Loading...
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