HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.07.24E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 24, 1989
ALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman H. Graham on Monday, July 24, 1989
at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H.Graham, S.Graham,
Jacobs, Kelly
Absent: Commissioner Harrison
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the July 10, 1989 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY - There were no study items.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. FENCE EXCEPTION TO REPLACE AN EXISTING 8' FENCE AT 1470
VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/24/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of this request to replace an existing 8' fence
with a new 71-2" to 81 fence along the side property line behind
the front setback, staff review, applicant's letters, letter in
support from the neighbor at 1464 Vancouver, study meeting
questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Bill Hammett, applicant
and property owner, was present. He apologized for the work being
started without proper city approvals, the case of an over zealous
contractor; their request is to replace the prior fence and will
improve it in the process. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Kelly stated in his site inspection he saw no reason not to
allow this exception, because of the uniqueness of the property
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
July 24, 1989
lines it is needed to maintain privacy, there are exceptional
circumstances in the original construction of the houses and an 8'
fence is needed for the tight area between the houses, there is no
public hazard, neighboring properties will not be materially
damaged and the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the
petitioner. C. Kelly moved for approval of the fence exception
with the following conditions: (1) that the fence as installed
shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped June 29, 1989 and shall consist of solid boards no
more than 6' from grade next to the fence with 21 of lattice on the
top and shall not exceed a maximum height at any point of 81; and
(2) that the height of the fence shall vary from 71-2" with no more
than 21.51 of the fence at the maximum height of 8'. Motion was
seconded by C. S.Graham.
Comment on the motion: the jog in the property line is unique and
the fence will create privacy to the adjacent house which is 3'
higher. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND FLOOR DECK
ADDITION AT 3034 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/24/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
neighbors, letters in opposition, hillside area construction permit
findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing. CP advised replacement of the first floor deck is
not being considered this evening.
Commission/staff discussion: code directs that Commission look at
the long distance views, they could be in any direction; there are
no requirements for covering decks for noise abatement; this is
located on the canyon and people can be heard talking across the
canyon; the larger first floor deck is the one that counts in lot
coverage because the second floor deck is wholly within the
footprint of the first floor deck.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Manny Flores, applicant
and property owner, distributed photographs taken from the room
addition he completed last year, he was not able to get into the
neighbors, house at 3036 Hillside, he did communicate with them
telling them exactly what he was going to do; the post in the yard
is 10' from the existing dwelling, 71 from the room addition,
neighbor will see a corner of his new deck. Commission/applicant
discussion: the rest of this deck goes away from the house at 3036
Hillside; applicant said he talked to the neighbor at 3032 Hillside
who was worried about his privacy, he wanted applicant to put in a
tree, applicant agreed. Regarding scaffolding, Mr. Flores stated
it has been taken down except for one to help in constructing the
second story deck; the gutters which fell have been cleaned up, two
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
July 24, 1989
windows need to be replaced. Responding to a Commissioner comment
about the number of additions to this property, applicant said he
is limited in space, has a big family and no place for the
children, it is dangerous outside on Hillside, downstairs deck is
for the children, smaller upstairs for the adults to use.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition. Ken Olson, 3036 Hillside Drive, neighbor immediately
to the west: he said their house will be most impacted by the
second floor deck addition, one of the major selling points for
their house was the view of the airport and Mills Canyon as well as
the privacy, looking east this view can only be seen over the
Flores, yard, he talked to the applicant last year about his
addition and that it would block their view of the bay, the
addition was built and the Olsons lost their view of the bay and
airport from their lower living area, now see only a solid wall, on
top they see an addition on stilts; they asked applicant to replace
the fence but it has not been done and now applicant wants to add
two more decks; he expressed concern about decks overpowering a
property and adversely affecting the neighbors, these decks are out
of character in the neighborhood.
Mr. Olson presented photographs illustrating the impact the decks
will have on his property and suggested a solution, that the deck
be only 5' wide instead of 10' or lower it 3' so it will not block
the view from 3036 Hillside. The Olsons supported last years
ordinance, have been hurt once and would like to be helped this
time.
Mr. Olson read July 24, 1989 letter in opposition from N. Persing,
3039 Hillside Drive. He opposed improvements of any home which
would harm any neighbor's improvement. Responding to
Commissioners, Mr. Olson stated the pine tree does not block his
view of the airport and the bay, the tree blocks the view of the
industrial area of South San Francisco, the tree has been there for
years, they have it topped.
Richard Bott, 3032 Hillside Drive: the view from his house extends
360 degrees, view up the canyon is attractive as well as looking
down to the bay, the addition has had least impact on that view, if
one considers the long distance view toward the hills, this
proposal will impact his view up the canyon floor which will
probably impact resale value of his house. Applicant has offered
to plant a tree to minimize impact on his property. Replying to
Mr. Olson, applicant stated he would reduce the deck to 91. The
Chair advised him he could not change his proposal in this manner
unless he wished to continue the item. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment/discussion: have no problem with the lower deck,
have a basic concern about the second floor deck going out that
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
July 24, 1989
far, it has been the Olsons' view since they have owned their
house; there was a second story deck at one time and think it might
have been 5' wide, this area has now been enclosed, so the new deck
will extend from that; the post indicates corner of the new deck
closest to the Olsons' house and a triangular area of view would be
lost; the rest of the deck will be the other way and not visible
from their house; from site inspection thought the Olsons' view was
primarily of trees which give lots of privacy; to be able to look
at the airport one would have to be at a certain angle, don't think
it's a major problem for the Olsons; people on the deck will
increase the area of view obstruction; the Olsons took a beating on
the first addition that Commission is not addressing, they will
lose some more of the view they had at one time and Mr. Bott will
lose some privacy; would be willing to make a motion that the deck
only extend out 9' and go down two steps, would also like to put
the addition of a tree next to Mr. Bott's in the motion.
Anthony Pappas, architect for the project, commented that if the
deck were lowered the square footage would be decreased unless it
were extended further, they might have to redesign; regarding
planting a tree, eventually it will grow and block the view.
C. Kelly moved for approval of the Hillside Area Construction
Permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the
deck as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped July 13, 1989; (2) that the area of the
second floor deck shall not exceed 187 SF with a dimension of 10'
deep and 18'-8" wide; (3) that the second floor deck surface be
lowered 28" by use of stairs and that the total deck structure
extend no more than 10' from the face of the house; and (4) that a
15 gallon tree shall be placed at a location on the property line
or near the property line of 3032 and 3034 Hillside in order to
screen the windows of 3032 from the new decks. Motion was seconded
by C. Jacobs and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES EACH OVER 100 SF
AT 1104 EDGEHILL DRIVE. ZONED R-2
Reference staff report, 7/24/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's supplement to special permit application,
study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. CP advised plans will not be
accepted for building permit until correct dimensions are given and
plans drawn to scale.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Georgia Marszalek,
applicant and her architect were present. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
July 24, 1989
C. Giomi stated she had little problem with this proposal, the same
structure will remain, it blends well, once dimensions are
corrected it will blend with the neighborhood, it will be screened
by trees. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit by
resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the two carports
20' x 20' interior dimension shall be built at the rear of the
property as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped July 17, 1989, designed with plate lines not to
exceed 10' above adjacent grade and located on the rear property in
such a way that both carports are no closer than 4' to the side
property line and no closer than 4' apart, driveway access to the
structures shall not exceed 15% slope at any point; and (2) that
both structures shall be built according to all the requirements of
the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes in effect at the time
the plans are submitted for building permit in the City of
Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 6-0 roll call
vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSROOM USE AT 1550 ROLLINS ROAD,
ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 7/24/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested
for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: what day of
the week are the classes proposed, how will they designate parking
spaces and how will they tell people to park on the street; staff
advised not all the spaces on site are designated, it might be a
good idea to designate the six spaces for this business.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Jean Stewart,
representing Sothys, U.S.A., 1550 Rollins Road, Suite A, addressed
Commission: she advised the first of April when they started
classes to demonstrate products they had more people, only have six
to nine people now, she could limit the classes and she could park
on the street, classes run from 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., one group
per class, she would be comfortable limiting the classes to six
people; there is a problem moving classes from Monday to Wednesday
since salons are closed on Monday. They have two employees during
the classes, Ms. Stewart, the instructor and one other. A
Commissioner commented she was not concerned about applicant's
parking but more concerned about changing the number in the
classes. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
C. S.Graham stated she had no problem with this proposal and moved
for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following
conditions: (1) that a portion of the warehouse area shall be used
one day a week from 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. for classes to
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
July 24, 1989
demonstrate the goods/products distributed by wholesale from this
portion of the warehouse building; (2) that there shall be no more
than two employees on this site, one of whom shall instruct the
classes/demonstrations; (3) that when the six on-site parking
spaces designated for this portion of the building are used,
students/clients will park on the street rather than impact other
businesses on site by using their parking; (4) that no retail sales
of products shall occur from this site; (5) that six designated
parking spaces shall be labeled for this business and classes shall
be limited to a maximum of six (6) people; and (6) that this use
permit shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in
six months (January, 1990) and in two years, and any change to the
size of the class, hours of operation, number of employees or any
other aspect of this business shall require an amendment to this
use permit.
Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 6-0 roll call
vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:54 P.M.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1755 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 7/24/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Ten
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
CP advised that application for signage will have to be made
separately, she has not seen a lighting plan, landscaping is shown
to be in the front of the project.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Michael Coffey, realtor
representing the applicant and property owner, was present. He
advised landscaping has been completed and presented photos of the
site, lighting is the same as existed when Alamo was there, no
lighting has been changed, PG&E has rewired the entire area and it
has been approved by the city. The hole in the ground has been
fenced, it is in the process of being removed and refilled; it will
in no way affect the operation of the site since it is directly
behind the office building and not an area customers would get
near. The hole will be filled in as quickly as possible, toxicity
did not get into the water table. There are Anywhere America
facilities elsewhere in the Bay Area, at 820 Post Street, San
Francisco, and soon to open at the Oakland airport and San Jose
airport. Many people, neighbors and inspectors, have commented on
the improvements to the site.
Mr. Coffey introduced Steven Jordan, general manager, Anywhere
America and Carolyn Ritchie, general manager, Sky Chefs who were in
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
July 24, 1989
the audience. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit by resolution
with the understanding that any changes to the operation require
amendment of the use permit and with the following conditions: (1)
that the 1.19 acre site shall be used by a single car rental agency
with a maximum of 100 car rentals a month operating from 6:00 A.M.
to 12:00 midnight daily with a maximum of six employees on site at
one time all of whom shall park on site, and that all rental
agreements for cars rented from this site shall be written in
Burlingame; (2) that on the site there shall be storage for 73
vehicles, eight employee parking spaces, four spaces for customer
shuttle vans and two customer parking spaces at all times and all
these spaces shall be permanently marked for their designated use;
(3) that 531 SF of landscaping compliant with the city's water
conservation guidelines shall be provided on site which shall be
maintained by the operator and approved by the Director of Parks
prior to installation; (4) that all setback and other zoning
requirements of the M-1 zone shall be met as well as requirements
of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code; (5) that "right
turn only" signs shall be posted at the access driveways and no
left hand turns into or from the site shall be allowed; (6) that no
auto maintenance, washing, auto detailing or fueling shall be done
on the site; (7) that the use shall not commence on the site until
the San Mateo County Environmental Health Officer of the County
Health Department has determined the site to be safe for such use
and the Burlingame Fire Department has agreed with their
determination; (8) that all auto transports be loaded and unloaded
on the site; (9) that the business shall provide customer van
pickup at San Francisco International Airport; and (10) that this
use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in
one year (July, 1990) and every two years thereafter and that there
shall be no changes to the operation which exceed these standards
without an amendment to this use permit.
Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 6-0 roll call
vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. REQUEST FOR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR FOR A 559 ROOM
HOTEL AT 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 7/24/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed this request for a one year extension of planning
approvals. Three conditions were suggested for consideration and
amendment to the use permit.
C. Jacobs moved to extend the special permit granted August 2, 1988
to August 2, 1990 by resolution with the following conditions: (1)
that the conditions of the August 2, 1988 use permit for a 559 room
hotel project at 350 Airport Boulevard shall be met except that
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
' July 24, 1989
Condition #20 shall be eliminated; (2) that a building permit for
the hotel structure's foundation shall be issued prior to July 30,
1990 and the final framing inspection shall be completed by August
30, 1991; and (3) that the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes
in effect at the time when building plans are submitted for plan
check shall apply to this development.
Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved unanimously on
voice vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
- Hillside Area Construction Permit - 1787 Escalante Way
(acknowledged)
- CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its July 17, 1989
regular meeting and July 19, 1989 study meeting
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley S. Graham
Secretary