Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.01.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Vice Chairman Graham on Monday, January 8, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal; Larry Lautenschlager, Zoning Technician MINUTES - The minutes of the December 11, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. The Chair noted there were. only five seated Commissioners this evening. Affirmative action requires four votes, applicants may continue their items if they wish. Richard Harlick, applicant and property owner for Item #6 at 919 Capuchino Avenue, requested a continuance. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE AT 1207 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Requests: when did this business start operation; is there any on- site seating; what business was on that site previously, is this an expansion of the previous use; is take-out limited to type of item; level of use of the adjacent public parking lot. Item set for public hearing. -January 22, 1990. 2. PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT A SECOND FLOOR TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE AT 311 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUB AREA A Requests: previous use on this site; last time it was used as residential; what are the exceptional circumstances of this property to support the request for a parking variance; access to the second floor; how long will it be before the art gallery i City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2 January 8, 1990 upstairs will expand downstairs; clarify parking. Item set for public hearing January 22, 1990. 3. PARKING VARIANCE, THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND A MODIFICATION OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AT 1501 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Requests: what are the hours of the Adeline Market complex and have they requested an extension of hours; clarify ingress/egress; memo from CE addressing the problems of access; what were the hours of the service station before the rezoning; why can't the deli and video store close at 7:00 P.M., why does the real estate office need to be open so late. Item set for public hearing January 22, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. VARIANCES FOR REAR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE TO CONSTRUCT A LANAI AT 2824 RIVERA DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/8/90, with attachments. ZT Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised the lanai would be an enclosed patio open to the rear yard, if the windbreak were moved back to a 15' rear setback the project would still not meet the 40% lot coverage requirement. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robert Merrill, representing Irving and Virginia Merrill, applicants,.discussed the application: this would be part of a landscaping project the applicants have wanted since 1972, it would improve the appearance, reduce maintenance, increase light and will include replacing the old plastic lanai with glass. The lanai is needed because homes along Rivera Drive are subject to strong winds, the existing lanai has a yellow fiberglass wall and metal roof, the new lanai will provide view through the side with a glass wall and built-in planter boxes, it will be open to the rear yard, the floor of the lanai will be raised to the level of the house. This proposal would improve the appearance of the house considerably. The new lanai will be somewhat smaller than existing, reducing lot coverage, but it would have a different configuration and extend another 6" into the rear yard. Addressing exceptional circumstances to support the variances, Mr. Merrill noted the orientation of the lot relative to the rear yard, rear yard neighbors are on Trousdale and considerably lower in elevation, the house has a curved entry driveway and to accommodate the turning radius of the driveway the house has been pushed toward the back of the lot, as a result the back yard varies in width from 20' to 271. Regarding lot coverage, in relation to many lots in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 3 January 8, 1990 the vicinity this lot is not as large, lots across Rivera are much deeper, lots on Trousdale are very deep, 40% coverage on the applicants' lot would be 3,200 square feet, these other lots would have 5,000 to 7,000 square feet of buildable area; applicants are only exceeding the lot coverage requirement by 1.2% and the proposed structure actually reduces the existing lot coverage on the site. Mr. Merrill stated the project would not be detrimental or injurious to the neighbors, it would not affect them; the property to the west is 5' to 6' higher than this lot, their view of the bay is above the lanai structure, extending the lanai 6" further will not affect these neighbors. The neighbors down the hill cannot even see the lanai because of the elevation change and trees planted along the hillside which block all view of the applicant's house. Responding to a Commission question, Mr. Merrill advised the applicants have used the existing lanai as a patio, the new lanai would not change their outdoor living pattern appreciably, they might use it more often. A resident at 580 Sea Horse Lane, Redwood Shores spoke for Antonio Manuel, 2805 Trousdale Drive; he did not think there were any serious objections but Mr. Manuel had the following concerns: that the project does not cause any fire hazard, that the pine trees in his back yard remain and that drainage not be altered by the new landscaping; if these concerns are not a factor Mr. Manuel would have no objection. Robert Merrill responded: he understood all applications are reviewed by city staff, the fire department had no comments on this project; trees on the neighbor's lot will not be touched, just improvements made on the applicant's lot, project is being designed by a landscape architect; drainage is designed to go to the street. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on findings that because of the size of the lot relative to other lots in the area the requested lot coverage should be allowed since applicants' lot is small compared to others in the area, the enclosure is necessary because of the configuration of the back yard which receives winds coming in that direction, and incorporating all applicant's statements addressing the variance, C. Mink moved for approval of the two variances with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 14, 1989; and (2) that the project shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: this will be an improvement to the property; all drainage will meet applicable city codes. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 4 January 8, 1990 5. VARIANCES FOR SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION AT 245 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/8/90, with attachments. ZT Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Rene Des Rochers, property owner and applicant, stated his family is growing, they need a family room, extra guest bedroom and guest bath; they would like to replace an existing unattractive carport with a two car garage, there is also a deteriorated pool house on the property which they did not want to use as separate living area. They have discussed the plans with several of their neighbors; applicant presented statements in support signed by residents of: 225 Chapin, 1616 Ralston, 140, 270, 215, 146, 217, 301, 150 and 144 Chapin. He thought the project would have no impact on his immediate neighbors and would not detract from the neighborhood. Bill Van Housen, architect, commented that the square footage of the total area would be increased by only 8%, living area of the residence will increase by 200+ SF; they are merely taking nonconforming deteriorating structures, enhancing them and maintaining their use, it will aesthetically enhance the property and improve its value; based on the current lot shape and size and location of the house and pool, no matter how the covered parking area was rebuilt a variance to side setback would be required. The following members of the audience spoke in favor of the project: Angie Hollman, 225 Chapin Lane; Scotty Morris, 1608 Ralston Avenue; Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, 140 Chapin Lane. There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs stated she could understand the neighbors' concern about use of the cabana in the back and the carport, the house has been improved over the years; her concern has always been how setbacks affect the neighbor, in this case the neighbor's house is very high and there are no windows facing this property, it will not be detrimental to the neighbors. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the two variances with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 18, 1989; and (2) that the project shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 5 January 8, 1990 Comment on the motion: do not believe what applicant has stated as exceptional circumstances are really exceptional, but do think many things have been mentioned this evening which are; the existing carport is deteriorating and removing it does constitute an exceptional circumstance, it is something that has to be done for the safety and welfare; a corner lot brings its own set of exceptional circumstances as does the placement of the existing pool. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO USE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR LIVING PURPOSES AT 919 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2 (CONTINUED FROM 12/11/89) Item continued to the meeting of January 22, 1990 at the request of the applicant. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A MONTESSORI PRE-SCHOOL/CHILD CARE CENTER AT 1 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 1/8/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner expressed concern about traffic and thought a white loading zone should be applied for from the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, otherwise there may be no parking available for parents delivering and picking up their children. An 8th condition was suggested, "that the applicant shall apply to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for a loading zone and curb marking." Referring to the condition for review of the special permit in May, 1990, another Commissioner asked when applicants will be moving into this location. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Tony Spare, representing the applicant, addressed Commission: they will need to make internal renovations, do not plan on being in operation at this location until June, 1990; review in May, 1991 probably would be more applicable. To be consistent with fire codes condition #3 should read, 11. . . no more than nineteen (191 children . . ." They have a small 1' x 21 hanging sign which would be taken down each night, neighbors would not even be aware it is a school; this is not a new endeavor for the applicants, they are experienced in the field and operate at two other locations. The yard will be fenced and the children will play inside that fence, they will meet all state licensing requirements. He had no problem about applying to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for a white loading zone, it would be helpful to have that space; he also felt the senior housing project being built across the street may even City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 6 January 8, 1990 reduce the traffic impact, parking has been impacted by construction workers, there is a bigger problem with traffic later at night on E1 Camino Real. Architect David Hurley's comments: it is really a neat building, 1920 cottage style, they are not changing anything except bringing new life to it and fixing it up. The following members of the audience spoke. Jack Heffernan; 30 Lorton Avenue: he stated he had some questions which have been answered, the sign would be small and not objectionable, this use could be a good neighbor; his immediate concern was for the children because of the traffic in the area now and lack of on - street parking, on -street parking is impacted by construction workers presently; the front door and access to 1 Lorton is on Peninsula, a very busy street; he thought that 150 senior residential units across the street would increase traffic, not lessen it; applicants would need something to take care of the drop-off of children, right now double parking would be created; he thought the senior center would be opened in the summer of 1990. Ron Marlin, an adjacent property owner: his concerns were traffic congestion and parking, it is a real problem now, when the senior residential units are completed across the street their garage entrance will intensify the traffic problem, he was concerned about dropping off and picking up children during the hours proposed, parents would have to double park no matter how it is done; he did not think this house was suitable for the use as described and would be concerned about accessibility to the street. Applicant responded: it is good that everyone is concerned about the children, that is the applicants' greatest concern also and why they are involved in this business, they will renovate the house and add fencing to the yard for the safety of the children. He thought it would be helpful to have a loading zone, there are two parking spaces on the property which will take care of employee parking and on weekends when most residents in the area are at home there will be no one on this site. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: concern about the location of this proposed child care operation, not with the operation itself, the applicants are caring and professional, but it would be hard to find a more difficult location; Y work on Peninsula and all times of day it is heavily overparked, if a loading zone were put in it would take away neighbors' parking, this is an intensification of use from a single family home, would be noisy for the neighbors, it would be impossible to operate safely without a loading zone but still do not think it will work, will be a difficult situation with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 7 January 8, 1990 the driveway for a large apartment building across the street, double parking will occur, there is double parking at all Burlingame elementary schools, mothers have an aversion to letting children walk 1/2 to one block; it would be an impossible situation on Peninsula Avenue, a main thoroughfare in the city. Further comment: the city needs this type of facility, even if it were located in an R-1 neighborhood people would double park; would it be possible to have the applicant leave the driveway clear (staff noted if this were done employees would have to park on street); with regard to possible noise, the back yard is by the garage of an.apartment building on Lorton, not right next to that building; the problem could be mitigated with a loading zone plus leaving the driveway open, people could pull up to the driveway entrance even if someone were parked in the driveway. with the comment applicant has indicated he will try to minimize the impact, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit with the seven conditions in the staff report, addition of an 8th condition "that the applicant shall apply to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for a loading zone and curb marking", with a change to condition #3 ". no more than nineteen (19) children ." and a change to condition #6 to require review in May of 1991. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Mink stated he was on the Commission when the Montessori school on E1 Camino Real was approved, it has all these problems doubled, he thought it was one of the poorer decisions the Commission has made for all the right reasons, there is no question this service is needed, applicants are experienced and have a good program, but the problem is in the location. C. Mink moved for denial of the special permit, seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. The Chair noted copy of a letter from Mayor Lembi to Commissioner Giomi regarding her decision not to reapply for a third term on the Commission and thanking her for her years of service. Recess 8:52 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M. 8. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING RECONSIDERATION FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL -COMMERCIAL USE OF THE 14 PARCELS WITH DOUBLE STREET FRONTAGE ON EDGEHILL AND CALIFORNIA DRIVES, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 1/8/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the -item: previous consideration of this area, City Council's charge for future development following its October 18, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 8 January 8, 1990 1989 study meeting, concerns and criteria identified at this } meeting; the proposed new approach involves general plan amendment, implementing zoning and overlay for the Edgehill/California Drives area. A new zoning district, C-R Commercial -Residential, was proposed with specific requirements for overlay development of the Edgehill/California area. CP discussed environmental review, timing in relation to the interim ordinance prohibiting building permits for other than maintenance and repair in the Edgehill/California area, Planning Commission action. During discussion CP advised the majority of the lots are 40'-45' wide, almost all are 90' in depth, none of these lots meet current minimum lot requirements; the requirements under the proposed C-R district apply to these lots as they are presently configured; the new regulations do not mention car sales as a permitted use; there are other areas in the city where this type of zoning might be requested. CA stated the proposed general plan amendment only affects this one area at this time, it would take a general plan amendment to have it apply in any other area of the city. Replying to a Commissioner question, CP advised the present construction on one of. the lots in the subject area will have commercial on the second floor on the California frontage and a duplex residential townhouse on the Edgehill side, access for residential is off Edgehill and access for the commercial off California, it exceeds the criteria proposed for the C-R district. A Commissioner commented there had been a proposal in the past for a mixed use on Bayswater, it was residential upstairs and shops downstairs, the proposal died because of conflict with the zoning requirements; mixed use has been a topic of discussion for many years. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The following members of the audience spoke. Irvin Ungar, 1200 Edgehill Drive: he expressed his appreciation for the sensitivity and creativity which has been used in reaching this proposal, it will meet the residents' concerns about traffic; he had wondered about the construction going on in that area now in view of the interim ordinance prohibiting this, his concern has been addressed in that it will meet the proposed future criteria and was approved before the interim ordinance; he was opposed to any more drug, liquor or food stores being placed on California Drive. Bob Frudenberg, 753 Acacia Drive: he owns a house at 1109 Palm Drive and expressed concern that if commercial uses continue on California Drive adjacent properties will be devalued for residential use; another concern was that big trucks are only allowed to park on the street in gives areas, this stretch of California Drive is one of the few places where a long 40' trailer can be parked, he parks his truck there and wouldn't have any other place to park it if this area were in commercial use and there were cars parked all along that side of California; he was concerned about loss of the housing that is there now and aesthetics of the .i City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 9 January 8, 1990 neighborhood, he did not want Edgehill to be built right up to the sidewalk or more commercial on California, a backyard fence would look much better. A Commissioner explained the previous concerns about a grocery store in this area extending commercial use to Edgehill, there has been a lot of study since then and this proposal will keep the Edgehill side residential and California commercial. Mr. Frudenberg said anything that would keep the area aesthetically the same would be all right, he did not think commercial should go in that area on Edgehill or California. Vincent Struck, San Mateo, speaking for his aunt who owns the property at 1108 Palm Drive: he had attended the other meetings and thought this proposal was a good one, everyone can 'live with commercial on California and residential on Edgehill, it would enable a small business owner to live close to his business if he wished; regarding big rig truck parking, these trailers should be parked on the other side of the street and not take parking away from the small commercial businesses. Frank Gandolfi, 825 Edgehill Drive: he did not think it was fair to allow single story commercial development on California with no parking requirement, if commercial were allowed on-site parking should be provided; he believed this area should be all residential. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND -429P to City Council for approval by resolution with the finding that on the basis of the initial study and comments received there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. C. Jacobs then moved to recommend to City Council by resolution creation of the C-R district, amendments to the general plan and rezoning of the Edgehill Drive/California Drive area. Her statements in support: the fact that one side of Edgehill is zoned R-2, California is a commercial street, concerns of the neighbors, topography, lot size, after considerable study by staff and Commission this is one of the best solutions. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Staff will forward to City Council. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 10 January 8, 1990 9. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING DISTRICT MODIFICATION FOR THE BAYFRONT AND ANZA PLANNING AREAS TO ALLOW LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AS AN INTERIM LAND USE, ZONED C-4 AND M-1 Reference staff report, 118190, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request: summary of the study meeting staff report, environmental review, study meeting questions (vacant and underused parcels east of Highway 101, appropriate minimum site size for airport parking, existing regulations which would apply to this use, can general plan amendment be given to part of a planning area, can the use be limited to one zoning district, how can structures for the parking use be limited to ensure the use is interim, could storage of cars and other vehicles be limited, comparison of P.M. peak hour vehicle trips per acre by use, can airport parking lots be required to operate together, advantages to the city of having long term airport parking, public noticing procedures used for this request), Planning Commission action. CP explained the original application was for a specific parcel of land, applicant was told this was not a permitted or conditional use in the zone and therefore the present action is necessary; she stated staff included the entire area of the Specific Area Plan except the Anza Extension where the wastewater treatment plant and sanitary landfill are located, Commission could if it wished change the area affected. If this is approved for the Anza Area a specific application will be made. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. George Corey, attorney representing Metro Park, operator of the long term airport parking facility on Airport boulevard, addressed Commission. -He stated the most significant factor was the control the city will get over the parking use that exists in the area now, it will reduce the number of cars, give more control over beautifying the area along with BCDC beautification and access requirements, will increase applicants cost. His client acquired the parcel across from Days Inn, with that and others the client owns and controls they would like at some point in time to develop these parcels in accordance with the Specific Area Plan. Presently they would like to continue operating as they are, for reasons of control the city has granted use permits for long term airport parking in five year stretches. He will be bringing in an application for the corner lot to run consistent with the other properties adjacent to it, city would then have control of the new parcel and adjacent ones. There is a disagreement among various owners of the existing long term airport parking lots, his client has acquired the ability to develop those parcels in the northernmost area and wants to start with these parcels and the new parcel. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 11 January 8, 1990 Commission/staff discussion: property tax is the only revenue the city receives from the present parking lots; would be willing to consider the Anza Area but not the northern bayfront area which is fully developed; minimum site size for parking use should be three acres; prohibiting parking structures is not unreasonable, this land is just waiting for demand for hotels or restaurants. The need to come back for a special permit for the use was discussed and the fact that if the northern bayfront area were eliminated it would save everyone time and energy. Further comment: agree with the previous statements, the two areas are very different, an interim use is only appropriate in the Anza Area where there is more vacant land. Staff noted the area along Beach and Lang Roads which is zoned M-1, if Commission wished to include the Lang/Beach Road area an overlay zone in the M-1 district for the Lang/Beach area would be needed. A Commissioner stated she would rather stay with the area zoned C-4 in the Anza Area only. CP doubted there was a three acre site in the Lang/Beach area. The proposed negative declaration would not need to be reviewed if the scope of the project were reduced to include only the Anza Area. Responding to a question, staff advised a gasoline service station on an airport parking lot would not be allowed since that would be retail sales and prohibited in the zone. Concern was expressed about locations in Burlingame and other cities which have had service stations and are now contaminated, it takes forever to clean them up. CP advised the city would require surfaces to be asphalted and the same drainage requirements as those for hotel parking lots. C. Jacobs moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND-427P to City Council for approval by resolution with the finding that on the basis of the initial study and comments received the general plan/specific area plan amendment to allow .long term airport parking as an interim use and to modify the C-4 zoning district accordingly will not have a significant effect on the environment. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. C. Jacobs moved to recommend to City Council by resolution amendment of the General Plan Specific Area Plan and zoning modification to allow long term airport parking as an interim use in the C-4 district portion of the Anza Area, minimum site size for parking use to be three acres. Her statements in support: undeveloped, vacant land is available in this area and there will be less impact, changing minimum site size to three acres will protect circulation by reducing access points/curb cuts on Airport Boulevard. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Staff will forward to City Council. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 12 January 8, 1990 Tony Spare, applicant for Item #7 at 1 Lorton Avenue which was denied this evening, advised he had just visited the site, there was bne car parked on Lorton and no cars on Peninsula which would appear to support his contention there is not a continuous parking problem on Peninsula day or night, the school use would not be a problem on weekends. He felt the issue of double parking was the applicants, responsibility and that of public safety officials, not the responsibility of presumptiveness on the part of the Planning Commission; they have had no problem at all in two locations in San Mateo, parents understand their responsibility and interact with the teachers; his experience does not bear out the concerns expressed by Commission and the application will maintain the residential character of the area. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its January 3, 1990 regular meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary