Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.04.22lk3AUN►111-00-y CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Ellis on Monday, April 22, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford, Coffey (7:32) and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Acting City Attorney Natalie West; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Assistant Fire Chief, Ken Musso MINUTES After was a numerical correction to page #6, the minutes of the April 8, 1996 meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE AT 835 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED, R-1 (RUSSELL AND GAIL JACKSON, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS) Requests: provide site plan or photos of the uses on the adjacent properties to the side and rear of the proposed garage; describe size of existing house, square footage and number of bedrooms; identify the use of the areas shown as dead space on the plans; will there be heating and insulation in the garage; explain what was meant by the comment, "just barely violates declining height envelope"; reason why the additional living space was not added to the house; work phone listed at same address, is there a home occupation at this site, do they need a permit; Item set for hearing April 22, 1996. Be ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. APPLICATION FOR AN ANTENNA EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING ROOF MOUNTED ANTENNA AT 2925 ARGUELLO DRIVE, ZONED, R-1, (ANTHONY AND HELEN SOOKLARIS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration, a corrected aerial noting addresses on the neighboring properties was distributed to the Commissioners. The staff report containing the Acting City Attorney's memo was read into the record. Commission asked questions about the other antennas on the house and the intent of conditions #5 (does it address a vegetative screen) and future obstructions and #7 (removal). CP and ACA responded that if it is maintained a vegetation screen is fine and the antenna ordinance pertains to what transpires now, not what might happen in the structural environment in the future. The applicant benefits from the use of the antenna and can agree to bear the burden of its removal. Acting Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Mr. Sooklaris, the applicant, 2925 Arguello Drive and Robert Mulready, representing Coit Com., 1757 E. Bayshore, Redwood City, were present. Coit Com installed the antenna. Mr. Sooklaris, the property owner, noted that he has. the dish to get Greek language programming, but he likes to watch other programs available as well; he spent $2, 800 to get this antenna and he does not want to see it removed. . The Commissioners asked several questions: there are two antenna, one on each end of the house, in addition to the dish, are they all necessary - the applicant noted that he bought the house 5 years ago and those TV antenna were in place, one connects to this wife's TV which is not cable ready and the other he uses as a back up when his cable service and dish are not functional; has the dish antenna been moved since it was installed three years ago - the dish has not been moved; the installer noted that he visited the site today and the only area he saw was in the patch of grass by the shed in the rear yard. The general rule for installation is to find an "out of sight, out of mind" location where the dish will receive. He was aware that certain areas require permits for installation, he did not do this installation, and did not know why no permit was applied for, they will get any permit required in the future; dish needs to receive from southwest to southeast, in the opinion of the Coit Com representative, if moved toward the pool the fence would affect reception; could dish be moved away from the house 4 or 5 feet in to the cement patio, directly from its present location and lowered below the roof line - could reduce the height if the corner of the roof were not there, he noted that in his site visit today he had not considered relocating the dish within the cement patio area; difficult to determine the effects of various locations since no site plan was provided nor a written report indicating places on the site under given conditions where the antenna could receive, concern is that the consideration is impact on owners yard not consider impact on neighbor; appears that antenna could be relocated away from wall and lowered - coit com representative said that could probably lower pole to 12 feet since the ridge of the roof of the shed is about 9 feet, would need a support from the free standing &,a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 pole to the wall of the house for stability, the dish will rise about 3.5 feet above the end of the pole, overall height would be about 14 feet when positioned. There was discussion about how the various dimensions were arrived at. Could remove one of the two TV antenna's on the house, applicant noted he would have to purchase a new TV if that were the case. Neighbor's letter was read into the record, it noted that preferred present location to one where the antenna would be even more visible. There were not further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the request: would like more information on the existing antenna pole height and an evaluation of how much it could be lowered if moved out from the house into the cement area, including if it would be visible to the neighbor; continuation of action for more information is an option to consider; feel that vegetation should be added for suitable screening and that the applicant should be responsible for relocation if future construction in the area later affects his reception; would not favor removal before sale; cannot see the dish at its present location from the street; if placed any where else need representative of Coit Com to help determine best height and aesthetic location; it is not appropriate to require removal of TV antennas; based on pictures antenna looks to be 17 or 71.5 feet tall not 15 feet. C. Galligan moved to continue the item to the next meeting for more information. Seconded by C.Key. In discussion on the motion it was noted that the neighbor who was most affected opposed relocation, at its present location the dish cannot be seen from the street; it appears relocation would reduce the height by about 3 feet; since the applicant is entitled to an antenna there are not many locations, would like to see the antenna removed when he sells the property; the future owner can reapply if he/she wishes to retain it; shed is as big a problem to the neighbor as the antenna because it blocks views down the canyon; need to act tonight. C. Galligan removed his motion to continue. C. Key, the second, agreed. C. Deal moved, by resolution, with amended conditions to approve the existing location for the dish antenna for the reasons stated, the neighbor did not object, it is visible from the street only in a small area, the site is small, the swimming pool takes up most of the rear yard so there a few possible choices for locating the antenna, this is one of the better. The motion included the following amended conditions: 1) that the satellite dish antenna is installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 13, 1996 Site Plan (81/2" X I ), and photographs with notations (81/z" X 11"); 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspectors' March 18, and April 15, 1996 memos shall be met: 3) that the installation of this satellite dish requires a retroactive application to the Building Department, with proper plans and engineering calculations, as required for a Building Permit; 4) that the installed antenna dish shall not have a diameter greater than 7'-0", nor rise more than 15'-3" above the surface of the ground or concrete pad, and pole and dish are painted black with a nonreflective paint; 5) that the applicant or property owner shall be responsible -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 for an amendment to this use permit if future construction or natural growth occurs on any adjacent property requiring the relocation of the dish antenna, removal and reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant and/or property owner; 6) that the applicant shall permanently maintain the nonreflective surface of the dish and its support structure, or remove all the equipment and support structure; 7) at the antenna shall be removed before the close of escrow when the property is sold to another party; 8) at as installed the satellite antenna shall meet all the requirements of the California 1995 Building and Fire Codes, including connections from the antenna inside the building to the television equipment; and 9) that any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this antenna exception. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey and passed on a 4-3 (C. Galligan, Key and Coffey dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO REPAIR AT 45 STAR WAY, ZONED, M-1, (N. & S. CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNERS AND WILLIE DAVIS AND RICHARD AMBROSIO, APPLICANTS) CONTINUED FROM APRIL 8 1996 Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Willie Davis, 149 Quibic Road, San Bruno and Richard Ambrosio, 324 Cedar Avenue, Millbrae, the applicants were present to answer questions and explain their application. They have read and would comply with the conditions stated in the staff report. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed the adverse parking situation they observed on this and properties that are adjacent on Star Way to this site. The property owner has a responsibility to be responsive to requests for information and details appropriate to this property and adjacent properties, parking spaces and commitments for other tenants must be identified. The uses on the other sites and parking calculation for these uses were also requested. The plan as submitted is incomplete. C. Deal made a motion to deny without prejudice asking that a site plan be submitted to the commission for their use showing where the parking is for each use in that area. The motion died for lack of a second. C. Galligan made a motion to continue this application to the May 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting stipulating information is necessary from Mr. Crisafi clarifying the parking assignments and rental of parking spaces to the properties on Rollins Road. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Motion was seconded by C. Key. April 22, 1996 The motion was amended to reopen the public hearing and consideration was given to continue the public hearing to May 13, 1996 and to including a request for that portion of the leases pertaining to parking for this and adjacent sites be presented along with the tenant/parking information. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. The motion passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised 4. APPEAL OF CITY PLANNER'S DETERMINATION ON CLASSIFICATION OF A USE IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS INCLUDING SUBAREAS A, B AND 13ROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. Reference staff report, 4.8.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the appeal to the City Planners determination that a video instruction facility was classified as a "school/educational". Acting Chairman Ellis opened the hearing. Mr. Besley, 512 Second Street, Third Floor, San Francisco asked that this business be determined to be a retail/personal service use much like a beauty salon or barber shop when calculating traffic and parking. He noted that there is a limit of 300 members at a mature site and there are approximately 450 visits each week or 65 per day. There is no regular pattern to use although they are busiest from 3:00 - 6:.00 p.m. A site generally has 18 computer terminals and children stay about an hour; they want to be in family oriented downtown to be visible not in an office. Hours of operation are Monday -Thursday, 2:00 - 8:00 p.m., Friday, 2:00 - 6:00 p.m., Saturday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and Sunday, 11:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Generally have 4-5 instructors on site at one time; no maximum or enrollment 350 largest site to date. There were no other comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussed the logistics and a commissioner noted he visited a nearby site and observed; discussion of diagnosis; coaches interacting with the children; drill and practice which was what educators did and concluded this is, in fact, a school and could locate in a zone where a school would be allowed, C. Galligan made a motion to uphold the determination of the City Planner that this is a school use. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and passed unanimously. VIII. PLANNER REPORTS . CP reviewed City Council regular meeting of April 15, 1996. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P. M. MMUTES4.22 no Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary