HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.09.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, September 10, 1990 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham,
Jacobs, Kelly,
Absent: Commissioner Mink
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill
Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the August 27, 1990 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. VARIANCE TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND EIGHT SPECIAL PERMITS
TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 726 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Requests: finding to support exceptional circumstances relating to
the property itself; will accessory structure be totally located in
the rear 30% of the lot; applicants letter refers to other two story
accessory structures in the neighborhood, are these structures
located on property line; is the opening on the deck considered a
window with regard to Fire Department requirements, are there other
windows 10' from property line; would like declining height envelope
on an elevation; what is exterior dimension of the garage; opening in
the south wall is not allowed by the UBC because of proximity to
property line; application states new building will be built over
existing construction, existing building will be demolished and this
should be made clear; can CE require removal of the plumbing; is the
bathroom new construction or existing. Item set for public hearing
September 24, 1990.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A CLASSROOM FOR HOMEWORK TUTORING AND ARTS
AND CRAFTS PURPOSES AT 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: is this room vacant now; has there been a problem with this
group at this site previously; will musical instruments be used; if
there are 22 children will the room be large enough for the proposed
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
September 10, 1990
use; will evening parents meetings be held here. Item set for public
hearing September 24, 1990.
3. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM AT 1346 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
4. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR SIX UNITS - 1346 EL CAMINO REAL
Requests: has Commission seen this type of design with kitchen on
mezzanine before; staircases in the garage are too close, would like
this rectified on the plans before Commission votes on the project;
provide a shoring plan to protect property line encroachment; how is
ceiling height of the garage achieved; what safety precautions are
proposed at entrance to garage; how will someone inside close the
door to the bathroom; rear setback should be shown to the face of the
building; specify the location of water heaters and furnaces on each
floor plan. Items set for public hearing September 24, 1990 or when
all the requested information has been received.
5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF AN EIGHT UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 518 ALMER ROAD,
ZONED R-3
6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR EIGHT UNITS - 518 ALMER ROAD
Requests: will first floor be dry, plans should address pump backup
if sump pumps fail; why is applicant returning to Commission with a
project of fewer units on this site. Items set for public hearing
September 24, 1990.
7. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES,
PARKING' VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EIGHT ACRE AIRPORT
PARKING LOT AS AN INTERIM USE AT 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,
ZONED C-4
Requests: will there be grease traps for oil runoff; will site be
bermed, will landscaping screen view of cars; parking stall dimension
requirements including compacts of adjacent cities; average time a
car is left in such a lot; what type of service is anticipated in the
service bay; number of people and employees on site at one time;
shuttle routes to the airport; explain why no parking variance is
included in this application. Item set for public hearing September
24, 1990.
8-a. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A 151 ROOM HOTEL
(HOTEL A) AT 480 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Requests: discuss the amount of parking that might be available to
lease; provisions for passenger dropoff; what will breakfast facility
consist of, there is some meeting space in the hotel, is there
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
September 10, 1990
another way to serve other meals on site; where will the primary
entrance be; clarify the legalities of dividing this leasehold land
in two parcels; with separate ownerships will they share parking
facilities, will there be any valet parking, will they be sharing any
other common services; explain why there will be only two full time
and two part time employees after 5:00 P.M.; this hotel doesn't seem
to be the highest and best use of prime bayfront property; could
parking be decked, a limiting factor in this joint project appears to
be only so much land space with all cars at grade, seems to be
underuse of this prime area, discuss development density maximums;
room service needs to be addressed; number of employees two years
from the time the hotel opens; is it possible to ask applicant to pay
for all plan checking and field inspection on this project so that
time is not taken from building department staff.
8-b. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, FRONT SETBACK, SHORELINE SETBACK
AND LANDSCAPING TO CONSTRUCT A 300 ROOM HOTEL (HOTEL B) AT
460 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Requests: employees undoubtedly will include car rentals, gift shops,
doorman, others generally found in a hotel this size and with 300
beds to be made, it would appear there will be a larger parking
demand than shown with 16 employees; number of employees two years
from the time the hotel opens; confirm location of the plaza; review
other hotels in Burlingame of approximately the same size; where will
public access parking be, number of spaces required by BCDC.
Items 8-a and 8-b were set for public hearing Tuesday, October 9,
1990.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
9. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 5'-9" WALL/FENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT
1300 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1
CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning
staff comment, applicants letter, study meeting questions.
Architect's letter of August 31, 1990 and CE's memo of September 5,
1990 received after preparation of the staff report were noted.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Stephen Antonaros, architect
representing Antonio and Liliane Mariani, property owners, was
present. He apologized for proceeding on the fence without a permit,
he had assumed a permit had been granted; he commented on the owners,
decision to redesign the fence at the corner setting it back as
required by code and relocating the entrance; a substantial lineal
foot of the wall/fence remains on the right of way and will require
an encroachment permit from the city. He noted this site is
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
September 10, 1990
exceptional, existing trees block a great deal of visibility, the
revised proposal will increase visibility at the corner; fence design
is exceptional, a 5'-0" high solid fence or stone wall could be built
under code which would be, more intrusive. The only remaining fence
issue is 9" of the wrought iron fence which is over the 5' height
limit.
He distributed photographs showing detailed design of the fence, one
of the photos illustrates ability to see through this fence.
Architect advised property owners preferred not to clip the corner of
the wall at the driveway, a mitigating factor being the open wrought
iron. Responding to a question, architect said the metal spikes are
pre -made sections from an antique building, it would be a disaster to
the wrought iron to cut off 9" and it would be very expensive to
demolish the stone wall, would amount to rebuilding a substantial
portion of the entire wall.
The following members of the audience spoke in favor: William
Hoskinson, 1209 Lincoln Avenue; Linda Bickelman, 1257 Paloma Avenue
(speaking for herself and two other residents); Richard Hoskinson,
1915 Broadway. Their comments: visibility going west on Lincoln is
not obstructed by the fence, the corner is clear, a vehicle parked on
the street is a bigger obstruction, there are shrubs in the
neighborhood which are as high and block driveways and fences which
are just as high, there is no safety problem at this intersection;
Paloma is one way going north and there is a stop sign, only visual
obstruction are cars parked on the street; the house on the site is
tastefully done, fence will not be an obstruction, think it will be
an improvement to the corner; admire the workmanship and quality of
this project, property owners have tried to make it as
architecturally appealing as possible, have no objection to the fence
as it stands now, there is no visual obstruction for •anyone going at
a safe speed, regarding encroachment on the public right of way,
trees are far more obstructive, on Easton Avenue they block stop
signs and driveways; this particular project should be approved.
There were no further comments in favor. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma
Avenue spoke in opposition: he presented a petition in opposition
signed by 37 neighbors within one block of the site. His comments
and concerns: height of the wall, encroachment into public right of
way, height of the rebar rods at the driveway entrance where wall
will be 8' or higher; wall was built 6" onto the neighbor's property
at 1312 Paloma, neighbor's flowers were uprooted, this elderly lady
has been taken advantage of by the owner of 1300 Paloma, the wall
continues east for 32' at a height of 71, has been built on the
boundary and is not on 1300 Paloma property, it will impede the
owner's view of the street. Public safety is a big concern, wall is
too high, too massive and too obstructive at an already dangerous
intersection; the rebuilt house appears to be three stories, only a
three bedroom house was approved but it will have four bedrooms and
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
September 10, 1990
three baths; spiral staircase may be illegal, should be removed;
architect's letter notes constant flow of onlookers to admire the old
world constr*uction techniques; this is a large house out of character
with the neighborhood.
Commission discussion with Mr. Horn: he did not know of any property
line survey being done, concern of those signing the petition was
mainly safety, applicant could. build a solid wall if he pulled it
back, Mr. Horn did not think an ornamental wall would look better;
when stopping at the stop sign on Paloma and looking down Lincoln the
pilasters are so thick one cannot see down the street. Commissioner
comment: applicants are entitled to a 5' fence, even a solid wall if
they pull it back. Mr. Horn was shown the revised plans and
commented he would like to see the two pilasters on Lincoln pulled
back but this is a much better plan, he would prefer the fence pulled
back on both sides of the driveway.
Martin Dreiling, 1321 Paloma Avenue stated he had opposed this
project for two reasons: safety, it is difficult getting onto Lincoln
from Paloma, Lincoln has high speed traffic; a bigger concern is the
issue of neighborhood quality, Burlingame has many small houses,
large yards, front porches, these things are being taken from the
neighborhoods, in small increments but it is a cumulative problem and
time for the Planning Commission to make it very clear zoning
ordinance rules are there for a reason, would urge stronger
regulations in the future.
In rebuttal architect commented most objections referred to the
previous plans, plans have been revised to address concerns about the
corner at the intersection, encroachment on neighbor's property is a
private matter, he was sensitive to the comments about neighborhood
character but' Burlingame has diversity and diversity is also good,
applicants have put a very nice porch on their house. Responding to
Commission comment, architect said the owners wanted stonework, core
of the fence does not encroach, it is the veneer which encroaches.
Regarding the concern about encroachment an agreement was made
between the property owners. CA recommended adding a condition that
there be a recorded document for the portion of fence on adjacent
property. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission comment/discussion: no comments have dealt with
exceptional circumstances pertaining to the property, a finding must
be made that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged, a
petition has been received from 30 plus neighbors who think it would
be damaging; a Commissioner said Alan Horn came to his house with the
petition, they walked to 1300 Paloma and looked at the rear wall, at
one point this wall is 6'-10" tall. It was pointed out this
application is for a fence exception rather than a variance; CP read
review criteria for fence exceptions. CE stated his suggestion that
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
September 10, 1990
the fence be reduced along a 45 degree angle toward Lincoln was
because of his concern about fences too close to the sidewalk.
Commissioner comment in favor: believe property owner has taken the
expression "a mans home is his castle" too literally, the city does
not have design review, the sole issue with this application relates
to visibility, there is visibility within the proposed fence, it will
not be a solid wall/fence, significant holes in the fence are a
mitigating factor; an appropriate mitigation would be an angle cut on
both sides of the driveway to protect pedestrians, it is a narrow,
short driveway so cars reach the sidewalk quickly; suggest a
condition be added that all neighbors approve any encroachment on
their property and such agreements be recorded.
Commissioner comments in opposition: agree it would be better to have
the fence cut back on the other side of the driveway but it is within
code, have a problem with fence height, can see no exceptional
circumstances, this type of property is on every street in
Burlingame, the house may be exceptional but not the property, do not
agree with the premise that the fence will not block view, small
children who run or ride bikes down the sidewalk do not pay
attention, fence should be moved back 15' as proposed, cannot approve
a 5'-9" height.
For the reasons stated, that there are no exceptional circumstances,
the height of the fence and the encroachment needed, C. Jacobs moved
for denial of the fence exception, seconded by C. Kelly and approved
on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Galligan dissenting, C. Mink absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:25 P.M.; reconvene 9:38 P.M.
10. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL INTO THREE
LOTS AT 2807 HILLSIDE DRIVE
CE Erbacher reviewed this request to divide one parcel into three
lots, Subdivision Code review criteria, code requirements for
subdivisions, study meeting questions. Ten conditions were
recommended if this map is forwarded to Council for approval.
September 4, 1990 letter in opposition from Mrs. James R. Hansen,
1386 Hillside Circle was noted.
Commission/staff discussed the fact that this is a narrow street,
there is a sidewalk on the other side of the street, residents are
more concerned about the trees than another sidewalk if this parcel
is subdivided, meeting subdivision requirements, there will be more
pedestrians, there are not many narrow 20' wide streets in the city,
minimum fire access is 10' to 121 so 8' parking on a 20' street
should be sufficient.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
September 10, 1990
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Joseph Karp, applicant, was
present. His comments: when he and his sons were asked if they
wished to buy this property they hired a firm to "study whether they
could meet the criteria of the city for subdivision, this study
indicated they could, they then hired John Berry of Hawk Engineers to
confirm the first study, which he did. They asked Mr. Berry to meet
with the City Engineer and Planning Department with emphasis on
saving the trees, an arborist was hired to make recommendations, then
the sidewalk became an issue and it was necessary to contact the
arborist again who made a second report; applicants wanted to
minimize any harm to the trees and wanted to keep the existing
structure. They will do whatever is needed to save the trees if the
city requires a sidewalk on that side of the street.
Mr. Karp introduced John Berry of Hawk Engineers who thanked the
Planning Department, Public Works and Engineering for working so
closely with them on this project; their goals were to stay within
zoning guidelines, preserve as much of the vegetation and trees on
the site as possible and meet the criteria of the subdivision
ordinance; there was some give and take mainly because applicant's
primary goal was to save the trees, the sidewalk issue is not
resolved but they will go with what the city recommends.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition: Bill Cohendet, 1408 Hillside Circle; Roy Mayer, 1387
Hillside Circle; J. Leri, 2701 Hillside Drive; Jim Monroe, 1404
Hillside Circle; Mary L. Mayer, 2101 Summit' Drive; Jill Harmon, 935
Capuchino Avenue; Tona Cohendet, 1408 Hillside Circle. During some
discussion with staff CE explained the proposal (with the use of a
slide on the overhead projector), the middle parcel has the existing
house and proposes a garage in the front setback with access to
Hillside Circle, there is only conceptual development, proposed for
the other two parcels.
Audience comments/concerns: save and protect the trees, nature is
important, retain all existing vegetation; concern about the
environment; anticipate looking at two large garages and driveways,
Hillside Circle used to be a one way street, how can cars park on the
other side of this narrow street, leave it the way it is as much as
possible; would like to know possible footprints of houses on Parcels
1 and 3 (staff commented they could be two stories); the city doesn't
need more people; this is a congested area now, it may be
substantially changed, two more houses will cause more traffic; what
about the sewer system (staff advised city prefers sewer lines in the
front); retain the charm and flavor of Hillside Circle; why not
eliminate a sidewalk since there is an existing sidewalk where people
can walk.
Question the aesthetics of three houses, there will be 200% more
building on the site, question speculative buyers automatically
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
September 10, 1990
seeking variances, why can't they build within existing code.
Photographs were submitted and commented upon, regarding the acacia
tree there should be ways to preserve this tree for a period of time,
if it is removed the ugly utility pole will stand alone, if tree must
come down put utilities underground (CE noted there would be
undergrounding of service to the houses, not undergrounding of
utilities on the street). All speakers felt there had not been time
enough to review and study the issues, would like to see what is
planned, a continuation was requested.
In responding to these comments Mr. Berry noted there seemed to be no
difference in direction, applicants would like to save tree #2, they
intend to build within the existing zoning guidelines, they are
asking for a variance so they do not have to tear the side off the
existing house, asking for a garage in an area that will serve the
existing house and not require another driveway on Hillside Circle,
the tentative map does not show a sidewalk, they are not requesting
larger lots than those in the area. Regarding sewer in the street,
one of the conditions of approval is that the entire street be slurry
sealed with new curb and gutter, they will widen the full width of
the parking bay.
The Chair suggested a continuance to give neighbors time to look at
the proposal and meet with the applicant. Applicant agreed to this i
suggestion. Responding to a Commissioner request, applicant said
they have indicated the trees by size on a map, they have agreed with
the city that if any trees are removed they will replace them. It
was noted neighbors will undoubtedly want to know the potential size
of houses on parcels 1 and 3.
CP referenced Zoning Technician's memo regarding concerns received in
a telephone call at 3:00 P.M. this afternoon from Dan McCarthy, 1388
Hillside Circle.
Chm. Graham continued the public hearing to the meeting of September
24, 1990.
11. REAR SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT SETBACK ON THE
9,340 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF THE PARCEL AT 2807 HILLSIDE DRIVE,
ZONED R-1
Item continued to the meeting of September 24, 1990.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
September 10, 1990
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
- Review of request for Hillside Area Construction Permit -
2729 Burlingview Drive. There was no comment.
- Memo from City Attorney (8/22/90), subject: Voting - Abstention
and Disqualifications.
PLANNER REPORTS
- CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its September 5, 1990
regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick J. Kelly
Vice Chairman