Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.11.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Deal on Tuesday, November 12, 1991 at 7:32 P.M. Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs Absent: Commissioners Kelly, Mink Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the October 28, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AUTO SALES AND SERVICE AT 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED C-2 Requests: why are 32 -parking spaces nonconforming, where will the 10 conforming spaces be located, are employee/visitor spaces to be designated and, if so, where will they be located; have there been complaints about parking in the area, fire access or other issues that increased parking would affect; number of cars in stock, where will they park; since the business will open at 7:00 A.M. what buffer is there between this site and the Northpark apartments; will applicant adjust his hours of operation for daylight savings time as was done by the previous operator; will the dealership be open at 7:00 A.M. or just the service center. Item set for public hearing November 25, 1991. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AND STORAGE OF SAILBOARDS AND SUPPLIES AT 324 LANG ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: what supplies other than sailboards do they market, how do they operate with only six customers per day; how is the business activity spread over the course of a day; what will be stored and where; what other retail businesses related to boating are located on Lang Road at the present time; are there any other retail businesses in this building; projected number of customers per day seems low, is this figure correct. Item set for public hearing November 25, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 12, 1991 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN EXISTING ANTENNA AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA ON THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 411 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 11/12/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant" s letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised most of the large dishes in this area are ground mounted, the existing antenna on this building was installed shortly after it was approved. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Robert Beggs, Comtel Video Services, Inc., applicant, was present. His comments: staff report covers their request thoroughly, they have put a lot of effort into screening the existing antenna which was required as a condition of the permit and destroyed in a storm, trees surrounding the building cover the existing antenna from view now, he thought the antenna itself looks better than a screening structure, they have had no complaints since it blew down. Responding to questions, Mr. Beggs said an 11' diameter dish is a small dish for this type of work, they would prefer a larger one but couldn't put it on the roof, there is quite a bit of interference in this area; it took them about six months to put up the screen, it was up for a year plus, then damaged by a storm and had to be removed. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: a Commissioner commented she could not believe she was considering voting for two dishes on a roof, she did wish they were smaller; applicant advised the dishes are placed as close as they can be, the existing dish rotates, the new one will be fixed, they record from three satellites now and would like to record from two of these simultaneously. C. Ellis stated he had no problem with the second dish given the type of businesses in the area, nor did he have a problem with it being on the roof, it could be seen if one looked for it but otherwise not, he had supported screening the existing dish but there would be a problem now with the amount of screening and extra weight. C. Ellis moved for approval of the special permit amendment to remove a condition for an existing antenna and a special permit to install a new antenna by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the second satellite dish shall be located on the roof as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 18, 1991 Sheet One; (2) that the applicant or property owner shall be responsible for an amendment to this use permit if future construction on any adjacent property requires relocation of the dish antenna, removal and reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant and/or property owner; (3) that the dish antenna shall be painted a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 12, 1991 nonreflective light gray color and that this nonreflective surface shall be maintained by the property owner; (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (5) that this use permit shall include the satellite dish installed in 1988 and all the provisions of the March 8, 1988 use permit shall -apply except that condition 15, regarding a structural screen to be placed around the satellite dish, thall be eliminated and no such screening shall be required for the second satellite dish; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year's time (November, 1992) and upon complaint thereafter. C. Galligan seconded the motion and determined from staff that if this is approved the two permits will be merged, plans for each dish show their location on the roof. Motion was approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers Kelly and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 962 CHULA VISTA AVENUE ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 11/12/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, petition in opposition signed by 20 residents and letter in opposition (November 2, 1991) from Thomas McLaughlin, 958 Chula Vista Avenue, study meeting questions. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted two letters in opposition received after preparation of the staff report from: Russell Mauk, 966 Chula Vista Avenue and Linda McLaughlin, 958 Chula Vista Avenue. CP confirmed all the pipes in the garage area (condition #3) will be located on the west wall, the solid wall; none of the trees on the site are on the Heritage tree list; parking space 18 can be exited in a forward direction in three maneuvers. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, applicant, was present. He responded to Commission questions: regarding security, in most condominiums of this size all the parking can be seen, they are trying to be sensitive to that and hide the parking; the gate to the garage would only open to the mass of a car, he agreed an intercom would address security concerns; regarding guest parking being located at the rear, it could be relocated, applicant thought residents would like to park in covered space; garage floor plan should have showed openings for light. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Linda McLaughlin, 958 Chula Vista Avenue; Norman Thompson, 923 Laguna Avenue; Ellis Schoichet, 966 Chula Vista Avenue (partner of Russell Mauk, 966 Chula Vista Avenue, who had presented a letter in opposition); Thomas McLaughlin, 958 Chula Vista Avenue. All were aware the area is zoned R-3 which allows apartment and condominium Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 12, 1991 development and all wished to preserve the neighborhood character of a mix of duplexes, triplexes and small single family homes. Their concerns and comments: blocking of light, air and view, preserving existing trees, proper drainage, traffic congestion on a street designed for single family dwellings, emergency vehicle access; could have obtained many more signatures on the petition in opposition, residents of the area feel it is an ugly project. Am not happy interfering with another property owner's rights but this project will seriously interfere with adjacent properties; character of the neighborhood is R-3 on one side and R-2 on the other with one and two story homes, the project will be totally out of character, other two story buildings blend into the area, this three story structure will not. Photographs were introduced to illustrate existing buildings in the area. Further comment: problem in R-3 zones is relating height and bulk to lot size, this project should not be built on a 50' wide lot regardless of zoning regulations, there are apartment buildings with driveways on the side which mitigate bulk, a 5' to 6' side setback for a three story building is not enough, project's height is excessive, garage should be lowered, roof should have a slope which does not cast shadows on adjacent properties; what is intended for fences between properties, all major windows of the project face directly toward the next door property; trees should be protected to mitigate impact of the height; this will be precedent setting in the neighborhood, developer should provide mitigations, reduce unit size, provide fewer units, provide landscaping. Size of the structure is not compatible with the neighborhood, most homes are 1900 vintage; would like to see a survey of on -street parking in the area, this project will increase cars on the street; 5' side setbacks are not enough, will lose views of Sweeney Ridge and South San Francisco and sunlight; am aware the area is zoned R-3 but think it should be R-2 or perhaps R-1, does the city need more R-3. Applicant spoke in rebuttal: it seems the opposition is not against the project but against the general plan and zoning policy for the area, this should be addressed at another time; project is in a flood zone and first floor elevation must be at 131; because of flood zone requirements underground parking was a problem, they were forced to have the parking at this level; typically in planning, high density residential is placed next to commercial as a buffer, this site is in a buffer zone; on -street parking is a problem everywhere in the city; he felt they had done the best they could architecturally and meet requirements of the city. Staff discussed lot coverage with Commission and applicant and suggested if there was a concern that lot coverage would go to 50% or more, approval of the project could be conditioned to require 49% lot coverage. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 12, 1991 Commission discussion/comment: this project brings out several issues: R-3 zoning as a buffer between commercial and R-1, perhaps the city needs to study this; condominium portion of the code specifically prohibits approval of projects unless they have been reviewed for overall impact on a neighborhood as they affect the aesthetics; the issue of compatibility, this• project is not compatible with this neighborhood; the city has spent a lot of time on an ordinance to protect views of homes in the hillside area but has spent no time protecting homes on the flatland, the issues of light and air are as important as view in relation to property values; agree this project. is not compatible with the neighborhood but this neighborhood is in transition and there will be more multiple family structures, larger and taller projects; support R-3 as a buffer, it is logical to have higher density next to commercial; if there is a problem with the bulk of R-3 the city should look at the regulations; cannot support the project specifically because of splitting the common open space as proposed, if it were a bigger area would not object but this is 100 SF and 300 SF; also have a problem with parking, do not believe parking space 18 will work, space 17 could be easily blocked; this is a massive project for the site, is the area really in transition, think project could have some parking below grade and a design which is more compatible with the area. C. Jacobs moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -447P, seconded by C. Graham and approved unanimously on voice vote, Cers Kelly and Mink absent. For the reasons stated in discussion, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the condominium permit, seconded by C. Graham. Comment on the motion: would point out that if this project were an apartment proposal rather than a condominium Commission would not even see it; a three story structure is out of character in the neighborhood; guest parking has no practical application, project will have at least two cars for each unit, there will not be any guest parking available and on -street parking will increase; project is too large for the site. The public was advised to take its concerns about zoning in this area to the City Council. A further Commission comment: concern about division of common open space, this is not the intent of the code; parking space 18 will not work, it should be eliminated with fewer units and fewer bedrooms to reduce parking needs. Motion to deny the condominium permit was approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Kelly and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOT 21, BLOCK 11, EASTON ADDITION (962 CHULA VISTA AVENUE) Based on Commission's denial of the condominium permit, CE Erbacher requested Commission recommend denial of the tentative condominium map to City Council. C. Galligan so moved, seconded by C. Ellis, approved 5-0-2 on voice vote, Cers Kelly and Mink absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 12, 1991 FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS Code revisions to address greenhouse and bay windows and structures for lot coverage. This item was continued to a meeting in the near future. Site review, special permit, 40 Broderick Road, zoned M-1: accepted by Commission. CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its November 4, 1991 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal, Secretary