Loading...
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