Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.03.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday,. March 23, 1992 at 7:31 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; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 9, 11992 meeting were unanimously approved. LEND - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LANDS OF FIFE, SUBDIVISION OF 2918 ADELINE DRIVE, DEED VOL. 6909 O.R. 94-95, APN 027-111-050 Requests: copy of the soils study; how many trees can be removed, concern about impact of tree removal on soil stability; is back of the property accessible from Mills Canyon park, is there an easement or just informal use, is subdivider or developer required to make access improvements; what are the rectangular boxes marked PA on Parcel B; when were the following parcels created: 2886, 2888, 2890, 2896 Adeline, were they created from a larger parcel; address the issue of driveway access; length of street frontage for each lot, total street frontage of undivided parcel; will driveway access to Parcel B come over another property, history of that easement, when and why it was first granted, why does Parcel A need to have access across Parcel B. Item set for public hearing April 13, 1992. 2. REAR SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2327 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Item set for public hearing April 13, 1992. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 23, 1992 3. LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1645 MC DONALD WAY, ZONED R-1 Requests: applicant respond and identify the exceptional circumstances of this property to support the variance requests; would applicant consider• moving the staircase to reduce the number of parking variances required. Item set for public hearing April 13, 1992. 4. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR DECKING WITH A BUILT IN SPA AT 27 MILLS CANYON COURT, ZONED R-1 Requests: did the 1988 building permit include the sliding door and staircase at the rear of the house, what plans were submitted in 1988; explanation from applicant regarding why the building permit was never picked up for the deck and spa but the work was completed; photographs with higher contrast so can tell better existing conditions. Item set for public hearing April 13, 1992. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. FIVE VARIANCES AND ONE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 1400-1404 OAR GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 3/23/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions listed in the staff report and amended by the City Planner were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Definition of carport was discussed, a carport can have two or three walls but it does not have a front; if this carport were brought back to its previous condition it would be considered an existing nonconforming structure. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Robert Larratt, applicant and property owner, and his wife, Molly were present. They commented on the long distance between their house and the carport, it is -an unusual lot, long and narrow, the carport is secluded; they have been concerned about the amount of police activity at the apartment buildings across the street and safety of the many students from Burlingame High School and McKinley who might see the carport as a place to gather; they have not changed the footprint of the structure, just added a good looking door; apartments across the street have no doors on their parking areas, one has an open carport and the other has parking below grade, police cars are there at least once a week. Responding to a question regarding maintenance of the carport, Mr. Larratt said there was a lot of ivy on the carport which they removed, then built the walls on the side, did foundation and reroofing work. When asked why "maintenance" of the existing nonconforming carport was so extensive, applicant replied the carport and garage were always connected, there was one big roof, he just added the walls -on the side in 1988, originally it was a carport with four posts holding up the roof. He has owned this property for seven or eight years. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 23, 1992 Commission was concerned that with all the correspondence and discussion of retroactive building permits in 1988 applicant went ahead and did additional work without a building permit. Mr. Larratt said his wife did not feel safe parking in the carport so they added the door. Molly Larratt confirmed this and that they dial not realize they would need a permit to put in the door. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff confirmed, if this application were approved, the variances and special permit would go with the property, if there were a request to add to the house this would be the required parking. Commission comment: there has been a good faith effort to try and resolve the problem but it creates more problems, there is not: enough depth for parking to code in either of the structures, would rather go back to the 1988 legal nonconforming carport or encourage property owner to come in with plans for a structure which meets code. C. Galligan moved for denial of the request as proposed, alternatives being to go back to the 1988 legal nonconforming carport structure within 60 days or to return with plans for a replacement structure with fewer variances. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: will reluctantly support this motion, would much prefer removal and replacement with a proper garage. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT FOR A PARTIALLY COMPLETED FENCE AT 1705 EASTON DRIVE11285 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff review, 3/23/92, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, code requirements, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Dennis Beaver, 1705 Easton Drive, applicant, was present. He discussed how the fence project started, a shack at the rear of the property on a creek was damaged by a telephone pole, he and his neighbor at 1285 Cortez Avenue cleared the area at the rear which was overgrown with ivy and became aware they needed a fence between the two properties for privacy. He drew the plans for the fence. Regarding height of the fence in the front yard, they thought a uniform fence would be best but if unacceptable a lesser height _-would be fine, they would like a fence in the front. A Commissioner wondered why the fence needed to extend beyond the area where the two gates are located. Applicant noted many fences along Easton extend out to the sidewalk. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: can understand applicant's need for privacy but do not believe the fence needs to extend beyond the grates in the front setback. C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 23, 1992 applicant's need for privacy and moved to grant the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 24, 1992 Site Plan, Fence Elevation, 1705 Easton Drive Site Plan and 1285 Cortez Avenue Site Plan; (2) that the Chief Building Inspector's March 4, 1992 memo (verify the fence will resist overturning, wind and seismic loads) and the City Engineer's March 9, 1992 memo (front of fence shall be two feet from back of sidewalk to remain on private property) shall be met; (3) that the maximum fence height allowed in the front setback shall be five feet; and (4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE (ATM) AT 975 ROLLINS ROAD (7-11 STORE), A RETAIL USE PERMITTED BY A USE VARIANCE IN AN R-3 ZONE Reference staff report, 3/23/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's; letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussed the definition of a free standing ATM being considered a financial institution and needing a special permit. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Catherine Samir, representing The Southland Corporation and Steve Chow, manager of this 7-11 store were present. Ms. Samir advised there has been no increase in parking or customers with ATM machines in their other 7-11 stores, this site has 15 on-site parking spaces, more than many of their stores, the average time a customer is on site is five minutes; Allied Interstate is the company which installs the machines. There were no audience comments in favor. Norman Moore, 908 Linden Avenue expressed concerns about increased crime, traffic congestion, dust and trash; he was awakened by gun fire from the 7-11 site one night not long ago, cars race through the neighborhood at 3:00 A.M., trash is thrown in their bushes, he was afraid all this might increase with addition of the ATM. Ms. Samir replied to these concerns stating that as a neighborhood store they want to contribute to the neighborhood, she did not think the ATM would contribute more trash, etc., if they are advised by neighbors they will clean up trash; regarding the gun fire incident, that was the first such problem in many years, it was one of a series of holdups along the Peninsula, they keep low cash levels in the store and are very security conscious. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission -Minutes Page 5 March 23, 1992 C. Graham stated she had no problem with this application, the ATM is a free standing unit which will be moved into the shore, there will be no construction, Ms. Samir has addressed the issue of trash, the ATM will not increase traffic significantly, ATM's at banks are open 24 hours, this is a 24 hour ATM which will be supervised. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. C. Mink noted history of this use on this site, he was on the Commission 27 years ago when the use was approved in an R-3 zone with operation from 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., a few years later 7-11 requested a 24 hour operation, at that time PlannincCommission denied the request to extend hours thinking the neighborhood would be impacted, City Council approved a 24 hour operation. Now 7-11 is asking to extend this operation to another activity, it is an extension which will further impact that neighborhood. Another Commissioner wanted to add a condition requiring review. Following some discussion about how often, the necessity of any review and how review would be carried out, C. Graham added a condition requiring review in one year and every two years thereafter. Conditions follow: (1) that the project'shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 5, 1992 Floor Plan and Site Plan (8-1/2" x 11"); (2) that the ATM shall be available 24 hours a day seven days a week and shall. be located at the rear of the store; (3) that any new signs for the ATM shall require separate application for a sign permit and possible sign exception; (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (5) that this special permit amendment shall be reviewed in one year (March, 1993) and every two years thereafter. Motion for approval with conditions was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, C. Mink voting no, C. Galligan voting no on the basis of the review condition, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures wereadvised. Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. 8. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE STORY, THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 962 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 3/23/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. A letter (March 19, 1992) from the property owners of 966 Chula Vista Avenue (received after preparation of the staff report) was noted. This letter suggested landscape screening between 962 and 966 Chula Vista and expressed a concern about the appearance of the fire department connection in front of the new building. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE advised the flood zone in which this site is located covers -a portion of this Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 23, 1992 block, not all lots on Chula Vista, the elevation of one of the lots was raised so it is out of the flood area. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, applicant, was present. He noted in 1991 they had submitted plans for a four unit condominium which was denied by Planning Commission and City Council, this redesigned three unit project addresses all concerns and issues raised last year; the immediate neighbors seem to be at peace; size of the project has been reduced 25$; open space has been increased, it is four times the required amount for common open space; they have addressed the issue of height with the front at two stories and the rear at three stories, this should maintain a good facade compatible with the other buildings on Chula Vista. Regarding letter from the neighbors at 966 Chula Vista, there will be no problem providing landscape screening and they will meet with the: Fire Marshal to determine a location for the fire connection with the least impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Mortazavi advised he had talked to the neighbors one of whom is an architect after the last meeting to clarify their concerns prior to any redesign but had not taken the redesigned plans to them. Location of trash cans was discussed with the applicant, this will be checked by the CE. The following members of the audience spoke. Linda McLaughlin, 958 Chula Vista Avenue: she was not opposed to the revised project but for the record she noted there has been talk of down zoning Chula Vista, if this project is built she will be located between two multiple family structures; she suggested no action on permits until the issue of down zoning is addressed. Her concern was that if this site is developed she did not want to be denied the opportunity to develop her property. Commission pointed out to her that this project is now in process, they cannot defer decision until zoning issue is addressed, Planning Commission is not the body to order a moratorium on. permits. Ellis Schoichet, 966 Chula Vista Avenue: he noted his letter regarding landscape screening in the side yard, the main issue is one of compatibility, he was uncomfortable with three stories, this would be the first three story structure on that block; he was aware the Fire Marshal would have the last word regarding location of the Fire Department standpipe but he hoped care would be taken with its location so that it does not impact the residential zone. Russell Mauk, 966A Chula Vista Avenue: he commented height of the building probably will kill off the lawn they just installed in the back; he thought color of the building should be light to diminish its size and detail of the building as shown on the plans should be adhered to. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham complimented applicant on the revised project which appeared to be something everyone could live with. C. Graham then moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -451P and the condominium permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be 1 built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 23, 1992 date stamped February 27, 1992, Sheets Al, A3 through A-9 and L1, and March 3, 1992 Tentative Map Sheet 1; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 3, 1992 memo and the Parks Director's February 20, 1992 memo shall be met; (3) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided for access to the designated guest parking in the garage; (4) that the guest parking stall 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; (5) that final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (6) that the.developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to 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; (7) that the parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners and their guests, and no portion of the parking area and aisles shall be converted to any other use than parking or used for any support activity such as storage, utilities or other nonparking uses; (8) that the furnaces and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside of the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; (9) that a silent auto warning system shall be installed at the access/egress to the parking area; (10) that the project, including egress and access requirements, shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (11) that landscape screening shall be installed between this property and the property at 966 Chula Vista Avenue (letter of 19 March 1992 from Ellis and Lisa Schoichet and Russell Mauk); and (12) that location of trash receptacles shall be approved by the City Engineer. Motion was seconded by C. Mink with the comment that: if this were not a condominium project it could have been approved with a counter permit as an apartment building, it is an_advantage.to have a condominium with owner residents, there are many benefits, this is a good project. C. Jacobs told the neighbors that even though they did not want this project they had made a difference. Motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOT 21, BLOCK 11, EA.STON ADDITION; 962 CHULA VISTA AVENUE Reference CE's agenda memo. CE advised the map is ready to be forwarded to City Council for approval. C. Mink moved to recommend Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 March 23, 1992 this tentative condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Galligan and approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Ellis absent. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO BUILD AND OPERATE A GRAPHIC ARTS SOFTWARE DEMONSTRATION LABORATORY IN THE LOWER OFFICE LEVEL AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference 3/23/92 staff report with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Larry Baca :representing Aldus Corporation, applicant, was present. They have no problem with the suggested conditions of approval. The equipment is not on the site now, but Commission can inspect it when it is there if that is required. Responding to a question about chemicals on hand, Mr. Baca stated a typical amount can be measured in five gallon containers, each machine requires no more than 10-15 gallons of liquid in separate five gallon containers, this would have about the same hazard as a one hour photo operation. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall. be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 6, 1992 Floor Plan and Site Plan (8-1/2" x 11"); (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's February 19, 1992 memo and the Fire Marshal's February 10, 1992 memo shall be met; (3) that the demonstration laboratory shall operate Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. with two employees and about 10 visitors in the first year growing to 80 visitors in five years; and (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Hillside Area Construction Permit - 2700 Summit: Drive - this item has been called up for review by a neighbor. - Minor Modification -.1133 Killarney Lane Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 March 23, 1992 We ` -a a D-ifza TWOTZ4 CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its Marcia 16, 1992 regular meeting and discussion at the March 18, 1992 study session. The meeting was adjourned -at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal, Secretary 01