Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.01.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, January 14, 1991 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 December 10, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved with the following corrections: Item #6, Hillside Area Construction and Creek Enclosure Permits, 2652 Summit Drive, page 4, clarify that Mr. Lee indicated the retaining wall will be placed on 20' pilings; Item #6, page 7, motion approved on a 115-0" roll call vote. AGENDA - Staff noted Study Item #3, Sign Exception, 1333 Bayshore Highway, has been continued. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE - 1542 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: site plan and elevation showing relationship of this development to adjacent houses; provide frame or other marker indicating the new ridge line. Item set for public hearing January 28, 1991. 2. VARIANCES TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK - 1347 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: what would lot coverage be if lot were divided, average setback on that side of the street; more information, other than to match the existing house, on why new addition cannot be moved inside the side setback and declining height envelope. Item set for public hearing January 28, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 14, 1991 3. SIGN EXCEPTION - HYATT REGENCY HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 Study item continued to the meeting of January 28, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. FENCE EXCEPTION TO BUILD A GATE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 2620 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/14/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. William Garibaldi, applicant and property owner, was present and expressed his concern about prowlers. He advised the gate will be locked, have an electronic opener and an intercom system; they have had only one prowler (in August, 1990 when his wife was home alone), they did not make a police report; gate will be custom made, black with gold color on top, lettering will be in gold. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found no problem with this request, there are 5'-6' hedges in the neighborhood, the slope of the driveway is an exceptional circumstance, there will be no public hazard and neighboring properties will not be materially damaged. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1990; (2) that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit with the City Engineer within 30 days of Planning Commission action; (3) that the property owner shall maintain the existing hedge on either side of the gate at a maximum height of 5'-0" from the adjacent grade; and (4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING HEDGE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 1316 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/14/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. CP noted letter in support dated 1/14/91 from Pat Grabinsky, 1325 Castillo Avenue. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 14, 1991 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing.. Jon Lueders, representing the applicant and property owner, Joyce Earnhardt, discussed the application: houses in this area are elevated with rooms built over the garages, the top of a 7' hedge is below the windowsill of their's and an adjacent house, they are requesting the same protection as one would have on flat land, in this case a 7' hedge will not provide this privacy; regarding concern of the neighbor at 1312 Castillo, applicant is willing to trim the sides of the hedge to meet the neighbor's needs; this hedge is beautiful, if reduce to 7' it would lose its natural shape. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Lueders noted that when there is a slope there is a tendency to put a garage at the bottom of the slope and build living area above, on flat land garage and living area are generally at grade and a 7' hedge would cover windows in that case. Many houses on this block have large trees which provide some screening. Mike Owens, son of the property owner at 1312 Castillo Avenue, told Commission they enjoy the higher hedge but in certain places it is too tall, it should be reduced to the top of the windows and the hedge which overhangs their property should be trimmed. He was also concerned about damage to adjacent walkways and driveway from tree roots. Mr. Lueders presented a petition in support signed by 43 neighbors who received the notice of this hearing. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion a Commissioner commented on Chapter 25.78 Fences and Hedges; he had a problem with the wording of the ordinance and noted the code restricts height of fences but does not specifically restrict height of hedges; based on present interpretation, if this 17' hedge were approved he saw nothing in. the code to prevent someone putting up a fence of that height; also the code could be interpreted that a hedge should not be restricted in height; he felt there are benefits from a living fence/hedge and did not think it should be restricted to 71, but was concerned about a hedge being replaced by a fence at the same height. Comment continued: some applicants have only asked for 1' over the maximum height allowed, this hedge is 17' to 20' high along a 50' length, if Commission grants this request it will set a precedent for such hedges all over town. CA said he would bring suggested amendments to the fence/hedge code to the next Planning Commission meeting, past policy has been if a hedge is lost it cannot be replaced by a fence, Commission can change policy but it will need to be reviewed by Council. Commissioner comment: would vote against a motion for approval of this hedge, such an action could conceivably be interpreted as license to come back and build something else. CA and CP stated if approved this could only be replaced by another hedge. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 14, 1991 C. Deal found if the hedge were trimmed to the top of the second story windows and the overhang onto the neighbor's property removed he could see no problem, there are exceptional circumstances in that applicant's living area is on the second floor, without the hedge there is no privacy. C. Deal moved for approval of the fence exception with the two conditions in the staff report, that the hedge be trimmed to the top of the second story window frame and the portion overhanging the adjacent neighbor's property be removed. C. Ellis seconded the motion with the statement there are similar situations all over town, problem is basically excessive height, hedges do intrude on neighbors' driveways, he could support the motion with the added conditions and would be glad to see changes in the wording of the fence/hedge ordinance, it is not consistent. An additional condition was suggested and accepted by the maker of the motion and the seconder, that the height of the hedge as conditioned be maintained by the property owner. Comment on the motion: would certainly like to have a hedge next to my house for privacy but does Commission want 20' hedges all up and down the block, cannot support the motion; it is one thing to allow privacy with a 7' or 8' hedge but this request is for 17' to 201. A further condition was suggested and accepted, that there be a 30 day time frame for completion of the trimming. Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Mink and Graham voting no, C. Galligan abstaining with the statement he was not opposed to the application but opposed to interpretation of the ordinance. C. Mink moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Graham. Motion failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Galligan and Kelly voting no. C. Deal moved to reconsider his original motion, seconded by C. Ellis, all aye voice vote. C. Deal moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the existing hedge is placed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1990 and December 28, 1990; (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; (3) that the height of the hedge shall be reduced to the top of the second story window frame; (4) that the overhang of the hedge onto the adjacent property at 1312 Castillo Avenue shall be removed; (5) that the reduction in height and removal of overhang shall be maintained by the property owner and this reduction shall take place within 30 days; and ( 6 ) that the hedge shall not be replaced with a fence. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Mink and Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 14, 1991 6. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXTEND A FIRST FLOOR WALL AS PART OF A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 825 MAPLE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/14/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, staff clarified parking requirements. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Bud Macaire, applicant and Neil Gabbay, architect were present. Responding to questions, Mr. Gabbay advised depth of the footings of the existing wall is 24" into grade, he did not have a calculation on the percentage of the house which is new construction. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: it appears the majority of the existing house will be demolished, this is not a remodel, it is almost a total replacement; it is basically a new house, when this house is ready for remodel it will have a floor about half the size of the new floor with bare studs, no ceiling, no interior finish, no exterior finish, no electrical or plumbing, no heating, and there will be foundation work to be done; the retained areas may need new footings to meet seismic requirements. For these reasons C. Deal moved to deny the side setback variance, seconded by C. Mink. Comment on- the motion: applicant is keeping some percentage of the interior and wants to extend the perimeter only 711, he is keeping a little over 20' of existing foundation; floors are not level in most old houses, applicant will have to level up the house causing foundation work and undoubtedly will find dry rot; regarding seismic construction requirements for the existing foundation, staff advised the plan check will address this as a new building and applicant will have to meet all seismic requirements. The Chair requested comment from the architect: Mr. Gabbay stated this is a minor request, owner wants to keep the wall location; if the Building Department finds the foundation inadequate applicant will replace it; they are not putting a second floor over existing living area so less foundation is required, addition is in the rear and that is where they will need a stronger foundation; the only thing they are changing is the roof line. Possibility of moving the new addition back from property line was discussed. Motion to deny the side setback variance was approved 5-2 on roll call vote, Cers Kelly and Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 14, 1991 7. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1740 SEQUOIA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 1/14/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applidant's letter, required findings. Letters in opposition were noted from the following: Ernest L. Shaw, owner of 1726/1730 Sequoia (January 8, 1991); Harry and Gail Costa, 1746 Quesada Way (January 9, 1991); Louise Marie Mercks, 1742 Quesada Way (received January 11, 1991); Arthur C. Polizzi, 1734 Sequoia Avenue (January 9, 1991). Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: any additions to this property must come before the Planning Commission because existing lot coverage is nonconforming; this variance will be conditioned to these plans; staff discussed a number of alternatives with the architect. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. George Zigliotto, designer representing the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Sam Di Bella addressed Commission and referred to a large board of photographs: applicants have lived in this house for 32 years since the house was built, after hiring the designer they discovered existing lot coverage was nonconforming, they propose a second floor to fit the existing footprint; removal of one of the three bathrooms would not help much in meeting 40% lot coverage, would need to remove about 300 SF; the loggia (covered porch) on the second floor would match existing overhang. Responding to questions, staff advised allowed lot coverage was 40% maximum when this house was built; staff has done no evaluation of similar homes in the area. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: concern about the covered porch on the second floor, required setback is 71, existing is 61, the two houses are very close together, concern that the loggia will intrude upon privacy of the people next door; if all duplexes in the area were two story it would look like small apartments rather than R-2, would like to see the loggia removed; would like the master bedroom moved in a bit more from rear property line, this will be a big mass and have a negative impact on the neighbor; possibility of locating the loggia on the driveway side; in this R-2 area with R-3 to the rear, would prefer balcony type activity be on the first floor; can see nothing against the loggia on the second floor, everyone else has that same right, but would go along with some modification to the plans that would make it less obtrusive to the neighbors. Since applicants are over lot coverage to start it seems logical to reduce the impact and mitigate the problem before it gets built; would prefer moving the bedroom in and removing the loggia. C. Galligan moved for approval of the variance to lot coverage with findings in the staff report, he found there were exceptional circumstances in that the building presently exists with nonconforming Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 14, 1991 lot coverage which was not intentional but cannot be mitigated by reducing the size of the existing structure, the variance will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity and will be compatible with the area. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 13, 1990 except that the porch/ loggia shown on plans shall be eliminated or fully enclosed and made a part of the interior floor plan; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA AND NUMBER OF SIGNS TO ADD THREE NEW SIGNS AT 100-198 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D Reference staff report, 1/14/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Martin Perez, Cal -Neon Signs, was present. A representative of Saturn of Burlingame, the business requesting this signage, stated they are eliminating 40% of the glass area on the showroom which will prevent any additional signage on the glass in the future, the new property owner does not expect to add more signage to the building. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found this property is twice the size of its nearest competitor and does not have as many signs, special circumstances applicable to this property are its size and the fact that it is used by multiple dealerships in different ownerships. C. Mink moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 25, 1990 Sheets 1 and 3 and January 4, 1991 Sheet 2 Site Plan; (2) that the existing pole sign at the corner of California Drive and Howard Avenue shall be removed within 30 days after a building permit for the new signs is issued; and (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN INTERNATIONAL AIR COURIER SERVICE AT 875 STANTON ROAD ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 1/14/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 14, 1991 meeting questions, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Larry McCarty, TNT Skypak, Inc., applicant and Grant B. Culley, Viking Partners, Inc., property owner, were present. They responded to questions: the trailer parked in front is owned by the present tenant and will be removed; they will have one large truck in and out per day, 14-16 trips per day by smaller vans based on the time of airline flight arrivals used; because of arrival and departure of flights these vans generally sit idle six hours per day between 10:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M.; number of trip ends at the site, including employees, truck and vans, could be 170 trip ends per day between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.; they will have 10,000 SF more space in this building than at their three present locations but have no plans for expansion; they are becoming more automated, expect a reduction in operational staff, at present they are very crowded, will not add more people; they have enough coverage in all areas of the Bay Area and will not expand that portion of the business; it is becoming a more efficient operation from an operational standpoint. TNT has five vans, subcontractor vans park off site at night, there would be 15 vans but they do not come into the facility every day, they meet a shuttle in the field. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on the information received, C. Mink found this to be a reasonable request and moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be used as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 19, 1990 Sheets 1 and 2 including 85 paved and striped parking spaces seven of which shall be designated for van and truck storage, and no office use shall occupy the 672 SF on the second floor; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's November 16, 1990 memo (provide handicap parking) and the City Engineer's November 19, 1990 memo (repair and repave as necessary as approved by the City Engineer and restripe the existing parking lot paving) shall be met; (3) that the air courier service at this location shall be limited to a maximum of 68 employees per shift, a maximum of five vans and one 22 foot truck operating from this site, 24 hours a day Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sunday, as described in the TNT Skypak, Inc. representative's special permit application form of November 8, 1990, and letters of November 8, 1990 and November 19, 1990; (4) that any changes in operation which cause an increase in any of the items addressed in this use permit shall require an amendment to this use permit; (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all its conditions in one year (January, 1992); and (6) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 14, 1991 FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS Hillside Area Construction Permit - 2412 Valdivia Way - called up for review by Chairman Graham. CP Monroe reviewed City Council's actions at its January 7, 1991 regular meeting, December 20, 1990 special meeting and January 12, 1991 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. in memory of Thomas W. Sine, former Planning Commissioner. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary