Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.02.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, :February 22, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison (excused at 8:05 P.M.), Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Garcia Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City ]Planner; .Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the February 8, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A ±7' HIGH FENCE ON PROPERTY LINE AT 2612 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/22/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, code requirements, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff clarified the exception is for the 35' segment of the fence along the side property line which is taller than 6' measured from grade on the applicant's property, there is a change in grade between 2612 and 2614 Hale Drive, the ground is higher on the neighbor's side, protecting a bed of ivy on the neighbor's property contributed to the height of the fence; the complaining party is the neighbor at 2614 Hale; according to the code, measurement of a fence is from the front, in this case on the applicant's property. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Alex Moissiy, applicant, was present. He commented on the 6' boards; new fence was put up where the old fence was located; he wished to extend it to the street which his neighbor objected to; he had a property line survey made; 6' high boards were added to make the fence thicker Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 22, 1988 to the exact property line; he and his neighbor were going to build the fence together and did but the neighbor objected when applicant wanted to extend the fence along the property line in the front setback; he raised the fence above hie; neighbor's ivy, ivy grows 4"-6" above ground level adding about 6" to the height of the fence, if the roots were dug out the fence would be about 10"-12" lower; when he started to build the front portion of the fence he and his neighbor stopped communicating. Applicant was aware of the 6' height limitation and 5' height limit in the front setback, he did not realize ivy would not be included in the grade. Commission noted most fences in the city are on property line. Applicant advised the property line survey was done by John Kavanagh, most of the fence was up at that time, he did the survey because his neighbor claimed the front part of the fence was on his (the neighbor's) property, the survey showed it was on applicant's property; instead of removing the fence he added another 6" of boards to make the fence wider. The fence is located entirely on applicant's property, boards were added on the neighbor's side, he marked the property line with a chain; he does not want to change the fence until he remodels his house in a few years time when he will build a stucco wall. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, William Jackson, 2614 Hale Drive who submitted photographs to illustrate his comments. He stated there was a nice ivy fence between these two properties which had started to lean so he agreed to construct a new fence but save the ivy; returning from a weekend away he found most of the old fence had been torn down, a line had been strung along the location of the old fence, he has never seen proof of a property line survey, in the front setback his bricks were taken out and moved over about 611; the Police told him this was a civil matter; then boards were added to the back of the new fence, he has asked applicant to straighten out this unsightly fence. Mr. Jackson said he has not had a property line survey but plans to do so, he objects to the height, 7'-9" on his side and above the roof line of the applicant's house; he would like a 6' fence along the side property line. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this is a civil matter between Mr. Jackson and the applicant, the issue before Commission is the fence exception, it is difficult to find exceptional circumstances, many properties in the city are not at the same grade level, C. Jacobs moved to deny the fence exception. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: fence on the neighbor's side is 6' above grade, on the other side grade is one foot lower; with a 6' fence measured from the grade of applicant's property the fence would be shorter than 6' on the neighbor's side, does the neighbor want a 5' fence on his side? Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 22, 1988 Motion to deny was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and S.Graham dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Harrison was excused from the meeting at 8:05 P.M. With only five Commission members now seated, the Chair advised the audience that four votes are needed for approval. None of the applicants for action items this evening wished to continue to a later meeting. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CAMPER TOP TO BE PARKED IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 720 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/22/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed there is no grandfathering with. Ordinance 1355, Restricting Parking and Storage of Inoperative Vehicles, Vehicle Parts, Boats and Campers; there is space for storage of such vehicles in the Burlingame area, but it costs money; if approved this variance will run with the land for five years even if the present property owners move; it cannot run with a person but the city can put a time limit on it. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Pete Boubare, applicant, advised the camper will not fit inside the garage, his neighbors have not complained, the expense of storing it somewhere else is prohibitive, there is no way to enlarge the garage door, inside height of the garage might be 4" more than the height of the door; they did use the camper every other month, not so often now; he leaves the camper on the truck during summer to travel to Lake Tahoe but takes it off in winter, not wanting to travel with it because of the snow and winds. Commission noted variance approval cannot be supported by a finding of financial hardship, this could set a precedent; there is a need to find a reason why the camper cannot be put on the truck. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: the ordinance was designed to clean up parking in setbacks but don't believe the intention was to interfere with life styles of people who have been parking vehicles in setbacks for many years, that is a hardship by itself; agree people have the right to use their property but most people find a way to put boats/campers in their backyards, have a problem with parking inoperative vehicles in the front setback, this camper shell looks like lot coverage, it is a bulk/mass in the front setback (staff advised this site. is well within the allowed lot. coverage of 40% Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 22, 1988 even with the camper); have passed by this property twice a month for a long time and have never noticed a camper there, it's not obtrusive, they cannot reasonably get it into the garage nor into the backyard, it could be put on the truck and park that in the front setback which would look worse, have some problem with findings, Commission is dealing with personal enjoyment, would tend to support the application but have a problem procedurally. Further Commission comment: spoke with two neighbors and received no complaints, one didn't know there was a camper there, looking at lot coverage and applicant's right to use his property might be another avenue to review; the city discussed this problem for a long time and finally adopted an ordinance, this property is on a main street in the city, the camper is an eyesore, it can't be put in the rear or side yards, would prefer it to be shielded from view. With the statement she would rather have the camper put on the truck, there are too many other properties in the city with small garages and not enough space in side or rear yards, the city is trying to clean up front yards, would have a problem granting a variance to one property and not to another, C. Jacobs moved to deny this variance request. Motion was seconded by Chm. Giomi. Comment on the motion: think the intent of the ordinance was to clean up front and side yards but not at the expense of citizens using and enjoying their property as they were prior to implementation of the ordinance; agree that the ordinance will help clean things up but would like it to work on junk heaps, broken down and inoperable vehicles, people do :have recreational vehicles and in this city houses are very close together; think the ordinance was adopted not just for inoperable vehicles but also to address boats, etc. parked in front and side setbacks. Motion to deny failed on a 2-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, H.Graham, S.Graham dissenting, Cers Garcia and Harrison absent. C. H.Graham moved to grant the variance based on the fact that this has been a use prior to adoption of the ordinance, there is no other feasible way to use the recreational vehicle and no other place on the property to store it. Motion to approve was made with the two conditions in the staff report and adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance. Second C. S.Graham; motion failed on a 3-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting, Cers Garcia and Harrison absent. Application effectively denied. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 22, 1988 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL -COMMERCIAL PROJECT AT 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE. ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 2/22/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the project, applicants proposed lift to meet handicapped accessibility requirements, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During discussion staff noted CP and CE share a concern about heavy service commercial use on the second floor of this project with a 1:800 parking ratio, the second floor may not be the most accessible for service repair type uses, if this use were changed to retail commercial a parking variance would be required. Commission comment: there will be a built-in parking variance with this project, concern about heavy commercial use on the second floor, applicant will be back for more auto intensive uses, proposed use is not compatible with residential. Responding to Commission questions, staff advised this proposal differs from the initial plan in that floor area above parking has been increased and use has been changed so that fewer parking spaces are required, it will be up to the city to enforce the uses; if this site were zoned R-2 the structure could be placed 151 from California Drive; the residential portion of the project will not be built to condominium standards and could not be converted in future because of the small number of units; if future tenants were to use the commercial garage space for a business they would need a variance and use permit. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Stan Panko, architect, was present. He advised the property owner considered retail use on the second floor, finding a retail outlet that could fully utilize the second floor would be difficult, it seemed that a service oriented repair type operation which did not rely on street traffic could use a second floor space as long as there was no heavy equipment; he felt this would be a good use for the area; in order to gain additional floor area, going to this use and 1:800 parking ratio made sense; property owner is aware that his choice of tenants will be limited; since the lift will only be available for handicapped people, equipment will have to be carried up the stairs. Regarding Commissioner concern about decks over occupied units, architect commented deck would have to be waterproofed, this and drainage would be addressed in the final plans. Concern was expressed about the design and difficulty in enforcing the use. Commission inquired about the possibility of putting retail space on the ground floor and parking elsewhere; architect stated they could not get maximum grade on driveway slope, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 22, 1988 attempting to put parking and retail space on the same floor would not work, it only makes sense to put the use on the second floor. There is no prospective tenant at this time, architect did not feel there would be a problem getting items to be repaired in the second floor commercial space up the stairs; a commercial elevator is very expensive. Further comment: possibility of limiting commercial square footage to 1,600 SF, the initial proposal; staff suggested if this approach were taken it be based on parking ratio. Architect advised decks of the residential units are the roof of the commercial space. Alex Ornstein, property owner, addressed Commission: he and the architect spent a lot of time trying to figure out the maximum and best use of this property, it is complicated because of the slope of the lot, the city's parking requirements and the issue of handicapped access to the second floor commercial which eliminated one parking space. There being no further audience comments in favor and none in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: am in favor of mixed use, will vote for the project since it meets regulations, would have preferred a height exception rather than the building as it is designed. With the statement this site is an eyesore, can understand applicant's desire for maximum use of his building, am not opposed to mixed use but am opposed to a project which could require a parking variance within a few years, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineers January 18, 1988 and February 17, 1988 memos shall be met; (2) that a building permit shall not be issued for this project until the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has written a letter stating that the proposed lift height shown and as dimensioned meets the requirements for Title 24 handicapped accessibility and is considered to be safe for that use; and (3) that as built this structure shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 5, 1988, and with the limitation of a parking ratio of 1:400 and 1,600 gross square feet of commercial space on the California Drive frontage. Motion was seconded by Chm. Giomi. Comment on the motion: have a problem with the project and with the motion which is trying to second guess future use, no matter how it is developed there will be an enforcement problem, think the applicant is entitled to the most cost effective structure he can build; proposal is a variance waiting to happen; applicant will need a variance according to the motion only if it goes to office use; this motion is giving the applicant more options; there is a big difference between one and four parking spaces in a congested city. Staff noted that if part of the retail space were Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1988 7 used for storage that has a parking requirement also; opposed to the project, structure itself is too imposing and do not like decks over office or housing units, have seen -too many of them leak and cause water problems. Motion was approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. S.Graham voting no, Cers Garcia and Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:15 P.M.; reconvene 9:23 P.M. 4. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR TENNIS CLASSES ON A ROOFTOP TENNIS COURT AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B-1 Reference staff report, 2/22/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of this request to allow tennis classes on the rooftop court and allow the lights on the court to remain on until 10:00 P.M. She discussed staff review, review of the office building and rooftop tennis court in 1977, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. If the request is denied staff suggested the original conditions of approval for this building be recorded with the title for future reference. Responding to Commission questions, CA advised if: this request is denied the original conditions would stand, there is no basis on which to change the original conditions; CP confirmed if this building were constructed today 50 on-site parking spaces would be required plus additional spaces for the tennis class use. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. John Reed, tennis pro and applicant, was present. His comments: tennis classes are controlled and not noisy, he has been teaching tennis classes for a number of years, there are few professionals in this area who teach the general public, this would give the city an opportunity to have a good year round teaching program. He presented photos of the area taken every other day to support his contention there are available parking spaces; based on his experience in retail, he would want parking spaces filled, empty spaces limit business; noise will be kept down to a teaching level, he rarely teaches a group of four, classes are mainly one or two; he lives five minutes away from the site so could ride his bike and save one parking space. Commission/applicant discussion: none of the pictures submitted were taken at noon, applicant stated he did come by the area at 11:50 A.M. and never had trouble finding a space; generally classes will be held no more than four to six hours a day, he does not teach from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., probably would not teach at 7:00 A.M. but some businessmen might like a class at that hour; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 22, 1988 during daylight savings time the lights would not be needed, the lights do not spill off the court, he did not believe they would affect nearby residential sites and the area is mostly commercial; he does not teach as much in winter and does not teach the month of December. Applicant was aware of the limitation on hours included in staff's suggested conditions, he stated he would prefer the permit to extend the hours 7:00 A.M. -to 10:00 P.M. and if there were problems he would reduce them; he is familiar with the city, has been in sports all his life, an ex -partner had a shop down the street so he was aware of the tennis courts on the roof of this building; he had difficulty finding time to use the courts where he previously taught so looked around for something close to home; the high school and recreation department are the only good courts in the city; his classes are from one-half to one hour, two people at the most, rarely four; with a four member class he would suggest they carpool to the site. Speaking in favor, Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue, one of the owners of the 405 Primrose building: commenting on the Traffic Sgt.'s statement that the 300 block of Primrose and 1400 block of Chapin are the heaviest impacted in the city, he pointed out their building is located in the 400 block of Primrose, it is less impacted; if the two new parking lots are developed by the city there will be more available parking; his tenants know they have access to the tennis courts but it is not written into their leases; access to the courts is by the elevator and the front and back stairs, every tenant has a key to the stairs, not all have a key to the elevator; a key for the stairs could be made available to the instructor and a key for the elevator to be used only when classes are being held. The only change from -the original 1977 conditions would be in the use of the tennis courts; property owners did not go looking for this business, the opportunity just presented itself. Commission noted two changes in the area since the 1977 approval: on-site parking regulations have changed and available on -street parking has become worse. Speaking in opposition, Maury Cohn, owner of the property at 401 Primrose Road: when this building was approved in 1977 he was opposed to the tennis court, with this proposal it may be used a great deal more, concerned about tennis balls which land on the roof of 401 Primrose, there is only one drain from the roof which could become clogged; he wished to go on record in opposition to this application. In rebuttal, applicant commented the property owners of 405 Primrose have extended the fence on the 401 Primrose side to keep tennis balls in. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement she is sorry there is a tennis court which is underused but she cannot support the application, the parking Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 22, 1988 situation is very bad, she works in the area every day and cannot find parking, one hour classes will result in an overlap of people using one hour meters, with two 1 -hour lessons back to back, four people each (8 with one instructor) there could be nine on -street spaces which would be filled, C. S.Graham moved to deny the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Denying Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the maximum height of the building shall not exceed 44' from top of curb to the top of the fence around the tennis court; (2) that the use of the tennis court shall be limited to the! tenants of the building and their guests; and (3) that the lights on the tennis court shall not be used after 9:00 P.M. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: because of parking concerns, have only voted for instruction in the downtown area if the classes were a secondary use of the business; the intent of approval of the tennis court in 1977 was that it should be used by the tenants of the building, it's not a bad idea with reasonable hours, it was never the intent to rent out the courts, can see no reason to justify this request; opposed primarily because of parking, this is one of the most congested areas of the city, agree that classes in the downtown area should only be allowed when they are a secondary use; would welcome this expertise for -the city but the proposal is not compatible with the retail uses in that area and the parking provided. Motion to deny was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A ROOFTOP 11' DIAMETER SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA 13' ABOVE THE ROOF AT 411 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 2/22/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Bob Beggs, Comtel Video Services, Inc., applicant, was present. He stated he understood the concerns expressed at the February 8 study meeting, they would be willing to screen the dish and abide by the CBI's requirements for engineering and calculations on the roof of the building. He was aware of the Phase II construction on the adjacent site and accepted condition #3 relating to this including responsibility for costs of dish relocation. Regarding screening, they will conform to whatever Commission feels is adequate; the dish must receive from a southerly direction so that side must remain open. He had no problem with whatever color was recommended. Their one problem is that there is not much ground space available. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 22, 1988 There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement there does not appear to be much room to put the dish on the ground, the orientation of the patio is not appropriate for reception, have no problem with the installation if it is screened and the screen painted to match the air conditioning equipment enclosure, C. Ellis moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's February 8, 1988 memo shall be met and that, if required, the engineering and calculations shall include the visual screen placed on three sides of the dish antenna; (2) that the "receive only" satellite dish antenna shall be located on the roof as shown in the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 28, 1988; (3) that the applicant or property owner shall be responsible for an amendment to this use permit if future construction on any adjacent property requires relocation of the dish antenna, removal and reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant and/or property owner; (4) that this dish antenna shall be painted a nonreflective light gray color and that this nonreflective surface shall be maintained by the property owner; (5) that three sides of the dish shall be screened to a height equal to the height of the dish angled to the highest elevation above the surface of the roof, this screening to be painted a nonreflective color to match the air conditioning equipment enclosure; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one years time (March, 1989) and upon complaint thereafter. Second C. H.Graham. Motion was approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, Cers Garcia and Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - SATELLITE DISH - 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Item continued to the meeting of March 14, 1988. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. SPECIAL PERMIT - 1136 CORTEZ AVENUE Requests: what utilities are in the building now; how many people in the family; why is one hour fire wall being required. Item set for public hearing March 14, 1988. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 22, 1988 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - DRY CLEANING PLANT - 1160 PALOMA AVENUE Staff will contact applicant to determine how many employees will be needed for the shirt laundry. Commission requests: is this business expected to grow; who will run the plant. Item set for 8public hearing March 14, 1988. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Copy of Commissioner Selection Process from Administrative Procedures Handbook CITY PLANNER REPORT - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 16, 1988 regular meeting and February 20, 1988 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:33 P.M. Respectfully submitted Harry S. Graham Secretary