Loading...
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 CP Monroe noted that Item 14, 1147 B California Drive, had been withdrawn.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