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