Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.09.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, September 24, 1990 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; �Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the September 10, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #1 under study items (Variance - 1445 El Camino Real) was continued to the meeting of October 9, 1990. Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS AT 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Continued to October 9, 1990. 2. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FOUR UNITS, LOT 23, BLOCK 10, EASTON ADDITION, 1022 CHULA VISTA AVENUE Set for public hearing October 9, 1990. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION TO AMEND SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD ,(DAYS INN), ZONED C-4 Requests: height of other hotel pole signs; elevation showing the pole sign in relation to the building. Item set for public hearing October 9, 1990. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO AMEND SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (SHERATON HOTEL), ZONED C-4 Requests: location and function of the sign. Item set for public hearing October 9, 1990. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 24, 1990 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE OFFICE AREA IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1649 ADRIAN ROAD Requests: history of over 20% office use in this area, has the city allowed more in the last couple of years; why is applicant requesting more office space and removing warehouse, what are their future needs for office space; number of people who work in the warehouse, number who work in the office; do they have customers coming to the site; with an increase in full time employees in two and five years, what are applicant's plans to address what appears to be an overflow parking situation; will there be any warehouse blow-out sales at this location. Item set for public hearing October 9, 1990 or when all information has been received. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - 2807 HILLSIDE DRIVE Reference September 10, 1990 minutes. Letter in opposition (September 21, 1990) from Mary C. Evans, 1476 Alvarado Avenue was noted. Chm. Graham reopened the public hearing. CE Erbacher summarized his agenda memo, pointing out changes from the memo for the September 10, 1990 meeting. Joseph Karp, applicant, discussed his meeting with the neighbors; he had given them a data/site plan showing zoning requirements of the city and footprint of possible houses on Parcels 1 and 3; he reviewed the tentative map with the residents at this meeting, telling them he would meet the requirements for lot area, these lots exceed the size of most of the lots in the area except for two in the county on Hillside Drive, one of these has been annexed to the city. Mr. Karp stated three conclusions were reached at this meeting: neighbors would prefer that there be no development at all, he of course does not agree; he will build the new houses in accordance with all city codes and restrictions; he and the neighbors agreed as many trees and shrubs as ,.possible should be retained, he will replace all shrubs and any trees that are removed. Regarding a neighbor on Summit with concerns about people on Lot 3 looking down on him, the people who build on Lot 1 will want the same privacy, applicant would make retention of trees on that side of Lot 3 a condition of the subdivision. Regarding enforceability of the city's conditions, he will guarantee that any developer will save the trees on all the lots, this can be made a requirement of the subdivision agreement. Mr. Karp commented he and his sons are local businessmen, they are not speculators, they all own homes in the city, they will abide by all city restrictions, they are willing to meet all of the City Engineer's suggested conditions, would prefer not to put in a sidewalk or widen the street because their arborist's report stated Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 24, 1990 this would harm the trees, they would like to preserve the woodsy character of the area. Addressing a concern of the neighbor directly across the street about looking at the garage, they would be willing to put in a wrought iron gate/fence at the front of the driveway, neighbor could choose the design. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Karp noted John Berry, his engineer, was present to answer any technical questions. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Roy Mayer, 1387 Hillside Circle: he presented a petition in opposition to the subdivision, variances and special permit signed by all neighbors who will be directly impacted by the subdivision. Mr. Mayer referred to a letter from Hawk Engineers regarding the quiet residential character of this neighborhood and stating encouraging traffic with wider streets and parking will impact streets further to the south and deteriorate the rural character of the neighborhood; this is what they are opposing, to be totally impacted by three huge houses in the area. The neighbors felt it might be possible to subdivide into two lots and would appreciate it if the Commission would look at that. A Commissioner noted the subdivision code criteria, one of which is compatibility of proposed lots with existing lots in the neighborhood, staff report notes the proposed lots are larger than most in the area; it was determined the petition did not include reasons for the opposition. Dan McCarthy, 1388 Hillside Circle: stated lots up Hillside Drive are larger, on Hillside Circle they are smaller; it is a small street, they did not expect development on both sides, this is speculation, would not want to look across the street at parking bays, wish to keep the trees; if driveways could be narrowed to 81-91 in width it might help keep the neighbors' views. A Commissioner commented if there were no parking bays visitors would be more likely to park across the street than put their car in someone's drive. Mr. McCarthy thought the neighbors would rather have visitors park on their side of the street and keep the vegetation on the other side; if two cars are parked on that street a firetruck could not get through. Tona Cohendet, 1408 Hillside Circle: regarding compatibility with the neighborhood, the existing house is larger than those on the other side of the street, to make it appropriate it needs more grounds than one-third of this parcel would provide, three houses is overcrowding that parcel in comparison with the neighborhood, two lots would reduce the parking problem somewhat, would rather not have the parking bays, retaining walls for the sidewalk are not easily covered, would rather look at existing vegetation; discussed the retaining walls needed for the driveways, established they would be 21-3' maximum and could be wood. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 24, 1990 There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink stated he was not present at the September 10 meeting for the public hearing but he had read the minutes, asked for clarification from staff and considered himself qualified to vote on this issue. Commission/staff discussion: original subdivision which created this lot was in the county, it is up to Commission whether it considers lots in the county in the pattern of lots in the neighborhood, there are no guidelines in the ordinance; parking bays and sidewalk were included for evaluation at the request of the City Engineer; Fire Department suggested this side of the street be posted no parking, because of the narrow street, parking bays were to address the fact that in the future one could not park on this side of the street; normal driveway width is 161, discussed possibility of narrowing driveway and moving garage back on Parcel 2, Commission can make recommendations regarding the driveways; applicant's engineer advised driveways shown are actually 20, wide, they could narrow them to 161; it would be possible to narrow curb cut and retain ability to park on the apron; neighbors want to keep the area as natural as possible; making the driveway narrower, not putting in the parking bays and no sidewalk could reduce urban look of the project. Commission/staff discussed CE's conditions and suggested changes: no parking bays be installed on Hillside Circle, delete any reference to sidewalks, delete conditions #1 and #2, all trees of a certain size remain on the site and no shrubs or bushes be removed without approval of the Parks Department. There was discussion of minimum curb cuts and. impact on uncovered on-site parking; Commission determined that for Parcel 2, 16' curb cut and driveway on city right-of-way widening to 20, on property line would be adequate, this might require the relocation of the garage as shown; for Parcel 3, 12, curb cut with 12, driveway on city right-of-way widening to 20' on property line would be adequate; in both cases there should be 20, of parking, 201 wide in front of the garage door. Further Commission comment: if parcel were in the county at the time it was originally developed believe county required one-quarter acre lots, this parcel would then allow two lots; with this project Lot 2 won't change anything, Lots 1 and 3 will create new traffic conditions, would prefer subdivision into two lots; from Lot 3 a person would be at risk from cars from Summit every time he backs out; division into two lots does not appear feasible, all lots to the east are about the same size as these three; the whole Hillside/Alvarado corridor is a racetrack. C. Kelly moved to recommend this tentative parcel map to City Council for approval with the following changes to the CE's conditions: (1) delete conditions #1 and #2; (2) relocate the garage on Parcel 2 back Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 24, 1990 to provide 20' of paving, 20' wide in front of the garage and a 16' wide curb cut on right-of-way with transition to private property; (3) on Parcel 3 provide a driveway 20' wide and 20' long connected to the street on public right-of-way by a 12' wide driveway and curb cut; (4) no parking bays and no sidewalk shall be installed; (5) replace Any trees 6" or more in diameter and preserve shrubs within the right-of-way and first 5' of adjacent property or more as necessary to preserve screening.as approved by the Director of Parks and City Engineer; (6) the subdivider shall provide and install driveway and adjacent retaining walls from existing paved area 25' into property before the sale of any lot is final; (7) Parcel 1 shall have no driveway on the Hillside Circle frontage. Motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: cannot support the application, the addition of two houses would change the character of the neighborhood, this change would be dramatic and its scale inappropriate, Commission cannot dictate the size of the two new homes, with 40% lot coverage each could be very large houses; reluctant to vote for three parcels but considering this parcel is being subdivided into lots the same size as many others in the area, all these properties were subdivided from larger properties, all have had to adhere to the zoning requirements, how can Commission deny this particular property owner the right to divide, all have mature vegetation grown up since their subdivision, owner is working well with the neighborhood and trying to save as much vegetation as possible; can't widen street if want to keep trees so have a safety problem with two lots or three lots, neighbors want no development. Comments continued: other property owners in the area with same size lots could go to 40% lot coverage but as a practical matter it hasn't happened, in this case the homes undoubtedly will be 40% and all in the neighborhood are not, many are older and smaller; this is a substandard street and applicants want to put standard lots on it, this will not work out for traffic and safety and cannot support a three lot subdivision for this reason; don't have a problem with the developer, he will do an excellent job, but am concerned because the street will not support the extra traffic from two new lots; if the street is widened trees will have to be removed and only half the street can be changed. Motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Jacobs, Mink and Graham voting no, C. Ellis absent. C. Galligan moved to recommend denial of this tentative parcel map to City Council for the reasons stated, seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Deal and Kelly voting no, C. Ellis absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 24, 1990 7. REAR SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 2807 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 C. Galligan moved to remove this item from the calendar, seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Staff advised if the tentative map is approved by City Council this item will be renoticed and heard by the Planning Commission. Recess 9:10 P.M.; reconvene 9:20 P.M. 8. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN EXISTING CARPORT AT 120 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 Item continued to the meeting of October 9, 1990 as the first action item. 9. DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND EIGHT SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 726 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/24/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letters in opposition were received from the following after preparation of the staff report: William Hanson, owner of the property at 722 Acacia Drive; Howard and Kay Bush, 732 Acacia Drive; John and Jean Fiske, 717 Acacia Drive. Responding to a question, staff advised this property is not required at this time to have a two car garage. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Pam Murphy, applicant and property owner, was present. Her comments: she has been studying flower arranging for two to three years, would like her own business but does not have the facilities now, she needs space and a different working area, will need water upstairs in the accessory structure since she uses five gallon buckets and it would be difficult to carry the water up the stairs, she would also like to move her washer and dryer from the basement of the house to the lower garage area, it will be a new structure, the existing building is very old. Responding to a Commissioner request that she address findings for exceptional circumstances which apply to the property, applicant said there is no other place to put the project because of the way the house is set, existing trees, driveway location are fixed. The existing house has two bedrooms with no possibility of adding on; regarding the number of special permits, she stated she and her architect did go to the Planning Department to discuss the proposed project, she had no idea she would need so many special permits. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 24, 1990 Maritza Delgadillo, architect, advised they were given all the zoning regulations and were aware of height and square footage restrictions but it was their understanding only one special permit would be required for the accessory structure, they did not realize it would be eight, one for each exception; it was understood what they were asking for, discussion did occur between Planning staff and herself and then with the property owner; property owner decided to go ahead with the application. A Commissioner commented the proposed square footage is about 300 square feet larger than his prior home, why not put a second story on the existing house. Architect responded this would be a major expense and major disruption to the owners, intent was to separate the business from the home; she did not believe there were any city requirements which would prohibit a second story addition. Referring to the letter in opposition from the property owner of 722 Acacia, applicant said his house is a larger structure than what she is proposing, only a driveway separates them, there are a lot of two story structures in the neighborhood, anyone living at 722 Acacia has been able to look into her back yard for over 20 years, her project has no windows facing the neighbor's yard and her objective is just to establish a business. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this project is much too large, in walking the neighborhood there are other structures but they are not on property line, applicant should put structure in the rear 30% of her lot, expand the width, remove trees, can see nothing exceptional about this lot to justify the variance, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the application. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and his comments follow: the documentation presented misinterprets the intention of the home occupation ordinance, a home occupation can be allowed in a residential neighborhood if it is basically invisible, this is anything but invisible, the structure is driving the neighborhood. Comment on the motion: while there are several two story houses in the neighborhood it is less than fair to the neighbor to allow this 46' x 20' wall on the property line in the back yard, many people in the city have home occupations which they operate successfully from the second floor -of their homes, it is not appropriate for Commission to take into account the cost of a second story addition; this is a case of the tail wagging the dog, proposal is larger than the main house, something of this magnitude should be in a business district, the only alternative is a second story addition to the house. Motion for denial was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 24, 1990 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A CLASSROOM FOR HOMEWORK TUTORING AND ARTS AND CRAFTS PURPOSES AT 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/24/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined there is a white zone on Vancouver, this is only for passenger loading/unloading, it would be illegal to park vans there. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Len Beatie, Director, Olympian Day Camp, applicant, stated his program is for children to improve/enhance their homework; they will park their vans on the Broadway side instead of Vancouver, there is a small white zone there; there may be occasional pickup by parents, generally they transport the students in their vans; the program is for special needs students, they will not make any money on this, it is mainly public relations for their Olympian Day Camp program; at this time they will not go beyond the 22 children allowed in the conditions; he stated there is a need for this program, parents pay for it, some children are on scholarships and some get financial aid from the county. Marjorie Lane, 2104 Broadway was pleased that the school is being used but not that her driveway was being used for a turnaround; this may not apply to this program but other vans who deliver children to the school do use her driveway. She asked that something be done, perhaps a notice to the school or to the parents asking them not to use her driveway. Applicant said his vehicles are all white and with big signs on them, if she would identify her driveway he would tell his drivers not to turn around there. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this is a school which has had after school sports, this is a worthy project, with the planning the city has done the effect of the operations is less than when it was a school, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the 874 SF classroom (#8) shall be used for after school day care from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday throughout the regular school year (September through June) for a maximum of 22 students and no parent meetings shall be held in the evenings at this location; (2) that the students shall have access to the larger playground areas during the time they are on site with the day care program except that this use shall be limited to the 22 students who are in Room #8; (3) that the students shall be brought to the site and taken from the site in two vans which shall be parked on the Broadway frontage of the building during the program period; (4) that any change to the number of students, the hours of operation, the area of building used, the number of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 24, 1990 months this program uses the building, the method of transporting students or the time of year the site is used or any change to the operation of this program at this site shall require an amendment to this use permit; and (5) that this use permit shall be subject to review for compliance with the conditions in June of 1991 and every two years thereafter or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN EIGHT UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 518 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 9/24/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, findings for a negative declaration, study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission and staff discussed provision of a 24 hour emergency power generator and suggested a condition #8 addressing this. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Takuo Kanno, architect and applicant, advised they had no objection to providing a 24 hour emergency generator, they are negotiating with two manufacturers to provide such a generator which will be installed on the ground floor; one of staff's concerns about the parking layout had been maneuverability, they have revised the plans to provide two guest parking spaces at the end of the ramp and each of the units will have two stalls; Mr. Kanno requested condition #5 be changed to read ". . two guest parking stalls . . ." Responding to a question, architect advised they have found there is a market for two master bedroom units, buyers want more room in the condominiums they purchase, one of the master bedrooms could be used as a guest bedroom or a study or a room for a home occupation. There was a concern regarding the planters and landscaped areas on top of the post tension slab; applicant explained waterproofing measures they would take and how drainage would be handled. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found that based on the initial study and comments made this evening and in the staff report there is no substantial evidence that this project will have a significant effect on the environment and moved for approval of the negative declaration and condominium permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 21, 1990 (Sheets 0,4,6,7); August 30, 1990 (Sheet 1); September 7, 1990 (Sheets 2,3,5); (2) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memos of August 28, 1990 and September 19, 1990, the Fire Marshal's memo of July 31, 1990 and the Director of Parks' memo of August 15, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 24, 1990 1990 shall be met; (4) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided for access to the designated guest parking in the garage; (5) that two guest parking stalls shall be designated and marked on the plans and tentative map and not assigned to a unit but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; (6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (7) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and the board of directors of the condominium association an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; and (8) that an emergency generator shall be provided which would operate during power outages for at least 24 consecutive hours and that this generator shall have an automatic transfer switch. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: this is good looking building; have one concern, use could be much heavier with a 1600 SF unit with two master bedrooms compared to 1200 SF, the city could run into a parking problem in the future with several of these uses in a neighborhood. j Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR EIGHT UNITS - PORTION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 9, MAP NO. 2, BURLINGAME LAND CO. - 518 ALMER ROAD Reference CE's agenda memo; CE recommended this mapping action be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Kelly moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map and tentative condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Staff will forward to Council. 13. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 9/24/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comment, applicant's letter, negative declaration, study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Peter Callander, landscape architect representing the property owner, New Town Hotel, Inc., was present. He stated they had no problem with the suggested conditions Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 24, 1990 of approval. It was determined the existing wood structure will be demolished, just the front portion of the cement structure will be left. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this is a good site for this use for a five year period, it has been used for parking, with the conditions the use will improve the shoreline area and shoreline protection as well as the site itself, C. Jacobs found there is no substantial evidence this interim airport parking use will have a significant effect on the environment and moved for approval of the negative declaration and special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that as built the project shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 13, 1990 and the applicant shall provide shuttle bus service for all clients to San Francisco International Airport and pickup from the airport to the site and the business shall operate 24 hours a day seven days a week; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineers August 23, 1990 memo and the Fire Marshal's August 23, 1990 memo shall be met; (3) that the applicant shall receive a permit or waiver from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and any other mandated regulatory agencies prior to receiving a building permit from the City of Burlingame; (4) that the project as built shall conform to all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame; (5) that the applicant shall repair any spots of erosion through the shoreline protection structure on the site at 350 Airport Boulevard and in Fisherman's Park prior to doing any paving or installing any public access improvements and that these repairs shall be undertaken in a manner designed by a licensed engineer and approved by the City Engineer consistent with the requirement that they involve no further fill in San Francisco Bay or Sanchez Channel, and that a continuing maintenance program shall be the responsibility of the property owner for the duration of this use permit; (6) that the applicant will repair, reseal and repave as necessary the parking area in Fisherman's Park including placement of four picnic tables with seats and a 20, strip of improved landscaping as shown on the proposed plans; (7) that seven on-site parking spaces close to the office/maintenance structure shall be designated and permanently set aside for employee parking and also an on-site space shall be designated for parking the shuttle vans not in use; and (8) that this parking use and as such this use permit shall be effective until September 30, 1995. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR r There were no comments from the floor. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 September 24, 1990 PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council September 17, 1990 regular meeting and September 19, 1990 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary