HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.11.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 1993
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame,
was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, November 8, 1993 at
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham,
Jacobs, Kelly, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith
Marshall, Deputy Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 25, 3.993 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. CP Monroe
noted that Item 14, 1147 B California Drive, had
been withdrawn.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND REAR SETBACK
VARIANCES FOR HOME OCCUPATION IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1304
MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: can we condition the temporary/part-time employee to use
on-site parking; if house is substantially remodeled can the
approval for garage be revoked by condition, want to avoid garage
becoming large structure then later have house become large
structure; that the structure has been there a ]Long time and has
good materials is not an exceptional circumstance, has nothing to
do with the property, ask applicant to Explain what is
extraordinary about the property itself for variances requested;
are there going to be two home occupations at this location; is
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 2
this area being occupied by someone as office or as storage space
for office equipment; lot of features about structure which are not
up to current code and will be difficult to get to current code,
concerned structure may have to be rebuilt to bring up to code,
have Chief Building Inspector review plans and determine what needs
to be done to bring up to code; if needs to be rebuilt, explain why
an addition to the house isn't the appropriate thing to do. Item
set for public hearing on November 22, 1993.
2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FOUR VARIANCES
FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED
3. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1128 CHULA VISTA
AVENUE, ZONED C-1
Requests: City Engineer comment on vehicle maneuvers, applicant
says he can do in 3, we say 4-5; include a copy of the auto
template used by the City; suspect we will be seeing more mixed
uses, briefly describe criteria we use to review these mixed uses;
what variances have been requested for other mixed use projects we
have reviewed; does residential condominium use take precedent over
commercial use as far as landscaping is concerned; why is 7'-6"
tall area under stairs not counted as open space; with housing
element discussion earlier this year will be movement toward mixed
uses, need some guidelines for review; do we have any idea how late
businesses will be open, concerned condominium parking stalls would
be used by commercial customers; does any residential parking need
to be designated as handicap; parking stall #1 below grade doesn't
seem to work, check vehicle maneuvers; can more landscaping be
provided at the front of the property; if one of the units can be
designated for low or moderate income by Commission by condition,
how would staff manage that; how will homeowners association and
CC&Rs be structured to represent shared residential and commercial
problems; will units be separately metered for utilities. Items
set for public hearing on November 22, 1993 provided that all
information is received.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICES AT 1147 B CALIFORNIA
ZONED C-2
Item withdrawn by applicant.
5. TENTATIVE MAP FOR LOT SPLIT AT 819-845 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1
Requests: does this end up with enough parking as required by code
for uses; a proposed condition requires a special. permit to build
any new office, what is the purpose of that condition. Item set
for public hearing November 22, 1993.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8; 1993
Page 3
ITEMS FOR ACTION
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE AT 1145 PALM
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 11/8/93, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of request, staff comments, required findings.
Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. Commission asked if setbacks were determined from
frontage on Crossway or Palm. Staff advised that the lot front is
defined as that side with the shorter street frontage.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Roy Brizio, 1145 Palm Drive,
applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: Right
now has one car garage and would like to get his two cars off the
street; would also like to get some storage cabinets plus washer
and dryer in garage and store antique car now stored off site; has
two bedroom house with very little closet or storage space.
C. Kelly asked about the offset garage door and whether the
applicant intended to use this as a two car garage. The applicant
noted this would be a two car garage and that he preferred the
offset to create a storage area. C. Jacobs noted the house was
1500 SF and the proposed garage was 720 SF; asked if applicant had
cars on the street now. Mr. Brizio noted he had two cars on the
street now. Responding Commission's inquiry, he also noted
improvements to the outside of the house would be done as could be
afforded; he noted he has absolutely'no storage at all right now
and therefore decided to work on the garage first.. There were no
other questions from the Commission of the applicant. There were
no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Kelly asked staff about the condition #1 requiring the garage be
built as shown on plans; applicant stated tonight undecided about
garage door placement; do we care about placement. Staff responded
the driveway is there already; the location of the garage door is
logical; could amend the condition if Commission had a strong
feeling either way about the door placement. Discussion followed
regarding acceptable changes that do not require: the project to
come back to Commission; latitude given in past; CA Coleman noted
that condition to build as shown is written :because we have
applicants who do not build according to plans reviewed by Planning
Commission.
C. Mink noted he is growing increasingly unsettled about people
using their garages as warehouses; appreciates fact applicant has
antique car but there are other places to house it, in fact
applicant is doing this now; don't think we want our neighborhoods
to become small houses and large warehouses; Commission has had a
number of these lately and he has a growing concern.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 4
C. Graham had concerns about the way the house was situated on the
lot; felt the location of the garage would virtually destroy any
usable yard this property has; it takes away so much yard that it
harms the property; doing the property itself a disservice if
approve an application this large; think can accomplish some of
what applicant wants by reducing length or width of the structure
and therefore not be less intrusive on the yard; if applicant
willing to build smaller garage will be willing to make a motion on
this.
Procedural discussion followed. CP Monroe suggested Commission
deny without prejudice, give clear direction and have applicant
resubmit plans. C. Ellis agreed that the applicant would need a
clear sense of what Commission wanted; agreed too large; didn't
want to design for applicant; standard garage 400 SF, this is
almost double that; this is a big two car garage even when
considering the storage.
C. Graham moved for approval of this application by resolution and
with the following conditions: (1) that the garage shall be built
as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped October 19, 1993, with the same side and rear setbacks
except that the width be decreased to 211, exterior wall to
exterior wall and the side wall shall be kept 3' from the rear
property line; (2) that the conditions of the memos of the City
Engineer (10/25/93) and Chief Building Official (10/25/93) shall be
met; (3) that the garage shall never be used for or converted to
living area and (4) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Codes as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Motion to approve was seconded by C. Ellis with -the comment that
the applicant can always appeal this to City Council. Motion was
approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Mink voting no. Appeal
procedures were advised.
7. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 2716 MARTINEZ AVENUE,
ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 11/8/93, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of request, background regarding adjacent
neighbor's concerns/called up for review and required findings.
Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. There were no questions of staff.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Ren Zhoa, 222 East Valley
Boulevard, San Gabriel, architect for the project, was present. C.
Ellis noted the original chimney was removed. The architect noted
the project had a new type of fireplace with no chimney, just a
vent into the side yard. The gas fireplace cannot be opened to
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 5
burn items, it is primarily for appearance. There were no other
questions of the applicant.
John Morgan, adjacent neighbor at 2720 Martinez, spoke in favor of
the application; he had originally called the item --up for review;
he and architect had a meeting and that the project is now okay; he
did have a question about the a notation on the plans that said
"elevation renovations" . The architect clarified this referred to
new trim and framing around the windows of the house. There were
no other public comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs complimented the applicant, architect and adjacent
neighbor; it was a pleasure to have this all worked out and
therefore avoiding a contested public hearing; she moved for
approval of this project by resolution and with the following
conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October
29, 1993, Sheets A-1 and A-2; (2) that the finish material used on
the roof shall be non -reflective as approved by the Chief Building
Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the highest point on the new
roof of the addition shall be no greater than the existing roof
height or elevation 124'-6" whichever is less; and (4) that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and
Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Motion to approve was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the
motion: Addition blocks out very little view; asked if in the
future somebody wanted to build a real chimney they would have to
come to Commission. CP Monroe confirmed this is correct. Motion
to approved 7-0 on voice vote. Appeal were procedures advised.
8. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 731-733
LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-2.
Reference staff report, 11/8/93, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of request, background of previous subdivision of
parcel creating this lot and side setbacks for future development,
staff comments, study meeting questions, residential condominium
criteria, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal explained he works
with the applicant and would be abstaining from any discussion and
voting on the project; he passed the gavel to C. Galligan.
CP Monroe clarified this application was submitted. after floor area
ratio and was instituted but those regulations apply only to single
family development; she also noted R-2 properties are subject to
the second story setbacks of the declining height envelope.
C. Galligan opened the public hearing.
Applicant Alan Olin, 1121 Killarney Lane, was present; he noted
this project is for him and his in-laws; he is an architect and
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 6
therefore would be using and office in the house for his work; in
response to the question about the extra door in the master
bedroom, he noted the Internal Revenue Service requires a certain
defined work space; in response to inquiry, noted he intends to
apply for a home occupation permit. There were no other comments
from the public; the public hearing was closed.
Comments: Feel this structure is too large; equivalent to a 6
bedroom house, feel too big for this lot and this neighborhood; did
not support the original lot split for feat- of getting an
application like this; will not be supporting this application.
Discussion continued regarding why the structure ended up looking
this way, lot is long and narrow; for two units, four covered
parking stalls are required, only a few ways to configure. It was
noted this is less than 40% lot coverage; earlier questions about
access have been answered.
C. Mink moved to approve the application with the condominium by
resolution and with the following conditions: (1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped September 22, 1993 Sheet 1, 3, 4 and
Sheet 2 date stamped October 15, 1993 and Tentative Map Sheet TM -2,
date stamped September 22, 1993; (2) that the conditions of the
City Engineer's October 19, 1993 memo shall be net; (3) that the
final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy
issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (4)
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; (5) that the parking garages
shall be designed to the 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 shall be converted to any other
use than parking or used for any support activity such as storage
units, utilities or other nonparking uses; (6) 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; and (7) that the project shall meet
all the requirements of the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building
and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
There was no discussion on the motion. Motion was seconded by C.
Kelly and approved 5-1-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham voting no and
C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 7
9. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 731-733 LINDEN
AVENUE, ZONED R-2
Reference staff report, 11/8/93. C. Mink moved for this tentative
condominium map to be recommended to City Council for approval
subject to the following conditions: (1) that prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the Final Parcel ;Map creating this
parcel and approved by Burlingame City Council at their meeting of
February 17, 1993 must be recorded; and (2) that any utilities to
this site be installed underground.
Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 5-1-1 on roll call
vote, C. Graham voting no and C. Deal abstaining. Staff will
forward to City Council.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 221 PARK ROAD,
ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A
Reference staff report, 11/8/93, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed the details of the request, staff comments, required
findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
A commissioner who had read City Council minutes asked whether
Council's present review of the antenna ordinance affects this
application. CP Monroe said no; Council has delayed the action on
that ordinance until after their February study meeting; although
the proposed ordinance will address residential and commercial
satellite dishes, they are typically more of an issue in
residential areas. Commissioner asked about the! location of the
dish since it was unclear in the application; the dish is at the
front of the building and can be seen from the public right of way.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. The applicant was not
present. There were no other audience comments; the public hearing
was closed.
C. Graham moved for denial of this application because she felt the
antenna could be better located so that it is :not visible from
street frontage as others are in the area; also the applicant was
not present. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs.
Comments on the motion: Concerned if no other logical place to
locate antenna, applicant would have to remove it: and wait a year
before reapplying; felt it was better to deny without prejudice and
then let the City take action it needs; CA noted this is a code
enforcement item; we've had a true lack of cooperation on the part
of the applicant; noted the applicant has the right to appeal to
City Council or could submit plans with a different location for
the antenna and reapply; -noted Commission recently had a similar
request for an antenna on a bar nearby, the antenna was placed well
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 8
back beyond the street and could not be seen from. the public right
of way; thinks the building in question is large enough to relocate
antenna; only requirement would be to have antenna face south or
southwest; will support motion; would also support motion; not
denying because of a dislike for the applicant or because the
applicant is not here; feels antenna could be located elsewhere.
City Attorney requested for the record he has never met the
applicant.
Motion to deny was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Galligan
voting no. Appeal were procedures advised.
City Attorney was asked if necessary to direct staff to commence
abatement procedures. City Attorney responded no, but if the item
is not appealed, he would.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR RETAIL SALES AT 850
MITTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 11/8/93, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed the details of the request, required special permit and
variance findings. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Staff was asked if it able to
determine if there was any access or egress agreement with the
adjacent property owner; CP Monroe did not believe there was one;
could ask applicant during public hearing. In response to a
commissioner's inquiry, CP noted this was not a code enforcement
item.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Architect Tim Valenti, 4100
S. E1 Camino Real, San Mateo, was present. Also present was
Richard Ruggeri, property and business owner. C. Galligan asked if
there was any access or egress agreement with the adjacent property
owner. Mr. Valenti noted that his research did not turn up any
such agreement; did find through research, however, that this site
was divided from a larger property; all three properties, 850
Mitten and the adjacent parcels on each side have driveways on the
property line which are shared; in response to inquiry, noted the
adjacent property owner has not been contacted to assure, in
writing, that this tenant can use the adjacent property for
driveway and back-up area; this has always been shared. C.
Galligan recommended that a letter be written.
A commissioner inquired about the 50 visitors expected to the site
in one day; asked about parking on Mitten; applicant responded
there were many cars parked on Mitten and his customers do not stay
long. Further comments: Hoped business is successful and knew
Council spoke of allowing more retail in the M-1; but wondered if
parking in front would be enough to serve the customers and what
impact this may have on adjacent properties. Applicant noted he
would like to petition the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 9
to either paint the curb or place signs placing time limits for
parking during business hours.
A commissioner asked what type of delivery trucks would be coming
to the site and which ramps would be used for loading and
unloading. Applicant responded most trucks are wholesale trucks;
wholesale operation is at the back, retail at the front; retail
customers could park at back and walk down the driveway.
Further discussion: Have only a 10' wide driveway if considering
location of property line; if wanted to, adjacent property owner
could put a fence up, leaving retail customers walking on a 10'
wide access with trucks and other vehicles; could access be
provided to walk through building; will insurance company allow it;
would retail customer feel comfortable walking through a wholesale
operation. Mr. Valenti noted more than just ;signage would be
needed to direct customers through wholesale area, perhaps a
partitioned area. Mr. Ruggeri did not have a problem with retail
customers in the wholesale area, this was the atmosphere he was
trying to create; currently has operation at San Francisco Flower
Market; ship from two growing areas, one in South San Francisco,
the other in Pescadero; moving shipping area from South San
Francisco to Burlingame due to proximity to airport and the pick up
for Peninsula clients is closer; also to serve existing caterer and
restaurant clients; trying to create a mini European flower market
similar to what he's developed at the San Francisco Flower market;
retail customers stay about 10-20 minutes; would not conflict with
trucks, most delivery trucks come early morning, retail customers
probably come late morning and afternoons. There were no other
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Mink moved to approve both the special permit and parking
variance by resolution and with the following conditions: (1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department date stamped October 18, 1993 Sheet 1, Site
Plan and Exterior Elevation and Sheet 2, Floor Plan; (2) that any
intensification of the use at this site shall require an amendment
to this special permit -and a parking variance; and (3) that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and
Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. He did
not see this as a significant problem to applicant or the public.
Motion seconded by C. talligan.
Comment on the motion: Would like to see some sort of pedestrian
or retail access from the rear of the building to the front;
heavily traveled street with little street parking; adding retail
compounds the problem; if parking at rear of building retail
customers must feel comfortable; a number of similar buildings in
area, not a problem; willing to amend motion to include a condition
for applicant to place a sign at the front directing customers to
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 10
parking; agree not a problem, many customers walk in from nearby;
if problem will know via complaint.
Motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures advised.
12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRAINING SESSIONS AT 111 ANZA BOULEVARD,
ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 11/8/93, with attachments. CP reviewed
details of request and required findings. Three. conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to
Commission inquiry, CP Monroe noted this is not a code enforcement
item.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Applicant Mike Hirabayashi,
1171 Compass Lane, Foster City, CA 94404 was present. He noted the
maximum of 20 people shown on the applicant was not the number of
people on a daily basis, this figure is for graining sessions
approximately three times per month; responding to inquires, noted
this is an after school supplemental program for any student, but
primarily for children; focus on fundamentals, main program is
mathematics; also have a new program designed to improve reading
skills; children will not be trained inside these offices, they are
franchisers and will be training prospective franchisees; all
trainees are adults; would not object to writing in condition that
all trainees be adults. Commissioner noted the reason for
condition; permit goes with the property; somebody else could come
along and have a school which operates differently due to age of
trainees; clarified that children would not be disallowed from
site, just that they would not be trained on site, are allowed as
visitors with franchisees; extent of retail sales slight, most
shipped by UPS through warehouse, local franchisees sometime prefer
to pick up materials, City did approve this same use at on a
different floor of this building some years ago. There were no
other audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs noted this will not create an impact and moved to approve
the application by resolution with the following conditions:' (1)
that the project shall conform to the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped October 6., 1993 Sheet 1,
Parking Plan and Floor Plan; (2) that the second exit shall be
installed prior to any more training sessions taking place at this
site; (3) that the project shall meet all requirements of the
Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City; and
(4) that all trainees be 18 years or older. Motion was seconded by
C. Mink and approved 7-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 1993
Page 11
13. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NINETEEN
UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 808-820 EL C'AMINO REAL, ZONED
R-3
Reference staff report, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of request, background and comparison of previous
proposals, history of Planning Commission review, staff comments,
correspondence received, study meeting questions, required findings
and criteria for permitting a residential condominium. Thirteen
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Staff response to Commission's inquiries: CE Erbacher noted the
City does not want roof drainage pumped; confirmed that if drainage
goes to E1 Camino Real, it needs to be approved by CalTrans; had
discussed sanitary sewer issue earlier with a neighbor; not aware
of storm water problem, this City does not have a lot of
underground storm drainage systems where it is piped; most of City
drains by overland flow to a few catch basins into pipes to the
major storm drainage system; overland flow under heavy rain is a
normal condition; this site is at a relatively high point on ECR
and drains overland onto Fairfield now. In addition, he noted
stall #35 has a 30' back-up area, which is more than the required,
this is a large area and driver can enter/exit in three maneuvers;
driveway ramp area is relatively open and has good separation for
sight; documentation for easement location has not been done yet
because this is a tentative map, that will be included with the
final map.
CA Coleman noted that although he has not seen paperwork regarding
the easement, an easement granted in perpetuity is just that, a
perpetual easement.
Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Michael McCracken, attorney
representing the property owners, was present. He agreed with
everything in the staff report and had three key points: This
project is consistent with the General Plan, consistent with R-3
zoning and there are absolutely no variances requested; in addition
this has been a deliberative process subject to fairly extensive
negotiations with neighbors; project does not seek the maximums
allowed; referred to tables in the staff report; asked for a
rebuttal period if necessary after others speak.
Responding to Commissioner's inquiries, Mr. McCracken noted this
proposal is a product of discussions with neighbors; he attended
one big meeting with neighbors, there were other meetings which Mr.
Novosolov and Mr. Kanno attended; this particular proposal came
after those meetings and after the petition; depending on which
letter, some were written before this proposal, some were written
after; regarding what was negotiated, after discussion and
deliberations with neighbors the number of stories has been
reduced, the number of units has been reduced, egress problem onto
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 12
ECR has been addressed at great expense to the owner, drainage
issues have been addressed, the redwood tree will be preserved.
A commissioner asked about the pastor's authority with regard to
documents in the packet assuring egress and drainage easements; CA
Coleman noted in order to have a recorded document, will need
signatures from the legal authority, whomever/ whatever that may be.
Takuo Kanno, architect for the project, was also present.
Regarding the maple tree, he noted the garage wall can be located
5' from the maple tree, he can provide 61; regarding negotiations
with neighbors, developer offered a number of° mitigations to
neighbors; at least one or two neighbors at that time were willing
to discuss, for example, building of fences, processing of fence
exceptions with the city, and provision of landscaping on the
neighbor's properties to soften impact; after all this done, about
10 days later had indications from neighbors they opposed project;
at that point, technical negotiations ceased. Regarding the 2h'
wide deck area for D units; the architect responded this was a
conscientious design on his part to reduce noise: and view impact
upon neighbors; he had enough space to place a larger deck; intent
for use of space perhaps for plants. ll
.l
Reverend Ray Holt, 1425 Palm Drive, Burlingame:, also spoke in
support of the project. He also represents the First Baptist
Church at 1430 Palm Drive; church is in full support of project;
originally spoke in opposition; since then three things happened.
First, 1429 Palm Drive was put up for sale; church owns other three
lots on that side of street and for a long time church wanted buy
1429 Palm and put all the properties together; at the same time,
developers approached church to purchase the church property 808 El
Camino Real, this was ideal because the proceeds from the sale of
808 El Camino could be used to purchase 1429 Palm. Secondly, he
had originally opposed the number of stories (four) in January
application, this is no longer a concern with new three story
design. Third, there was a lengthy process by the church
membership to approve the egress and drainage easements, it was not
an arbitrary process; the decision went though the finance
committee and the Board of Deacons, who are lay people elected by
the church; they approved negotiation of sale of property including
egress and drainage easements and the purchase of 1429 Palm; also,
in a Baptist church it is required the whole congregation vote on
items like this, was a congregational meeting which all members of
congregation were noticed; congregation voted overwhelmingly in
favor of all those conditions; all legal documents are signed by
the Chairman of the Board, Debbie Cortese, who is elected by the
congregation and a Burlingame resident; she is in full support of
project as proposed but could not be here tonight; she signs the
real estate contract and easement documents.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 13
Regarding egress through church parking lot, he called the church's
insurance company, Church Mutual; insurance company assured him
they have several other churches which have provided easements
through their parking lots for access/egress for 'various projects;
the insurance company felt there was no reason not to grant the
easement as long as liability insurance is provided'by the project
owners. Regarding the parking lot and the number of vehicles in
it, previously had a problem with local residents parking there; it
is still a periodical problem; custodian deals with it by placing
a note on the car; has sign on lot, neighbors welcome to park there
as long as cars are moved on Saturday night for Sunday services;
with additional 19 units, sure to be new people parking there,
church will deal with it as do so now; there's been a lot of
cooperation.
Regarding statement that the egress easement is de facto rezoning
of church property as a whole, the church buildings are zoned R-1,
parking lot is zoned R-3; to him, having an egress easement through
church parking lot would not change the zoning of church as whole,
even in a de facto sense; it is unlikely the church would sell the
property for development of single family dwellings; it would be
too expensive to tear down the church building; the church has no
intention of selling or moving; church property on, the peninsula is
at a premium; there isn't land large enough for churches to build;
even if the church wanted to sell, most likely buyer would be
another congregation; receives letters 2-3 times per year from real
estate agencies indicating there are congregations looking for
church properties and to let the agency know if he knows of
anything; submitted a recent letter from real estate company dated
October 28.
Regarding the concerns of the neighbors, he understands their
concerns, especially those who live on Fairfield and whose
properties are adjacent; also believes that when those people
purchased homes adjacent to R-3 properties on E1 Camino, was sure
they anticipated that sometime in the future that ;property would be
developed, particularly when looking at the type of development
along E1 Camino Real; the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are
designed to mitigate the impact on surrounding properties; this
project meets those standards; Mr. Novell and Mr. Kanno have
responded to the concerns of the church, commission and neighbors;
project as proposed would be an improvement to the present
appearance of the three lots on E1 Camino Real.
Laura Findley, 808 E1 Camino Real, Burlingame, also spoke in favor
of the application; she had been in opposition before; she would be
staying in the neighborhood and moving to the 1429 Palm Drive
address. In the January meeting she did speak in opposition to the
project feeling her single family dwelling would be dwarfed by the
four story project; that is no longer issue; there was a letter
from a- man at 824 E1 Camino Real who said his single family
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 l
Page 14
dwelling would be affected; this struck her as odd because her
daughter used to deliver newspapers there and 824 E1 Camino has
three separate units, A, B, and C; submitted picture showing
mailboxes; shared property line with 815 Fairfield; there has been
concern with the maple tree; she felt the maple tree was infested
with termites, submitted portion of maple tree which has fallen in
her backyard; would like to see maple tree preserved, submitted
pictures of tree; also submitted copy of work order to install stop
signs at Palm & Paloma; submitted picture of storm drain which she
feels needs to be cleaned out; other pictures also submitted
showing slope of street. No others from the audience wished to
speak in support of this project.
Ellyn Freed Wickman, 815 Fairfield Road, Burlingame, spoke in
opposition to this project, owns property directly behind 808-812
El Camino Real. Addressing Planning Department and the Planning
Commission; felt there was confusion regarding the neighborhood's
position; some people in Planning and on Commission think the
neighborhood doesn't want anything there; this is not their
position, it would be unreasonable; this project and previous
project are too large for neighborhood and adjacent R-1 property;
asking Commission to limit the size of this project and the number
of units to lessen impact on neighborhood and adjacent properties.
Regarding purchasing property adjacent to R-3 property, true in her
case but there are people who have had property in their family
prior to the R-3 zoning. Noted church is comprised of four lots
zoned R-1; called Planning Department when she purchased the
property and asked if the 808 lot could be developed; was told no,
only 42' wide and too narrow; when bought her property, those 808-
820 was three separate lots, if developed individually would have
light coming through; now one lot, light will not come through
between buildings; between the 10' side setbacks; will be one 35'
high structure. When developer bought property :it fronted on ECR
with the huge eucalyptus trees, it had the retaining
wall/visibility problem, not over a storm drain, did not have an
easement or permit to drain and would have to get one or the other;
had redwood tree which developer seemed oblivious to; attempting to
buy 808 ECR, there is a•maple tree there; called developer to tell
him to protect the maple tree, thought would save him a step in the
design; he didn't know what tree she was talking about, her point
is the argument works both ways, she bought R-1 property next to R-
3 property, and visa versa; just want it developed in a way to
lessen the impact on neighbors.
Regarding specifics of project: Stormwater easement, two locations
shown; her house 3' from church; if location for ea$ement approved
along northeasterly line, potential damage to her house,
particularly foundation during construction or if line breaks; if
project is approved, would prefer stormwater easement through
parking lot and would not have any objection to a higher fence.
Does not feel discussions with developers were: "negotiations".
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 15
After January, 1993 denial, developer, at the Planning Department's
suggestion, called her; new plans were developed for the now three
story building, but was still 35' tall, still same number of units;
was told by attorney McCracken that height and number of stories
were non-negotiable; since issues were density, height and light,
and because developer wanted to talk about planting trees then she
told him the project would go back to the Planning Commission;
that's the context of the "negotiations" she knows of with Mr.
Novell, Mr. Kanno & Mr. McCracken; she doesn't know of any others.
Regarding density of project, was four floors, now three floors,
only decreased SF by 1200 SF, changed by one floor and one unit;
still 35' tall, 38 bedrooms with 38 stalls; before was 34 bedrooms
with 37 parking spaces; side setbacks are 101, excavating garage to
property lines; fails to see how this is less dense; fails to see
how impact on neighborhood is less dense.
Regarding the egress easement, had two concerns; the present-day
church use of parking lot is not a proper standard to judge this
project; need to judge on typical church uses; church is not as
financially sound as it once was; has potential for greater use;
what happens if church folds and new church comes in; what happens
to the lot if church is gone, if congregation size increases or if
chooses to rent out a portion or open a school; will this project
be conditioned for the present day church uses; there's a Friday
night group and Sunday afternoon group that meets there; it's a
polling place and other events besides occasional weddings; if made
undesirable as R-1 property could become R-2.
Regarding the driveway ramp, thinks unfair; the driveway at her
property line is a ramp; underground garage starts at about the
property line between 815-817; right behind her :is the ramp; cars
accelerate up; her property zoned R-1 and knows lot of things
aren't fair, but would like to see something fair for her; could
put driveway on El Camino side of property; thinks de facto
rezoning because noise of acceleration will be heard from her yard
and bedroom.
Regarding the maple tree, both arborists say soil disturbance
outside of dripline is ideal; not all impacts discussed, cannot
guarantee tree will survive; if ramp near E1 Camino would save
tree; whose is responsible if tree roots grow into retaining wall,
limbs/leaves falling resulting in injury to person property
resulting from tree, her or the developer; is emotional issue but
also economic, these are not issues before Commission, there is
better way to develop these properties; asked to deny project and
negative declaration as proposed.
Robert Teal, 1433 Edgehill Drive, Burlingame spoke; has been there
since 1957; church desperate for this project; church used to be as
good as its congregation, now as good as its business; there's no
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 16
limit to number of people who can live there; parking nearby is
terrible, street sweeper comes on Tuesday, only goes down middle of
street; sewer department has been there all dAy today and three
times this week; gray water going down street regularly, used to
only be in the winter, don't know what problem is but can't support
given what's there now; three unit apartment behind him now and
takes away sun, with no sun no gardens and houses damp; noise
problems; property values destroyed; neighbor planted trees which
grew to 35' tall, they don't help at all, doesn't help noise or
anything else; the parking lot only one in the neighborhood, why
take away a portion to use for anything else, it's used all the
time; doesn't think there are termites in the maple tree; apartment
house behind him has an oak tree, people use it to dump automotive
oils and radiator coolants, steam cleaning engines that's how
people treat the trees; would like to see project ;severely limited,
it's time to tone these down; too big, too many now and not fair to
the neighborhood.
Patricia Scheppler, 1415 Palm Drive, Burlingame, spoke; lives on
east side of the street; even when there aren't leaves falling,
west side gutter fills up and water runs across street where
another gutter tries to take out the other water; yes, her cars hit
by drunk drivers, but maybe driver could have stopped it there
wasn't water on the street; problem needs to be fixed; she has sump
pump that runs all winter; there is water underneath their house.
Patricia Harriman, 800 Fairfield Road, Burlingame, also spoke in
opposition; can an impact study be done on the additional water
which would drain to the corner of Fairfield and Palm; the hill
slopes down to this point and that's where the problem is.
Evelyn Walker, 804 Fairfield Drive, Burlingame: also spoke in
opposition; water now flows from her driveway into her garage,
concerned this project would exacerbate the problem; also concerned
about increase in traffic and parking problems.
Lynette Watterson, 819 Fairfield Drive, Burlingame, also spoke in
opposition; she submitted a letter from neighbor Carolyn F.
Mulliken, 1428 Edgehill Drive, who opposed the project but could
not be at the meeting tonight. Ms. Watterson liver behind proposed
project; moved to city 10 years ago in part for old world charm and
big trees; first people Mr. Novell contacted regarding this
project; Novell asked for letter authorizing storm drain through
her property; she expressed concerned about redwood tree; plans
showed removal of tree; Mr. Novell said a new redwood tree would be
planted; after consideration Wattersons decided not to authorize
storm drain; developer offered to save tree in exchange for
authorization and said authorization would not interfere with
project's progress; --later emergency tree ordinance adopted.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 17
Ms. Watterson stated the project brings serious concerns for the
neighborhood; regarding traffic, there are a lot of children; Palm
and Fairfield intersection is dangerous, has severe flooding
already; a childcare center is there, increased traffic could be
lethal; water accumulates under her house now, had to install sump
pump; increased runoff would make this worse; sewage backs up into
basements of homes on Fairfield due to old, cracked, deteriorated
sewer lines; feels existing sewer system should be replaced before
adding to the problems; disconcerting to have structure so tall so
close to her property line; would block light and view of trees;
balconies would increase noise and decrease privacy; fence between
properties may affect redwood's root structure; should make every
effort to protect Burlingame's charm; E1 Camino doesn't need
another block of buildings asking for occupancy.
Randall DeLue, 817 Fairfield Drive, also spoke in opposition; lives
directly behind project; three neighbors immediately behind realize
land can be developed, is okay with them but developer doesn't
appear to be interested in neighbor's concerns or willing to
compromise; issues and concerns neighbors brought up were not
addressed in the plans; had suggested balconies facing an interior
courtyard, this did not happen; developer does not care.
Mike Randolph, 841 Fairfield Drive, Burlingame, also spoke in
opposition; he is at the corner of Fairfield and Edgehill, is
surrounded by R-1 properties; not concerned with the developer's
business enterprise and sale of homes developer would not live in;
more concerned with traffic problems which would occur at the far
end of the street; 38 more cars on the street everyday does poses
a problem when children and senior citizens are considered; can
neighbors rebut the developer's rebuttal at the end of hearing;
felt the stated "negotiations" were more like informational
sessions; neighbors are galvanized, please consider this is a big
issue.
Hank Sauer, 840 Fairfield Drive, Burlingame, also spoke in
opposition; Planning Commission and City Council have made very
clear they want to limit structure size in Burlingame via floor
area ratio; R-3 properties seem to have a whole different set of
rules, developer can combine properties and make one big structure;
bigger is not necessarily better; if limiting size of single family
dwellings, should apply these regulations to other forms of
development; there are few high rise structures we are glad we
built; lifestyles of people who live here should not be affected by
developer trying to put most units possible on lot. There were no
others wishing to speak opposed to the project.
Michael McCracken, attorney representing the developer, stated
there is no such thing as de facto rezoning; this is just an
easement across a parking lot; these are emotional issues, some
real, some not; these are typical issues arising in a land use
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 18
setting; the way to deal with them is through the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, Planning Department and CEQA; these all give
information needed to address competing issues; reality and basic
problem is you have an R-1 district next to an R-3, the best you
can do is minimize the conflict; a competent sensible planning job
done by the Planning Department; developer has played by the rules,
listened intently to Planning Director, neighbors, Commission;
applicant should be applauded for changing plans; staff has
analyzed; concerns have been addressed; has seem no substantial
evidence or facts to warrant a denial of this application.
Commission asked what possibilities were there for reducing height.
Architect noted if pumping were allowed for roof drainage, could
lower about 11; would cause more grading, which may affect roots.
There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: Never known any property in the City other
than the Fisherman Restaurant, whose egress is over an adjacent
property; has a problem with this idea; once done will be done
again; another problem is the height of project on this R-3 lot;
when considering commercial projects, unable to consider
availability of any off-site parking; feels only two guest spaces
available after eliminating disabled accessible stalls, feels guest
parking inadequate and there will be off-site parking, off-site
parking not appropriate for commercial or residential; the church
lot is not a public parking lot; agrees property values will be
reduced because of height; there will be loss of light due to mass
of this project; more typical to see single lot development with
light, air and access between structures.
Further comments: Applicant was careful to design within the
limits; if these were the only things we had to consider, would not
be here tonight; have to consider condominium criteria cited item
"b" (community compatibility) of criteria, that's what he heard
tonight, and these are the reasons why cannot support.
More commissioner discussion: This started as a bad application;
has changed significantly; as reviewing, realized project could be
much more intense; could be built as an apartment without public
review; the first project, with this same density, on two lots, not
three could have been built with a building permit as apartments;
feel denial would deprive applicant of property rights.
Commission has discretionary review with condominium development;
uncomfortable with egress easement; development will create more
runoff; felt the most attractive part of this application is the
mitigation of the impact upon El Camino Real by use of egress
easement onto Palm; good use of underused parking lot; not
concerned with easement in perpetuity; concerned church understand
the parking lot would forever be a parking lot, obvious church
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 19
understands that; number of three and four story structures in
immediate vicinity of project, even church itself three stories;
many tall structures in area, ordinarily not a problem but lots on
Fairfield adjacent to this site are downhill; concerned about loss
of air and light; parking lot is necessary for entire block; City
has obligation to investigate drainage problems, will exist with or
without this project, separate and distinct issue; no problem with
the number of units, there is enough parking on-site; within
maximums on lot coverage and height; just because it can be built
as apartment doesn't mean we should approve as condominium; should
recognize that it's downhill to adjacent properties, seems if you
can put four stories in 35' you can put three stories in something
less; thinks proposal makes sense, does feel. height can be
reworked, don't see why has to be 351; not a problem which cannot
be resolved, assuming project can come in at some reasonable
height, neighbors need to realize project will be built in some
fashion.
Further discussion: In January 1993, Commission denied project 7-
0; and City Council denied without prejudice; wonder if 1200 SF
reduction is a redesign of the project; in discussion changes to
January project were noted including the addition of a parcel and
reduction in number of stories; if deny this project we should tell
the applicant what we want in terms of access and design.
C. Jacobs moved to deny the negative declaration and project, based
on all the concerns stated; feels exiting is a problem; project
should stand on it's own; size should be limited because it is on
a higher slope than the properties behind on Fairfield; difficult
project due to terrain, exiting, drainage, traffic, must take this
into consideration;. Motion seconded by C. Graham with comment
that while true previous project could be built as apartment
building, it is also true it is extremely difficult to get
financing for apartment buildings.; so it is less likely the
applicant will build a a rental project.
Chm. Deal suggested Commission should take a vote on the negative
declaration separately. C. Jacobs moved to deny the negative
declaration. Seconded by C. Graham. Motion to deny failed, 3-4 on
a roll call vote, Crs. Ellis, Galligan, Mink and Deal voting no.
C. Galligan move to approve the negative declaration on the basis
that the project would not have a significant impact on the
environment and that the required mitigations would be incorporated
into the conditions of the project. Motion was seconded by C.
Ellis and approved 4-3 on a roll call vote, Crs. Graham, Jacobs and
Kelly voting no. Chm. Deal noted the approval of the negative
declaration is separate from the condominium project and the action
does not mean the condominium project was approved.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993
Page 20
C. Jacobs moved to deny the condominium project for reasons stated.
The motion was seconded by C. Graham.
Comments on the motion: Many issues here tonight; feelings can
become facts in conflict situations, and that's what; -we have here;
Commission cannot accept them as facts; does not like the project,
bulky, little to say with respect to architectural amenities but
developer has played by the rules; have to acknowledge that
developer has done what our code has asked him to do; Commission
must give direction to applicant; feels solution to exit onto side
street not better than exit directly onto ECR; development should
be self supporting, not dependent on adjacent land; 50 years from
now don't want somebody asking how this happened; asked the
applicant to come forward with a solution; he did bring a solution
which works; asked them to do a lot and they've done what we've
asked, even bought more land to do it; if the problems have been
mitigated need to approve; project should stand on its own, cannot
predict how parking lot will be used in the future.
Motion to deny approved 5-2 on a roll call vote, Crs. Mink and Deal
voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.
14. TENTATIVE MAP FOR NINETEEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 808-820 EL
CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
C. Jacobs moved to recommend to City Council denial of tentative
map. Motion seconded by C. Galligan and approved 5-2 on a roll
call voted, Crs. Mink and Deal voting no. Map well go forward to
Council with Commission's recommendation.
PLANNER'S REPORTS
City Planner reviewed City Council actions/discussions at it
November 1, 1993 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary
I