with some exposures this is necessary; cutting off the cover would be unattractive. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A BEDROOM ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1372 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/11/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Michael and Kathleen Serratto, applicants, were present. Length of the driveway was discussed. Mr. Serratto advised several of their neighbors had no objections. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham advised she was familiar with this house, there is no way around the parking situation. She found there were exceptional circumstances, there is no place on this lot for more parking, there is room in the driveway for a second vehicle; the variance is necessary for the protection of the property rights of the owners, it would not be detrimental to the neighbors and would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 11, 1988 C. S. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the following condition: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 15, 1988 and July 1, 1988. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. VARIANCE TO REQUIRED REAR YARD IN ORDER TO BUILD A DECK 5' FROM PROPERTY LINE AT 433 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment on history of this property, applicant's letters, letter in oppostion from Paul A. Schumann, 1525 Bellevue Avenue, Hillsborough (neighbor to the rear). Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: existing decks, proposed decks; concern about roving creek, staff advised originally the property line was in the center of the creek but when applicants purchased the property it had moved over to the opposite bank, staff was not aware that it had moved in the last few years; one proposed deck will be cantilevered, the city will assure any footings on the other deck will not cause erosion, impede natural flow of the creek, etc. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Pamela and Donald Asplund, applicants and property owners, were present. They discussed their research regarding adding outdoor living space to the rear with their broker, the Planning Department and their future neighbor to the rear before purchasing the property. There was no final inspection on the house when they purchased it. They would not have purchased it if they thought there would be no outdoor living space; creek area they own is approximately 250' long, the section of deck over the creek would be only 29' long; the lower portion of deck is over land; they need the deck area for outdoor living, without it use of the rear of their home would be limited; they were shocked to hear at this late date of the strong objections to the deck by the neighbor, the neighbor to the rear speaks of mutual benefit of the open space of the creek but this area is applicants, land, property line is on the other side of the creek; if allowed to build the deck they will use it, neighbor's pool makes as much noise in the summer. Applicants presented photographs of the area behind the house and to the side, proximity of creek, slope of bank, view of neighbor's lot; they said the deck off the master bedroom seats only four people, nothing in the back is usable, there is a steep slope and a lot of water; the area next to their driveway is small, with setback there would be no usable area and it has no structure for cantilevering; the Dept. of Fish and Game and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have advised they would not need permits if there were no Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 11, 1988 footings in the creek; the side area is on the street, it is a side yard with no privacy and no access from the house. Responding to Commissioner question, applicant advised she would like to remove the large acacia trees and replace them with shrubbery, but would not want to change the look of foliage; removal of the trees would not weaken the bank as tree roots are not removed; applicants' living room is about the same height as the neighbor's pool, end of the deck would be 5' from his property line. Speaking in opposition, Paul Schumann, 1525 Bellevue Avenue, Hillsborough: he owns and occupies the property directly to the rear; his biggest concern was injury to his quiet enjoyment; a deck coming off the center of the applicants' house, right off the living room, will double the activity area of this home, he would expect major activity on the deck; even casual conversation reverberates down the creek; applicants now have a three bedroom, three bath house, two stories in part, a built-in garage, large living room (which would be doubled with the deck), they have a deck off the master bedroom and another deck off the family room which extends 2' into the rear setback; when they were purchasing the house he suggested they make an offer subject to whatever permits were needed. Mr. Schumann felt applicants wanted extension of their living area and this would be detrimental to him; he commented they have other options, they might open up the roof off the attic, add a deck and use that for recreation. Commission/Schumann discussion: Schumann's patio is off his living area, it faces a 20' wide pool which is about 10-15' from property line; applicants may be quiet people but sound reverberates, noise from neighbor's pool must reverberate also; neighbor has lived there over 25 years, when applicants' house was built and when the existing decks were built he received no notices of public hearings. In rebuttal, applicants stated they were not noisy people, try to keep their children quiet and respect their neighbors; they hope to live in this house a long time; if there were 15 flat feet in the back and no creek they would be able to use it; they do not want to destroy the creek, they like the setting; any noise would be only normal living noise, no large parties; they thought a deck on the roof would be more intrusive than what they are proposing, also the attic is the only storage space the house has; Mr. Schumann has a patio off his living room, that is all they are asking for; perhaps they could use latticework to lessen intrusion, or remove 2-1/2' of the existing deck; encouraging them to go up is asking for less privacy. Commission comment: from the neighbor's property, all vegetation on 433 Occidental is gone except the acacias. Responding to a Commissioner question, applicant said they would confer with their engineers regarding fencing on the deck and putting latticework Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 11, 1988 facing the neighbors property. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: applicant did purchase the home with his eyes open, conferred with the city and was told Commission action might be necessary, property was purchased with no guarantee, difficult to find exceptional circumstances, this is the way the home was built and the way it was purchased, proposed decks will interfere with the neighbor's privacy; could applicant take permitted area, leaviing 151, and go the whole length of the house with a deck or could he build a deck on the ground; staff advised deck would have to encroach into the rear setback or it would be too narrow, the city does not encourage building structures in areas which flood; regarding reverberation in the creek bed, how can a deck create or not create a noise problem just as how can a pool create or not create a noise problem, the noise is going to be there whether there is a deck or not, because of the configuration of the lot there is a reason to grant a variance for encroachment into their own space. Further Commission comment: the back part of this house is completely open with glass windows, without a deck the noise from the house would be much less; if a deck were built the owners would use it, there would be more noise generated than without a deck; in residential neighborhoods we all have noise, think this applicant with no flat area has the right to go out as requested, perhaps something smaller, they are merely asking for some use of their back yard; think the south end of the property is too close to the adjacent neighbor, this neighbor has a back yard which is two steps away, during on-site inspection had difficulty seeing hte Schumann's house from applicants' property and did not get a good look at his back yard, the northern portion on Occidental is totally inaccessible from the house; no one can say that this house has a usable back yard, there was no usable back yard but applicants purchased it, building the deck will benefit the applicant but will harm the neighbor, applicants may not be a noisy family, who knows in the future what sort of neighbors will be living there and the deck will be there, setback requirements are there for a reason, part of the reason is noise. C. Harrison found no problem with the application, that circumstances are such there is no usable space in the back yard, that there are exceptional circumstances; that denial would result in undue property loss, even though applicants went into the purchase with their eyes open circumstances do change, this is why variances are granted; that the variance is necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owners, it will not be detrimental to the neighbors nor adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 11, 1988 C. Harrison then moved for approval of the variance and adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the three suggested conditions in the staff report and a fourth condition to require the entire deck area be cantilevered. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: have a problem with the size of the deck, the larger it is the more people will use it, would like a smaller deck; a family is a certain size, size of a deck won't add more people enjoying it, a larger deck might result in less concentrated noise; would like to eliminate the smaller deck next to the garage; would rather deny without prejudice so applicants can come back with a redesign. C. Harrison withdrew his motion, C. H.Graham withdrew his second. C. Giomi moved to deny the variance without prejudice; C. Garcia seconded the motion. C. Giomi noted Planning Commission would like to see a smaller deck area, closer to the house, adequate screening and the entire deck area to be cantilevered. Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham, S.Graham and Harrison dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:30 P.M.; reconvene 9:40 P.M. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT AND TWO VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 7/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of development proposals on this site, environmental review, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussed applicant's justification for the variances, construction methods for the underground garage which have been discussed with the CE, parking requirements for the various uses in the building, adjustment to suggested condition #4, plans for relocation of the bus stop in this area. A Commissioner noted this redesign has addressed all objections to the previous proposal. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Merrill Jew, architect, was present. Addressing the variances, he commented that the proposed parking layout still provides standards acceptable to most cities, there are three plans which would satisfy most of the requirements of other cities; he had studied the Planning Commission and City Council reponses to other proposals for the site, most major buildings in this area have been over 35' high, with this proposal most of the parking will be underground, he felt the proposed parking layout would fit the majority of cars used today. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 11, 1988 Commission/applicant/staff discussion: applicant advised columns for the three parking proposals would align with the design; the lot size is not unusual, Burlingame's parking standards may be somewhat restrictive, most of today's cars would fit in 181, taking parking underground presents problems. It was noted exceptional circumstances might be that the city's parking standards are fixed, therefore the property is too narrow. Applicant advised the penthouse will be leased area. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: this is a very difficult corner, with a frontage street, the worst corner in town for retail, office and restaurant; why can't this property be developed within codes of the city. C. H.Graham stated he liked the previous proposal, applicant has redesigned responding to the concerns of Commission and Council about impacting the convalescent home next to the site, the building has been moved back from property line with a parking corridor between it and the convalescent home, these are exceptional circumstances, no matter which form of parking is used variances will be required; the building is in line with other buildings in the area, uses meet code; the special permit and variances are necessary to preserve the property rights of the owner, granting the variances will not be materially detrimental to other property owners and will not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and variances and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit and Two Variances with the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 28, 1988, the Fire Marshal's memo of May 25, 1988 and the City Engineer's memo of June 28, 1988 shall be met; 2. that, as built, the project shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 21, 1988; 3. that the applicant shall place a 41 decorative fence on property line adjacent to the convalescent hospital to screen the parking from patients' view and shall place landscaping in the area shown for landscaping on the plans submitted, all landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner; 4. that the roughest possible surface shall be placed on the floor of the parking garage to reduce the squealing of car tires as they move around these areas; acceleration speeds up and down ramps shall also be regulated to reduce the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 11, 1988 noise of cars accelerating; speed enforcement shall be the responsibility of the project developer or on-site manager; 5. that the applicant shall relocate one or two of the handicapped parking spaces next to the elevator directly serving the retail and office areas; 6. that as a part of this project the developer shall make off- site improvements to the sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant as required by the Public Works Department and shall pay all city facility connection and improvement fees required; 7. that the developer shall provide a bus shelter and concrete pad adjacent or near to the site at a location specified by SamTrans, CalTrans and the city and apply to remove on - street parking adjacent to the site as well as apply for on - street commercial and passenger loading zones adjacent to the site on the frontage road; 8. that MTC commute alternatives recommended for employee population of up to 200 shall be implemented by the developer; the City Engineer shall approve the transition grade from the access ramps to the sidewalk, and parking stalls shall be put under ramps only when legal clearances are met; 9. that during construction all engines shall be muffled to State standards, a centralized saw and fabrication area shall be located on the west side of the building, construction hours shall be coordinated with the convalescent hospital and city, and noisy activities shall not occur on the weekends; 10. that a "no hazard" determination shall be received from the Federal Aviation Administration; 11. that dust generated during construction shall be controlled by an effective watering program approved by the City Engineer; the vacant area behind the liquor store shall be used as a staging area during construction; and 12. that refuse for the project, including the restaurant, shall be placed in a trash enclosure on the E1 Camino Real side of the building and shall be picked up from the El Camino Real frontage road. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 11, 1988 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD OFFICE AREA IN A WAREHOUSE WHERE TOTAL OFFICE AREA EXCEEDS 20% AT 1606-1610 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letters, study meeting questions. CP noted the applicant has added area to the parking portion of the lot and redesigned the parking layout so that a parking variance is no longer required as a part of this application. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The Director of Public Works has suggested a sunset clause be added to the conditions indicating that at the end of the lease for the business using this additional office area the 495 SF of office be removed and converted back to warehouse. Commission discussed implementation of a sunset clause, parking now on site and proposed parking. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Joseph DiMaio, applicant and Don Halverson, tenant who will be using the additional office area were present. Mr. DiMaio had concern about condition #1, that the conversion should not commence until the proposed on-site parking has been provided; he stated removing the railroad tracks, repaving and restriping could take as long as 4-6 months and conversion might not be accomplished until January, 1989; a Commissioner suggested the condition might be changed to read that final inspection of the conversion would not be granted until the revised parking layout was completed; there was a concern this might force the applicant to use the office space ahead of time, city might be forcing him to do something illegal; applicant was not in favor of a sunset clause, having to remove the partitions for the office area or making application to extend the permit in five years, if this office area were converted back to warehouse the parking layout would exceed his needs. Mr. Halverson, the tenant, stated he felt a sunset clause would not be fair to the property owner, he has gone to a lot of work to purchase additional land for parking, this area was requested to provide a better environment for Mr. Halverson's employee. Commission/applicant discussed the number of additional spaces provided with the newly purchased railroad land; Mr. DiMaio thought perhaps more than three spaces could be provided depending on how the area was laid out and if compact spaces were allowed he could have more than that. Responding to a Commissioner question, CP advised as buildings in the M-1 zone convert to office they generate more traffic than the city anticipated and impact the Broadway intersection, the city has actively discouraged conversion of warehouse areas to office from a traffic point of view. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 11, 1988 Commission comment: have some concern about granting a special permit to create office space on a temporary basis, there could be an enforcement problem, if it is a good project why limit it to five years; am normally very cautious but feel comfortable with this request, redesigning parking will provide additional spaces and with a sunset clause there would be more available spaces, it is a minor expansion for an existing use, would not go for it if it were a permanent situation; think applicant should be complimented for providing more parking; a sunset clause is not enforceable, with regard to parking have not seen anything which says applicant will provide the 29 required spaces, office area in this building will be double 20%, have concerns about the application. With the statement applicant has done an excellent job by obtaining extra land and providing more parking spaces, would like to see more than three even if substandard, but there will be three standard spaces with appropriate backup, with this particular use no people will be added, 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 495 SF conversion of warehouse to office use shall not commence until the on-site parking area has been repaved and striped as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 10, 1988 as amended July 1, 1988; and (2) that the additional area converted from warehouse to office shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 10, 1988 as amended July 1, 1988 and shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. In discussion on the motion a sunset clause was again discussed but not added to the motion. Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL AGENCY - 150 ANZA BOULEVARD Item continued to the meeting of July 25, 1988 at the request of the applicant. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its July 5, 1988 regular meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 11, 1988 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary