HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.06.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1988
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, June 13, 1988 at
7:31 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: Commissioner Ellis
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos,
Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank
Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 23, 1988 meeting were
unanimously approved with the following correction:
page 2, item #4, add to fifth paragraph, "motion was
seconded by C. Harrison".
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 709 WALNUT AVENUE
Request: history of applications reviewed by the Commission for
707 Walnut. Item set for public hearing June 27, 1988.
2. FENCE EXCEPTION - 704 VERNON WAY
Requests: why is a 6' fence not sufficient; was a fence exception
received for the previous 6' fence. Item set for public hearing
June 27, 1988.
3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 2674 AND 2684 SUMMIT DRIVE
Requests: square footage and frontage of each lot in the immediate
block; discuss drainage; on-site trees, are there any Heritage
trees. Item set for public hearing June 27, 1988.
4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP AND
VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK - 1022 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
Requests: letter addressing the four legal requirements for
variance approval, why is this property unusual; why is the 6" side
yard setback variance needed; for buyer protection would like
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
June 13, 1988
conditions to ensure the building has been finaled and has its
certificate of occupancy; do revised plans address CE's concern
about substantial overhang above the back-up area. Item set for
public hearing June 27, 1988 if staff determines information is
complete.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES - 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Requests: is parking for this building to code; is it fully
sprinklered. Item set for public hearing June 27, 1988.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT
2301 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/13/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Commission discussed CE's recommendation that the length of the
garage be extended, the storage on the wall on the narrow dimension
of the garage be relocated to the rear and the garage door
enlarged; it was noted the lot slopes sharply downhill behind the
house.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Warren Huey, architect
representing the applicant, Robin Hung, was present. He commented
that extending the garage to 24' would cover up required windows in
the kitchen. CE felt there were changes which could be made to the
plans to mitigate his concerns, get the extra space in the garage
and still meet code, possibly storage could be moved to the laundry
room. Architect stated they had no problem with moving the storage
into the laundry room. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission/staff discussion/comment: concern about noise with a
continuous balcony; propose allowing a 20' garage and allowing
applicant to rearrange storage area wherever he wishes; moving
storage into the laundry is a good idea but not enforceable, people
tend to store things in their garages, important to extend the rear
wall of the garage so it connects with the laundry room, don't
believe code requires a window but ventilation would be needed;
agree it is difficult to enforce garage storage, it would be easy
to put shelves back in.
C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances in the size
of the existing garage and in the physical characteristics of the
lot itself with no place for more garage space, and that findings
a -d can be made for this property. C. Harrison moved for approval
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
June 13, 1988
of the variance with conditions 1, 2 and 3 as listed in the staff
report. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia.
In discussion on the motion it was agreed to remove the CE's June
6, 1988 memo from condition #1. Conditions of approval follow:
(1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's May 25, 1988 memo and
the Chief Building Inspector's June 2, 1988 memo shall be met; (2)
that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 31, 1988
except that the interior stair to the second floor shall be
redesigned to meet Uniform Building Code requirements and the
length of the garage shall be increased to a minimum of 241, the
wall storage relocated to the rear of the garage and the garage
door widened and replaced; and (3) that the plans as revised shall
meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire
Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
7. TWO VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT
A DETACHED ONE CAR GARAGE AT 1524 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/13/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Doug Thomas, applicant,
stated they would like to remove the existing garage at the rear of
their house between the deck and pool and construct a new one car
garage at the side of the house, this would improve their property,
take their cars off the street and give them some usable backyard
area; the existing garage has been used to some degree in the past
but it is in poor condition and difficult to get into. He had
concern about condition #3 which would require a new two car garage
be built should the oak tree be removed or die; a new two car
garage could only be built in the same place and would eliminate
view from the back bedroom windows.
Applicant/Commission/staff discussion: the pool covers the rear 30%
of the lot; applicant wished to put the new garage at the side of
the house to create some backyard space; he believed that
differences with his neighbors had been resolved., he has moved the
garage back so it does not block neighbor's windows. Applicant
stated a landscape architect felt the oak tree would survive with
the proposed location of the new garage; material for the walkway
to the pool may be brick, he had been advised that brick on the
surface or 2" below is acceptable.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
June 13, 1988
Richard Zambon, 1520 Cypress Avenue expressed his concern about
solar access to the two solar panels on the roof of his garage
which is adjacent to the applicant's present garage, these two
panels heat his swimming pool, what would be planted in the area
after the existing garage is demolished; he was also concerned
about fences and access for painting the side of his garage; he did
not feel the applicant's existing garage was dilapidated.
In response applicant stated he was attempting to address his
neighbor's concern about fences and access for painting, he would
not be planting any large trees, he did want to seal the fences
between the two properties so that the pools were enclosed. There
were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion/comment: have a problem making findings,
cannot find sufficient reasons to grant a variance; it appears the
existing situation is depriving the applicant of use of part of his
land, the existing garage is between his deck and his pool, the
variance would enable him to better utilize his property.
C. Giomi moved for approval of the two variances and for adoption
of Commission Resolution Approving Variances with the following
conditions: (1) that the existing garage shall be removed and the
new garage ( 11' x 26' ) shall be constructed as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 2, 1988;
(2) that the garage area shall never be used for living area or
separate residential purposes; (3) that should the oak tree ever be
removed or be caused to be removed the one carr garage shall be
demolished and replaced by a two car garage to code requirements;
and (4) that the removal of the existing garage and relandscaping
of the area shall preserve solar access on the adjacent property
next to the original garage site.
C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the
placement of the house, the oak tree which has been there for many
years, placement of the pool and existing garage; the garage is not
in the best condition and will need to be replaced in the near
future; this property has a long driveway which can be used for
parking; the variance would not adversely affect the zoning plan of
the city nor be detrimental to other property owners, light to
adjacent structures will be preserved.
Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-1 roll call
vote, C. H.Graham dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures
were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
June 13, 1988
8. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR THE
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1
Reference staff report, 6/13/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants comment, study meeting questions. Four
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
During discussion staff explained that temporary signs must be
approved by the City Planner, window signs can be permanent and are
counted in the square footage of signage for the site, as this
program is proposed no temporary or window signs will be allowed.
Commission/staff comment: this is a great improvement over the
existing; would like to add to condition #2 . . that the sign
program is implemented and completed within 30 9 days . . .";
window displays are not considered to be a sign; merchandise on the
public thoroughfare is not allowed, this building has a ramp which
parallels the sidewalk, perhaps this could be used for such
displays as long as fire access and safety were maintained; if some
of these sites were combined they could have two or three signs
depending on how many sites were occupied.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Gioia Mongiello,
representing David Kimmel, leasing agent, was present. There were
no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
There was some discussion about condition #2 and time given for
implementation and completion of the sign program. C. Giomi moved
for approval of this master signage program and for adoption of
Commission Resolution Approving Master Signage Program with the
following conditions: (1) that the signs shall be installed as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped April 15, 1987 and as individually described in the sign
permit application dated September 17, 1987 and that no window
signs shall be allowed; (2) that the property owner and his
authorized representatives shall be responsible for informing the
tenants of the permitted signage under the master signage program
and ensuring that the sign program is implemented and completed
within 45 days of receiving a master signage permit; (3) that any
changes to the signage, including the addition of window signs,
shall require amendment to the master signage program; and (4) that
the signage requirements of this master signage program shall be
amended to each tenant's lease agreement and shall be enforced by
the landowner as a part of the tenant's lease. Motion was seconded
by C. Garcia who commended the property owner on this tasteful
signage program.
Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
June 13, 1988
9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A ROOFTOP SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT
3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D
Reference staff report, 6/13/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, history of dish antenna on this
site, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions.
Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Myron Cohen, Distant Mirror
Video Services, Walnut Creek, was present. He advised his firm was
hired by Automotive Satellite Television Network (ASTN) to take
care of all early processing; the black mesh temporary antenna was
installed for a one time only conference. It was determined there
was no one present this evening from Putnam -Mazda. In an attempt
to ascertain if people from other dealerships would be attending, a
Commissioner asked who attends the programs received by this
antenna, how many people, how often are the programs run; there was
a concern about parking in the area. Applicant stated transmission
is from 8:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M., Monday through Friday; information
received is news, what is happening in the car industry, how it
affects clientele, how to make a business run better; he expected
the use of this type of receiver to increase, with further
development of the technology they will be smaller and will be
flat; 5-15 employees of Putnam -Mazda watch the transmission daily
to keep abreast of what is going on in the industry, people are not
coming from other dealerships. Applicant was not sure if the ASTN
program was a requirement of Mazda as stated in Mr. Putnam's letter
but it is going to be of General Motors and Chrysler.
There were no audience comments in favor. Robert Buckingham (a
Jefferson Court, San Mateo resident) expressed concern about a 6'
dish, is this type of information necessary to the business, he was
concerned about impacts on reception for the neighborhood.
Responding to a Commissioner question, Mr. Buckingham said he had
not looked for the dish nor seen it and had not experienced
interference problems himself. Mr. Cohen commented this is a
receive only dish, it does not transmit and could not impact
anyone Is reception. There were no further audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: with taller buildings in the future this dish
could be more visible, should it be screened; there will be a
proliferation of dishes in the future, this is only 6' in diameter,
they could be down to 2-1/21 in another two years. CP advised it
was her understanding this program is used for in-service training
of employees, a condition could be added to require this. Further
Commission comment: have a problem with this dish at this location,
most other dish antennas are 10 to 12 stories up and are screened,
this is only two stories up, a three story building across the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
June 13, 1988
street could look right down on it. Staff noted a fence was put up
on the top deck, it would also screen the dish.
With the finding this particular dish appears to be screened from
the street and will not impact the neighborhood, 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 conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's May 6,
1988 memo and the City Engineer's May 9, 1988 memo shall be met;
(2) that the 6' diameter satellite dish receiver shall only be
placed on the roof at the location shown in the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped April 29, 1988 and shall
be solid, painted a nonreflective white; (3) that the property
owner shall be responsible for maintaining the nonreflective
surface of the dish and for its removal when it is no longer
necessary; (4) that the applicant shall receive, within 30 days, a
building permit for the installation of the 6' permanent satellite
dish antenna and shall pay the 10 times permit amount penalty fee
at the time of picking up the building permit; (5) that any
necessary corrections to the present installation shall be made
within 15 days of receiving the building permit; (6) that no other
antennas or dish antennas temporary or permanent shall be placed on
the roofs of the buildings or elsewhere on this site without
receiving a special permit and building permit from the city prior
to their installation; and (7) that this program shall be limited
to on-site employees only and the permit shall be reviewed upon any
complaint.
Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: will
vote yes reluctantly, concern about no one from Putnam -Mazda being
present this evening and their taking over a year to complete the
application.
Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and
Jacobs dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Recess 9:10 P.M.; reconvene 9:20 P.M.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY ON PORTIONS
OF THE PROPERTIES AT 615, 701 AND 731 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,
ZONED C-4
CA Coleman discussed a request for continuance of this item
received from Michael D. McCracken, attorney (letter of June 8,
1988) who represents other owners or co-owners of lots comprising
the present airport parking facility but not currently part of the
application. He also noted that J. Michael Matthews, attorney
representing three other owners, was present this evening.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
June 13, 1988
David C. Carr, attorney for the applicants, T. T. Hong, et al,
addressed Commission. He advised the applicant group he represents
is not in total agreement concerning a continuance. Mr. Matthews
is here representing some of Mr. Carr's clients who are opposed to
the continuance; the balance of Mr. Carr's clients would favor it.
He was in favor of a unified application on the entire project and
suggested a continuance to one of Commission's August meetings with
the hope that by that time all property owners would join into a
single application. His applicants would be happy to pay the cost
of renoticing for an August meeting.
J. Michael Matthews, attorney representing three property owners,
addressed Commission. He stated his clients own six of the lots
which are the subject of the application, none of them have a
divided interest; his clients wish to express concern about the
continued delay of the public hearing on this matter, they are
involved in a lease with Metropolitan Parking which expires in 1991
and have concern about participating in delays which might be seen
in violation of their lease or that they are riot acting in good
faith to get the permit. They have been in active settlement
negotiations since February, have made no progress since February;
he did not feel they would get any further without some time
pressure and that a 90 day continuance would not result in a
unified application.
It was explained this is basically a landlord/tenant dispute. At
the present time 72% of the interests have signed with Metro to
operate; a certain percentage did not sign with anyone and thus
have land that is not subject to the Metro lease although it is
subject to the existing permit. In conclusion Attorney Matthews
stated, as the attorney representing litigants as opposed to
applicants, he would go back to an arbitrator advising that
Commission recommendation for an extension of the hearing was based
on the expectation of a joint application.
Michael D. McCracken, attorney representing several of the other
landowners, noted there is the legal dispute which has been going
on for some time, and then the land use aspect. He and Mr. Carr
were hired to deal with the land use aspects; there is a good faith
effort of all the tenants to get together, there has been a
potential dispute about who is going to get paid, this could be
resolved by an arbitrator. He did not believe anyone would be
prejudiced by a continuance and thought 90 days was reasonable, or
a minimum of 60 days.
C. S.Graham moved to continue this item for 60 days to the meeting
of August 22, 1988, that the existing permit continue in effect for
that period of time and that the cost of renoticing the public
hearing in the amount of $50.00 be billed to Attorney McCracken's
group. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
June 13, 1988
Comment on the motion: would hope that this continuance would not
prejudice the relationship of Mr. Matthews' clients with the
landlord sometime in the future, perhaps some documentation could
be transmitted to the landlord; would like additional information
regarding traffic/parking impact of this use versus the designated
use for the area; what is the longest existing lease; what would
happen if the use were terminated before the leases expired.
Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent.
11. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR PARKING
DIMENSION FOR A GYMNASIUM AND OFFICE ADDITION TO THE
ATHLETIC CLUB AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 6/13/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, history of use permits on this
site included in the staff report, staff review, applicant's
letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested
for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised all
previous conditions would apply except the required parking
turnaround area.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Arthur Michael, applicant,
was present. He stated they were trying to improve the facility,
the parking area has been striped, the turnaround problem will only
affect those cars coming to the rear of the parking lot area when
it is full. He discussed fire exiting; the ground for the fire
lane has not yet been striped. Responding to Commission questions,
Mr. Michael advised he had acquired the SP right-of-way and merged
his three properties, the vacant triangular portion in the drainage
easement on the other side of the tennis courts might be used later
for a group activity. He is intending to purchase the SP right-of-
way on the other side of the pump station which would connect to
the portion of the drainage easement he owns on the other side. He
would consider putting parking there in the future.
Commissioner comment: difficult to make a finding of hardship for
the variance, with all the remodeling applicant is providing more
space for his clients when there is a real problem with parking, it
has become a safety issue. Applicant advised he planned to limit
membership; this proposal will combine office space on the first
floor with area above for gymnasium. Commissioners were concerned
about parking, another owner might feel differently about limiting
membership, concerned about the need for four maneuvers especially
when parking at night. Applicant said members do ask about more
parking but there has been no big criticism. There were no
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: could SP right-of-way be used as a driveway
and parking added on the vacant triangular portion of the drainage
easement he now owns; cannot see justification for a parking
variance when there is space for more parking on site; agree,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
June 13, 1988
parking has always been a problem, applicant has the land, think he
should provide more parking before any more remodeling is approved.
C. Giomi moved to deny this application without prejudice. Second
C. H. Graham. Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C.
Garcia dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal. procedures were
advised.
CP advised the applicant his proposal was denied. Commission's
concern was provision of parking, he could come back to the
Commission with a proposal which meets code requirements for
parking.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 6, 1988 regular
meeting and June 8, 1988 study session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S. Graham
Vice Chairman