Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.01.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City df Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, January 25, 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; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 11, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1265 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: show the large oak tree in the back yard on the plans or provide a sketch with location of the tree; confirm there are no utilities other than electricity in the proposed garage; garage is shown 8" from property line, will there be a fence along that side and if so how will maintenance be performed on the side of the building; building height is shown 14' from top of slab to top of ridge, height should be measured from grade; can water drain to the creek; describe how backup requirement of 22' was arrived at; is there a redwood tree located close to the new garage, if so would like an arborist's report reviewed by Parks Director on how construction might affect this tree. Item set for public hearing February 8, 1993 or when all requested information is available. F Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 25, 1993 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT, LANDS OF HUTNICK, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 23, KENMAR TERRACE, APN 027-271-340. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE Requests: explain item l.a in the negative declaration; can all these roads stay private, since cutting trees anyway why cari"t there be a 30' wide street, there is no guarantee with a 20' street all the trees will be retained; how will no parking on the private road be enforced; why require bonding for retaining walls prior to development; on lots 1 and 3 will detached garage require a side and/or rear setback variance because they are outside the rear 30% of the lot; home on lot 3 appears to be placed much higher up the hill than on lots 1 and 2, why; if tentative map is approved with no restrictions on development of each lot it will be too easy for a future owner to justify a variance later, since the lot was created is that grounds for hardship; fire department reaffirm 24' width of driveway will be sufficient for emergency equipment; is this the best mechanism to subdivide the lot, is the configuration of lots being driven by the location of the existing house, would something else be better if existing house were removed; clarify requirement of minimal bonding; will private street and driveways be built to city standards; applicant refers to similarly sized lots in the city which have been easily subdivided, where are these lots and are the slopes as difficult as the proposed lots. Item set for public hearing February 8, 1993 if all information is available. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCES, LANDS OF MOLAKIDIS, LOT 5, BLOCK 2 CORBITT RANCH APN 029-055-060 729 LINDEN AVENUE Requests: lot coverage figure for the parcel with the existing house and what lot coverage would be if the existing garage were relocated to this parcel; if this subdivision is granted how will it further R-2/multi family zoning on the property; letter from the engineer states there will be front setback variances for both parcels, is this correct. Item set for public hearing February 8, 1993. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND HALF BATH AT 916 PARK AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/25/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized this request for three special permits for size of detached garage, exceeding 10% storage in relation to the main dwelling and a half bath in the proposed garage. She discussed applicant's previous request which was denied without prejudice, staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 25, 1993 Commission asked how many bedrooms in the house and. determined size of a three car garage is 600+ SF (31' x 211). Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. David Nava, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised the previous application had required two special permits, they are now asking f"or three special permits, the laundry is shown on the new plans; an expansion of the house is in plan check now, they are adding a second story of 1,038 SF, 10% of that will add to the allowed storage in the garage, if they decrease the width of the garage from 38' to 36' the wing wall on the left front corner would need to be replaced with steel and would cost much more. A Commissioner wondered why they needed so much storage in the garage if they are adding such a large second story; applicant advised he has considerable equipment which needs storage space; the remodeled house will have four bedrooms, they are not living in the house now; there will be a study/den downstairs, he does not work out of his home; they have four cars, two boats and a camper.. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham commented that it seems everyone seeks to maximize every centimeter on their property, this proposal is too large, so huge it would be like a second house on the lot. C. Graham moved to deny the special permits, seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: agree, it is a bit big, if it weren't on property line wouldn't have a problem but it is 38' along the side of someone else's property, walls are 10' high which :is maximum allowed, if this were only a three car garage could approve; didn't have a problem with a three car garage proposal when it was discussed before but was concerned about a full bath, now applicant: has rectified the full bath but has much more than a three car garage, am opposed to the size of this proposal. Further comment: the previous project was denied without prejudice in order to allow applicant to come back, think perhaps Commission should have been more definitive in its direction; previous minutes indicated support of a three car garage and expressed concern about a full bath; discussion also noted concern about the size of the garage. Motion to deny passed on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Kelly voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR STORY, 20 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (CONTINUED FROM 1/11/93) 6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, .LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 6, MAP OF BURLINGAME TERRACE - 820 EL CAMINO REAL (CONTINUED FROM 1/11/931 Reference staff report, 12/14/92 (study), 1/25/93 (action), with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request, a previous project for T Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 4 January 25, 1993 this site, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letters in opposition were noted from Ellyn Freed Wickman, 815 Fairfield Road (January 11, 1993) and Hussein Najaf-pir, 824 E1 Camino Real (January 18, 1993) as well as a petition in opposition signed by 36 neighbors. Commission/ staff discussion: size and frequency for pickup of trash receptacles; easements for construction of retaining walls, need for an agreement between developer and adjoining property owners; if no agreement can be reached floor plan of garage could be changed; third floor elevation figure on plans is incorrect; CE's conclusion driveways may need to be moved to the north and the need for a traff is engineer' s study to assure maximum visibility; in the past Caltrans would not allow drainage to E1 Camino Real, they are somewhat less strict now, developer will have to work with Caltrans before construction can commence; concern about noise from fans in the garage. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Takuo Kanno, architect, was present. His comments: when they presented their first project he thought the redwood tree was the big concern, now there are 30+ neighbors opposing this project; generally he visits concerned neighbors but was not aware there was so much concern about this project, it has many inherent problems, the R-3 zoning abuts R-1 with no buffer zone; he spoke of two condominium deluxe projects with large units and less lot coverage, more landscaping, etc. which he introduced two years ago, today's financial market will not support deluxe units and the developer asked for as many units as possible on this site; he has preserved the redwood tree and addressed traffic concerns. Regarding retaining walls, any construction will have a fence, sometimes right on property line; since -this project is so close to property line some of the fences might be broken but developer will repair them. Regarding safety they will make every effort to maximize security for adjacent property as they excavate. The technique they propose has been proven in cities where buildings are constructed very close together; he will correct the third floor elevation figure on the plans; proposed driveway location is the only location possible for a 24'-26' driveway without affecting the existing eucalyptus trees, Mr. Kanno believed the place chosen provides the most visibility; ducts are not proposed to be placed within joist space, most ducts are provided in the corridor and in the kitchen, depth of the structural system will not be jeopardized. commission/ architect discussion: there will be a sump pump to pump storm water to the street, if Caltrans will not accept water to E1 Camino Real this site cannot be developed; architect said there is visibility along E1 Camino for 300' if one stops to look about 4' above the curb; there would be a problem for a guest if the gate at grade level were closed and the guest had to back out onto El Camino but he noted there are only two units at grade; 25 SF per unit storage will be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 25, 1993 provided, storage room would have 4' wide central corridor between divided plywood structures; usually garage storage is not allowed but architect thought they could negotiate with the building department in this case; referring to installations between floors, a Commissioner expressed concern that since an additional width is required and applicant must meet the 35' height limit they may have to lower the basement level, then driveway slope will be increased; architect did not think even if they lower the basement it would be more than 2" to 311. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Ellyn Freed Wickman, 815 Fairfield Road (presented photographs to illustrate her remarks); Rev. Rae Holt, pastor, First Baptist Church, 1430 Palm Drive (church owns 808 El Camino Real); R. J. Edwards, 1429 Palm Drive; Laura Findley, 808 E1. Camino Real; Len Privitera, 831 Fairfield Road; Lynnette Watterson, 819 Fairfield Road; Randy DeLue, 817 Fairfield Road; Diva Coulter, 844 Fairfield Road; Patrice Rossi, 820 Fairfield Road. Their comments/concerns: size of project, structure is too big next to R-1 zone; doubt they can go to the full height limit (351) with four floors and meet floor separation regulations; impact on light, air. privacy, noise, and safety to the homes on Fairfield; if project were cut in half to two stories, 10 units with private open space in a courtyard or facing E1 Camino Real, it would benefit the neighborhood; need temporary fence protection during construction; first floor parking is open and toward the rear so residents on Fairfield will see it, there will be noise from the fans, generators and security gate; backyard should be enclosed and landscaped with tall/fast growing trees so it cannot be used for overflow parking; traffic study needed for ingress/egress to El Camino Real; drainage will be a problem, basements on Fairfield flood now. The Chair advised a barrier will be placed when the fences and buildings on the lot line come down; city has an appropriate lighting ordinance which protects lights into yards; backyard landscaping will be required. Further audience comments: First Baptist Church, 808 El Camino Real has problem at present with residents of the area parking cars in their parking lots, they need the full lots on Sundays and sometimes for meetings during the week; many people have more than two cars, there will not be enough parking provided for this project; concern about retaining wall next to El Camino where driveway will be located, Board of Directors of First Baptist is opposed to the project, project will have negative impact on the neighborhood; there is a problem with sewer capacity along El Camino and parking in this area, project is too large for the property. House at 808 E1 Camino Real is small, it does not have much light now, with four story structure next door they will lose all their light; concern about dogs getting out of their back yard when property line garages are removed; residents do not use the driveway at e Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 25, 1993 808 E1 Camino now because it is a hazard, visibility poor in both directions, the proposed project will have the same problem, three balconies from the project will look into 808 E1 Camino's back yard, they will lose privacy. Concern about guests parking on Fairfield, there were -25 cars parked on Fairfield this evening; glad the redwood tree will be saved, not sure it can survive the impact of construction; Burlingame is unique, need to retain its old world charm and its trees, keep it a special community; have been a Burlingame resident for entire life, own a business here and bought a house on Fairfield, intended to stay, project will affect his privacy, safety in raising a family, there will be increased traffic and noise; there is a big sewer problem in this area, need for sewer system studies; there are 20 children, at least half of them below the age of 10, living on Fairfield Road now, concern about increased traffic and parking on Fairfield, danger to the children. Responding to a Commission question, architect said existing grade on Fairfield is lower than E1 Camino and site; at -grade parking will be about 1' lower than existing grade on site. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comments: sewer problems noted by speakers this evening, CE will investigate; concern about development along E1 Camino and in some of the city's other R-3 zones, there are a number of properties for sale on E1 Camino, small houses will be sold and older small apartment buildings, and applications will be coming in for large structures. C. Graham read into the record a portion of Chapter 26.30 Condominium subdivisions, Burlingame municipal code, referring to sound community planning; she did not believe a project such as this is sound community planning, it is not what the city intends for Burlingame; if every R-3 and R-4 property were built to the 'maximum the city's residents would have chosen to live elsewhere; aesthetic qualities of the community should be taken into account, this project is too big for the lot, it could be easily, downsized and still be a successful development, these 20 units selling for $250,000-280,000 have few amenities, do not have fireplaces. C. Graham moved to deny the condominium permit and negative declaration, finding it does not speak to quality of the neighborhood such as light/access which will be taken away from neighbors. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: if this project had come to the city as an apartment complex rather than a condominium it could have received a building permit; architect said he wasn't aware of the community concern or opposition to the project, concerns expressed this evening included noise, light, privacy, many could have been resolved if addressed earlier. Planning Commission administers zoning, applicant is not requesting permits other than a condominium permit, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 25, 1993 consideration this evening is how this type of project fits into the community as a condominium, Commission must recognize it could come back tomorrow as an apartment complex and be approved. Have concern with a general motion which includes both negative declaration and condominium permit; with the existing zoning and height any project built in R-3 at 35' will take away light and air no matter where it is constructed; do not see how an outside consultant can change light and air unless the structure is reduced; regarding the tree which is a concern to everyone, the city has a new ordinance with penalties if trees are not protected; can understand concerns about density and concerns expressed by people each side of the project; there are many apartment structures in the city with four stories, crime appears to be the same as R-1; privacy is a legitimate concern such as balconies overlooking R-1 back yards on Fairfield; biggest concern is the 35' height limit, putting a 37' structure into 35' space; opposed to the project because it doesn't comply with the spirit and intent of the ordinance; this is a three story area, if the City Council wanted four stories here they would have put in a 37'/38'/39' height limit; Further comment: it is too much on this property, if this is allowed others will want the same with everyone pushing the limit each time; it's not the architect as much as the developer/ property owner who wants to get the most out of the property; there are other problems, guest parking, people parking on Fairfield, not enough storage space for tenants; addressing conclusions of the negative declaration, neighbors indicate there will be an impact on the neighborhood, sewer capacity, traffic capacity will be impacted; have -a general concern about access, need a traffic study of E1 Camino Real in the future; generally negative declaration does not look at a specific lot but looks at the surrounding area, do not have a problem with the negative declaration, the project is fully served and meets the city's zoning, perhaps the issue of R-3 next to R-1 should be studied. Regarding the negative declaration an not convinced there will not be a substantial problem generated with traffic from this project, would be all right coming in but going out will cause safety problems; concerned about ability of the underground utilities to handle the needs of this site and for the visual bulk on E1 Camino Real; when the 35' height limit was developed the number was chosen to give designers some latitude for architectural features on three story buildings. Motion to deny the negative declaration passed on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis and Galligan voting no. Motion to deny the condominium permit passed 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Galligan moved to recommend denial of the tentative condominium map to City Council, seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 25, 1993 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE RENTAL AT 1008B CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 1/25/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comment, required findings. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP/Commission noted 10 parking spaces are designated on the plans for the use of this business, a number of hotels have car rental desks but store no cars on site, staff had no information on fleet size of other small car rental businesses in the city but has had no complaints about them; this proposal has fewer parking stalls for storage than some of the others Commission has looked at and approved. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Len Almalech,Enterprise Rent-A- Car, applicant was present. His comments: they do not operate at the airport, majority of their business is insurance replacement transportation, they do not have a shuttle service, do not use trucks/car carriers, often deliver the cars to customers at their home or business; his San Bruno facility will remain in operation; ten on- site parking spaces will be adequate for the Burlingame operation, if they do not have 90% of their fleet -on the road they would be out of business. Contracts will be written in Burlingame (this was added to the suggested conditions). They anticipate six employees; have rents as low as $16.99 a day, unlimited mileage. Since there is a car wash area on the site applicant requested he be allowed to wash and prepare cars on site (vacuuming/ cleaning inside the cars, no detailing/maintenance). CP suggested, since this type of use permit goes with the site, that the condition regulating delivery and pickup of trucks be retained. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan commented he has seen this business in operation at other locations, the 10 parking spaces requested are reasonable, have seen it operate in a shopping mall. Based on the statements in the staff report and information received this evening, C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 7, 1993 Sheet 1, General Floor Plan; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 11, 1993 memo (no car washing allowed without an approved site drainage and equipment) shall be met; (3) that the auto rental business shall be open Monday through Friday 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Saturday 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M., closed Sunday, with a maximum of six employees on site at any one time and a maximum average of 500 cars per month or 6,000 cars per year shall be rented from this site; (4) that 10 parking spaces shall be designated for the use of Enterprise Rent-A-Car and are located in the second row from Carolan Avenue as indicated on the plan date stamped January 7, 1993 Sheet 1, General Floor Plan; (5) thatno automobiles shall be repaired, maintained or detailed on this site; (6) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 25, 1993 that all deliveries and/or pickup of cars at this site shall be made on the site, no off loading/unloading or storage shall occur on any public right-of-way including public access areas, and no auto carrying trucks shall arrive or depart between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.; (7) that any change to the number of employees, use of the lot for auto rental, addition of services or secondary businesses to the site, or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; (8) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in one year (February, 1994) or upon complaint; (9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (10) that all car rental contracts and agreements shall be written in Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its January 20, 1993 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary