Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.06.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 26, 1995 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, June 26, 1995 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Key and Mink Absent: Commissioner Deal Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal; Bob Barry, Assistant Fire Chief and Leah Dreger, Planner. MINUTES The minutes of the June 12, 1995 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. ACTION ITEMS The applicants were advised that 5 of the 7 Commission members were seated this evening. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes of the whole commission in order to pass a motion on action items. The Chair asked if any of tonight's applicants would like to delay their action until a full commission is seated. None of the applicants came forward. 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR WINDOW IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES, AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 309 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (JEFF MOORE, PROPERTY OWNER AND DEBRA KAUFMAN, APPLICANT). (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 12, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION) Reference staff report, 6/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria for findings, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission discussed with Planner what the parking requirement is for the existing uses at the property and what the request would mean without the carport. City Planner stated that one covered and one uncovered parking spaces were required for the present 3 bedroom house. Without the carport the request would only be for a window within 10'-0" of property line. C. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jeff Moore, property owner of 309 Bayswater Avenue and Debra Kaufman, designer, 924 Beach Park Road, Foster City, discussed the application. Mr. Moore stated that he has lived in this house for eight years and had heard from neighbors that the previous garage had burned down. He and his wife believe that the garage aid carport as shown provide ample parking for their needs while preserving their deck and allowing use of their backyard, going wide with a two car garage would affect the deck and reduce his children's play area because the lot is narrow. He stated that he and his wife have no problem maneuvering their two vehicles down the narrow driveway. He stated that they have no future plans to expand the house. A commissioner asked if the gate further back in the driveway would be removed, the concern being that it restricts the driveway even more. Mr. Moore stated that the gate would be relocated further towards the front of the lot, but not removed altogether. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that they understood the applicants desire to upgrade the property, however there were concerns about the carport being considered the second covered parking space in the future when it did not meet any code requirements; if the gazebo and some of the landscaping were removed, a two car garage could be accommodated on the site; the window could be addressed in other ways, such as a skylight; driving so close to the house would be a hazard; can not identify unusual circumstances on the property; this is a young family and most young families today need a two car garage; would rather see a single car garage at the back of the property than this situation. Commission had granted similar carport/garage proposals, but in the other situations the garage was existing, not new. There were other ways to address window in garage and other ways to address the second covered space. Commissioner Key moved to deny without prejudice this application. Motion seconded by C. Galligan. After discussion of the window location not being a building or fire code hazard the motion was amended by C. Key to deny the three variances and approve the special permit for the window within 10'-0" of rear property line. The amended motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 5-0-1 (C. Deal Absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -2- 2. FINAL MAP FOR 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 (BOREL/POPLAR DEVELOPMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). (CONTINUED FROM TUNE 12, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report, 6/26/95, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria for findings and reasons for continuation of the project from the June 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, at his request. No public hearing was required for this request, just recommendation by the Planning Commisison. C. Mink moved to recommend the final map to City Council, seconded by C. Ellis and approved 5-0-1 (C. Deal absent) on a voice vote. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AT 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 (JONATHAN WU, APPLICANT REPRESENTING ALL PROPERTY OWNERS). (CONTINUED FROM TUNE 12. 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Reference staff report, 6/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, including the proposed changes to the illumination plan, reviewed criteria for findings, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Fifteen conditions, seven of which were new because of the revisions to accommodate the proposed changes, were suggested for consideration. C. Jacobs re -opened the public hearing. There was a question regarding the applicants letter in response to the City Engineer's requirement to have the bus drivers wait until the people going to their cars had started their engines before leaving. They discussed the difference between waiting for the engines to be started and waiting until the vehicle had left its parking place and what constituted excessive caution. Chris Robinson, Moss Beach, contractor representing the property owners, commented that he preferred requiring the bus drivers to wait for the people to start their engines rather than waiting until they had left their parking space. He felt that this requirement was excessive although he understood that the City did not want to be liable for any problems that might occur as a result of the lighting levels. He also felt that the condition left open the possibility of a lawsuit because such a condition could be cited in the future and that the areas with less than 0.20 foot candles of light could be singled out as problem areas. He went on to state that the company running the long term airport parking is a good service company which offers such free services to its customers as dead battery recharging. People with car trouble would not be stranded because there is continuous circulation of buses. Otherwise, all of the conditions are understood and acceptable. He would like clear and concise findings for the owners. Commission discussion: How far can we go to protect adults from themselves; this business has enjoyed a good security record for the last three years; there have been no people to people confrontations. Although the intent of the condition requiring the shuttle to wait for customers -3- to get their cars started is good, it is excessive. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Discusison: condition regarding people starting their engines is unenforceable and the company running the parking lot has a good record; believes that the difference between 0.14 foot candles and 0.20 foot candles would be imperceptible to us and it would take a technical study to prove the difference; had a bit of a problem with condition requiring the employee parking stalls to be striped at 10' wide by 20' deep. C. Ellis moved to approve the project with all conditions except to amended condition #9 to strike out the need for the bus drivers to wait until people started their cars. Seconded by C. Mink and failed on a 2-3-1 (Cers. Galligan, Key and Jacobs dissenting and C. Deal absent) on a roll call vote. Discussion: commented that the engine starting portion of condition #9 is over broad; hoped that at their own will, the company would have their bus drivers wait in the under lit areas; asked to have the under lit areas identified on the plan. CE Erbacher explained where the areas of concern were located (west end of lot, mid -west end of lot and back side of middle) and reiterated his concern about the great differential in lighting intensity and how it will be extremely difficult to see across the bright areas. Further discussion: not concerned about difference in intensity; wasn't able to determine the exact number of spaces that are effected in the under lit areas of the lot, but guessed at 45 to 55; suggested that those spaces be used last and only if the lot was full, but is inclined not to make a condition. C. Galligan moved to approve the four other requests; 1) the increase in number of employees, 2) the decrease in parking stalls, 3) the reconfiguration of the front entry, 4) increase in parking aisle dimension and to deny the request to provide fewer lighting standards for less even illumination than the original approval and to strike the portion of condition # 9 regarding shuttles waiting until patrons have entered their cars and started the engine from the conditions including from the City Engineers June 19, 1995 memo. Motion seconded by C. Key and approved 5-0-1 (Commissioner Deal absent) on a voice vote. CP Monroe stated that this action meant that the previously approved lighting plan was still in effect. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 18 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 (THOMAS CONDON, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 6/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria for findings, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three -4- conditions were suggested for consideration. A commissioner asked for some history of the site. CP Monroe noted that at one time three properties were used as one by a contractor whose employees lived in the three single family houses; when the owner died the lots were sold separately in a probate sale, as is. She noted none of the existing conditions on the property were the fault of this applicant. C. Galligan stated that he must abstain from the vote and the pubic hearing because of his involvement with the previous owner, Mr. Sofos, and subsequent dealings with some of the current owners. He left the room. Commissioners had questions of staff: wanted to know what kind of building code or fire code hardships might arise if the city required the structure at the rear to be removed; what would it mean if a survey showed the structure to be extended over the property line. CP Monroe stated that there was no way of knowing how much work would have to be done to bring the building into current UBC and UFC compliance since the building was not built with permits (by the previous owner); as a condition of approval the city could require a survey. C. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Tom Condon, property owner of 18 Arundel, explained that he had bought the property as is and now wanted to remove the 'concrete desert', provide a three car garage for his three cars and create a private 'middle yard'. Since his house is pushed to the back of the lot there is no other place to have a yard except in front of his house. He stated that he is wants to improve his property and keep his cars safe from vandalism. The applicant stated that he has three cars, two of which are considered collector cars, so needs a three car garage. Applicant stated that everything he owns is stored in the rear structure and in his house, he as a lot of things to store. The rear structure is not used as a shop. Stan Vistica, 24 Arundel Road, wanted to comment on the project. He felt that the size and placement of the garage turned a 'blind side' to his property. He felt that the garage structure could be placed on the property in such a way to make it more pleasing to the eye from his house and the street. He felt that the design could be softened as well. Mr. Vistica wanted to be clear that he was not opposed to the project all together. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: felt that using the existing 68'-0" front setback in determining the average front setback on the side of the street skewed that average unfairly; there were ways to "soften" the front wall of the garage such as adding a window; thought the lot coverage issue should be addressed in order to bring property back as close to 40 % as possible; wanted to know how difficult it would be to remove the portion of the rear structure to improve lot coverage situation, if the three car garage was reduced to a two car garage that the size issue would be resolved and the lot coverage problem would be helped; felt that the front setback at 15'-0" would not be a problem, but the word "soften" would be a problem, what does soften really mean? The front setback issue was less important than other issues on the property. -5- C. Jacobs moved to deny without prejudice the requests for three special permits, front setback and lot coverage variances. The commission would like to see a re -design which addresses the size of the garage, the lot coverage issue and would like a survey to find out what the present lot coverage is and how much of the rear structure is over property line. Seconded by C. Key and approved on a 4-0-1-1 (C. Galligan abstaining and C. Deal absent) roll call vote. Commission noted that front setback is less of an issue and is not appropriate for the commission to re -design the project, but commission may give guidance for issues for the applicant to work on. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FREIGHT FORWARDING AT 1336 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (SCHROEDER -WALCH PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER AND PILOT AIR FREIGHT, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 6/26/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria for findings, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. A correction in the staff report was made to change the 10:00 p.m. closing hour to 2:00 a.m. because the applicant had called ahead concerned that he had misrepresented his operation. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Rick Bagetta of Pilot Air Freight stated that he wanted to confirm the change in the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday to 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Friday because much of what they do is emergency freight forwarding. Frank Walch of Schroeder - Walch Partnership spoke in favor of the application stating that he had run Amerford Air Freight for approximately 20 years at this location and that he and his partner were particular in picking a new tenant. He stated that Pilot Air Freight is a very good tenant which has done much to improve the property. He also stated that all of the trucks and the employee vehicles can be accommodated on site because the site has ample parking. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: Commission had no concerns about this application, felt that there should not be any restrictions on the hours of operation, felt it appropriate to allow twenty-four hour operation. C.Mink moved approval of the special permit for freight forwarding by resolution with three conditions including amendment allowing twenty-four hour operation Monday through Friday: 1) that the uses at the site shall be conducted in a manner as described in this application and any changes in operation shall require an amendment to this use permit; 2) that the hours of operation shall be twenty-four hours, Monday through Friday and half day on Saturday with a maximum number of 10 employees on-site at any one time; and 3) that the project shall meet In all requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The approval was based upon past successful experience of freight forwarding operations on the site and facts included in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 5-0-1 (C.Deal absent) on a voice vote. 6. DISCUSSION OF ROTATION AND ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSOIN SECRETARY. C. Ellis noted the loss of C. Patrick Kelly and the need to elect a new Secretary for the Commission. He then moved to nominate C. Key as Secretary. C. Mink moved to close the nominations, C. Ellis seconded the closing of the nominations. The Commission voted 5-0-1 (C. Deal absent) on a voice vote to elect C. Key, Secretary. Commission discussion: seating preferences and needs; importance of communicating special/specific needs with chairman; the role of the Commission relating to project review and implementing the zoning code; the effect of City Council decisions on commission interpretation; the need to review the zoning regulations occasionally and adjust them, if warranted, to the pattern of decisions; the issue of conversion of storage areas to bedrooms in single family houses; how to handle the zoning code abuser, more rules are not the answer maybe one has to look at expanded enforcement such as pre -sale inspections; the value of the commissioners meeting once or twice a year for working sessions such as this to develop better understanding. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. MIN6.26 -7- Respectfully submitted, Karen Key , Secretary