Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.10.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1989 ALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Tuesday, October 10, 1989 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Graham, Jacobs, Mink Absent: Commissioners Giomi, Harrison, Kelly Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the September 25, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMITS - ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 1433 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: size of water/sewer connection to the accessory structure; complete listing of building code requirements which must be met, discuss with applicant prior to the public hearing. Item set for public hearing October 23, 1989. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SERVICE COMMERCIAL USE TO A CARRY -OUT BAKERY - 1160 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Requests: clean up the area at the rear; is Earthbeam at 1399 Broadway meeting the parking requirements which were a condition of approval of their expansion; where will the two spaces for the bakery use be located; clarify number of parking spaces in the lot at the rear, are these spaces designated for the tenants who use them; how will delivery of raw goods once a month be handled, what size truck, what time of day; to they intend to sell anything other than baked goods. Item set for public hearing October 23, 1989. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALE OF SERVICES AT RETAIL AND VARIANCE FOR PARKING - 70 STAR WAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: will review of 50, 60, 70 Star Way permit amendment be considered at the same time as this application; request property owner and operator of California Classics, Ltd. be present at this Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 10, 1989 hearing; number of customers, current and projected, is low, how will this business survive. Item set for public hearing October 23, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION The Chair noted any Commission action requires four affirmative votes, there are only four Commissioners seated this evening, if an applicant wishes to continue his project to the next meeting he is welcome to do so. 4. SPECIAL'PERMITS AND VARIANCE - 609 BAYSWATER AVENUE Item continued to the meeting of October 23, 1989 at the request of the applicant and property owner. CP advised staff will renotice this item. 5. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 2713 ARGUELLO DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Two letters in opposition were noted from John R. Morgan, 2720 Martinez Drive and Karlyn M. Schneider, 2705 Arguello Drive. Letter in support from Mr. and Mrs. Robert M. Ansara, 2712 Martinez Drive was received in the Planning Department this afternoon. CP discussed review criteria for hillside construction permits. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: condition #3 that the addition shall not be converted to a secondary living unit is included as a caution to the present owners and any future owners; the roof line will remain the same, it is because of the grade that this becomes a second story, applicants are adding onto the first floor and making it wider. CE advised staff has discussed with the engineer and property owner what will be needed on the final plans; sewer lateral repair is on-going now. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing and reminded Commission and the public that review is based upon the obstruction by the construction of existing distant views of nearby properties. Johnson Lam, property owner and applicant, was present. He stated they would do all possible to comply with building and engineering department requirements, they will have a civil engineer to oversee construction of the retaining wall and drainage system. He believed the existing condition of the site would be improved. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. John Morgan, 2720 Martinez Drive: when he wrote his letter about this addition he didn't understand fully what effect Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 10, 1989 the project would have on his view, it will have some effect; 2717 Arguello was allowed to build, it shouldn't have been allowed and caused slides; applicant will have a beautiful home when he is finished but it is hard to believe it will not block some view; the other addition which was approved has blocked his view of the sunset; applicant is adding enough square footage to build another small house, if he needed a bigger house he should have bought a bigger house; if not allowed to build uphill how many will build down the hill, there will be a drainage problem; hill was filled with springs at one time, he had drainage problems for 10 years before he was able to keep water from running into his basement; if this project is allowed the city will have to allow all future projects in the area. Responding to Commissioner questions, Mr. Morgan said he had not reviewed the plans when he wrote his letter in opposition and did not have any idea of the view obstruction at that time; after writing the letter he talked to someone in Planning; his view will be blocked somewhat. Staff, Commission and applicant discussed the bulk proposed to be added to the back of the house, additional width of the house will be about 131. Karlyn Schneider, 2705 Arguello Drive: she had two concerns; one, the definition of view, view is not just view of the bay or hills but view of the overall surrounding properties; she bought her house to look at open space and greenery, not the walls of other houses. Her main concern was drainage, the retaining wall will not take care of this entirely, where will the water go, there are spring problems and she has had to do some work because of major spring problems, based on her husband's experiences in another city she cannot really trust a soils engineer's report, would ask Commission if possible to look into potential drainage problems. Henry Sommer, 2709 Arguello Drive (downhill neighbor of this site), expressed concern about high density of people living there, creating more bedrooms will create higher density. Staff discussed the plans with Mr. Sommer, the den is counted as a bedroom because of the way it is laid out. Mr. Sommer also expressed concern about the door on the side of the construction adjacent to his house, it could be used as a side entrance to a second unit. William Vaccaro, 1600 Toledo Avenue, stated his concern the area will go downhill rapidly, it will be degraded. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham commented she had heard no evidence this evening that anyone's view would be damaged, she thought plans should be reviewed before a project is called up, the CE has addressed drainage concerns and will follow up, applicant has said conditions will be better than they are now; there is no evidence that any views will be obstructed. C. Graham moved for approval of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 10, 1989 hillside area construction permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped Septembtr 7, 1989; (2) that site preparation and construction shall conform to the City Engineers memo (dated September 26, 1989) and any subsequent conditions identified in the required engineers report; and (3) that the addition shall not be converted to a secondary living unit at any time. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: would like to send a strong message to City Council that this type of application is not what was anticipated with the hillside construction ordinance, have seen this a number of times, people have come in concerned about things other than view, would hope the city could take another look at the ordinance and rephrase it. Have the following comments in support of the motion: the roof of the addition will be below the existing roof and from uphill will be unseen because it will be blocked by the bulk of the existing roof, soils/drainage problem is outside Commission's jurisdiction, the building is being moved toward the street but is not going as far toward the street as the garage is, if applicant were to build without the second floor the project would not even be before Commission. Further Commissioner comment: can understand concern of the residents, the hillside ordinance will help their concerns, they have a right to be concerned about drainage but drainage is not what Commission is considering this evening; made site inspection, looked at the view, if view is affected at all it would be very minor, neighbors, concerns are real but Commission is bound by the ordinance which deals only with view. Motion was approved on a 4-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Harrison and Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. REQUEST FOR SIX MONTH TIME EXTENSION FOR USE PERMIT GRANTED OCTOBER 3, 1988 TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AT 820 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 10/10/89. CP Monroe reviewed the item, project is behind schedule and applicant is asking for a six month time extension. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the request, seconded by C. Mink and approved unanimously on voice vote, Cers Giomi, Harrison and Kelly absent. FROM THE FLOOR "Bill Sianis, 2800 Mariposa Drive, commented on the hillside area construction ordinance, it does not have any guidelines/direction; he has appealed to Council to do something with the wording of the ordinance to clarify it and give guidance. He respects his Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 10, 1989 neighbors' rights but as a property owner he has rights also. "Distant view obstruction" can be interpreted in 10 different ways by 10 different people; he appealed to the Planning Commission to work with the Planning Department and City Council for clarification of the ordinance. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City Attorney memo re: Abstentions Revised list of Commissioners PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its October 2, 1989 regular meeting. Chm. Ellis noted C. Mink was appointed Council's alternate on the Regional Planning Commission. - Follow-up on 50, 60, 70 Star Way use permit amendment granted January 19, 1989 RECEPTION FOR RETIRING COMMISSIONER HARRY S. GRAHAM Chm. Ellis read Commission Resolution of Commendation and Appreciation which was approved unanimously on voice vote. Retiring Chm. Graham presented the gavel to Chm. Ellis and stated he had enjoyed serving on the Planning Commission more than the other Commissions he had served on, it has a bigger effect, can be more positive in its decisions. He commented that Commission is appointed to represent the people, sometimes it appears to be representing the code book, he felt Commission should bend a little for the applicants. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. and refreshments were served in the lobby. Respectfully submitted, Shelley S. Graham Acting Secretary