Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.01.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, January 11, 1993 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the December 14, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Items #6 and 17, condominium permit and tentative condominium map, 812-820 E1 Camino Real, continued to the meeting of January 25, 1993 at the request of the applicant. CP advised staff will renotice these items. Order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1100 CLOVELLY LANE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/11/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details -of the request, staff comments, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The Chair determined from staff there was no need for Commission to address existing nonconforming side setbacks. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. James Fitzpatrick, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised it was recommended they move the addition to the other side of the house; if they do this they will lose light, air and ventilation to the master bedroom and bath. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal found the location chosen is the best considering applicants want to put the addition off the existing kitchen, it will not be necessary to disrupt the entire house; the property is unusual given the layout of property lines.,C. Deal moved for approval of the rear - 1 , Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 11, 1993 setback variance with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 25, 1992 Sheets Al, A2 and A3; (2) that the rear addition shall not be any closer than five feet (5'-011) from the rear property line; 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. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: one of the primary reasons for rear yard setback is for privacy from houses located behind, in this case there are no houses to the rear. Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD A RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO THE CHURCH AT 2828 TROUSDALE DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/11/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined this site is one parcel. CP noted that the size of the residential unit had been reduced since the study meeting. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Anthony Serra, Congregation Secretary, Burlingame Kingdom Hall (property owner), was present. He advised the Circuit Overseer will live in this residential unit year round, his circuit includes 22 congregations from Daly City to Palo Alto. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal found this to be a benign use, it will not be detrimental to the area, required parking will be provided, it is a small residential unit advantageous to the church property and an asset to the community. C. Deal moved for approval of the special permit amendment by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 21, 1992, Sheets Al, A2 - 17" x 22" (note voided ground floor plan sheet A2 - 24" x 36" is not part of proposed plan), and A3; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's December 23, 1992 memo shall be met; (3) that the on-site parking shall be marked for the exclusive use of the church and shall never be leased or sold separately from the building; 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 was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 11, 1993 3. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND BATH AT 916 PARK AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/11/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined a three car garage is about 30' x 20' or 600 SF interior space, this request is for 360 SF more, or 960 SF. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. David Nava, applicant and property owner, was present. He distributed photographs of other oversized garages in the area. Responding to a question, he stated the request for a full bath in the garage is just for convenience, the accessory structure will not be used for anything other than a garage, he has four cars and would like to get as many as possible inside as well as off the street; he will be working on the cars in the garage and would prefer a bathroom closer than the house; the 9' wide area behind the bath will be work area with work bench. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Tim McKevitt, 811 Laurel Avenue: this is a very large garage, his house will be close to it and he was concerned about noise. Applicant responded it was better to have the cars in the garage rather than on the street and in the driveway. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement the proposed garage is not much smaller than the existing house, she had no problem with a three car garage but this is much too large, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the two special permits. Seconded by C. Galligan who suggested the application be denied without prejudice in order to allow applicant to come back with a proposal for a three car garage without full bath, this proposal is a garage within 200 SF of the size of the main house. Further comment on the motion: will support denial, have no problem with a three car garage but am concerned about a full bath in this garage, a second unit sometime in the future could be too easily provided. C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny the two special permits without prejudice as suggested by the seconder, C. Galligan. Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. VARIANCE FOR AN OVER -SLOPED DRIVEWAY AT 1411 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/11/93, with attachments. CE Erbacher summarized the request to allow a newly constructed driveway slope which does not meet driveway slope requirements. He discussed these requirements, condition of this driveway as recently completed, potential hazard of steep driveway areas and options for action on the request. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 ,January 11, 1993 Commission/staff discussion: original plans did not show the driveway built as it now exists, in the original design there was no flat area at the top of the driveway, think applicant would have been able to clear the undercarriage, could have flattened/ lowered the sidewalk somewhat which would have helped; could slope downward begin closer to the sidewalk; do not want slope to garage to begin on right of way, it could be.a problem in the future if the street were widened, would city be liable; action could be conditioned to require, in the event there are city street improvements, changes to the driveway shall be at the expense of the property owner. Staff advised city had been -called out for inspection but has not signed off on the driveway construction. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Robert Smith, applicant and property owner, was present and distributed photographs which showed two cars parked in the driveway; the pickup truck does not extend beyond the curb when parked in the driveway, they do not park over the sidewalk, there is a clear view up and down the street from that location; flat area now present at the top is big- enough to prevent cars rolling, the excessive slope is in the middle 5' to 6' wide under the car when parked, they have had no problems backing in and out with standard or automatic shift. Mr. Smith was not aware he had a problem until Public Works pointed it out to him, a subcontractor did the cement work on the driveway, applicant would prefer to leave it as is if possible, he did not have a problem with the grade since there is such a small distance involved, he has one car that is very low to the ground but has had no problem with it scraping on the change in slope. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: city does have some slope requirements and there is good reason for them, there are some things that could be done to this driveway to make it better; if applicant had come to the Commission with an application before the driveway was built would have had a difficult time approving the request but can't approve now just because it is there. A Commissioner suggested moving the beginning of the slope closer to the sidewalk and adding a condition that if there is any widening of the street in the future the city be held harmless, cars can park on the slope in the driveway but would like to see driveway meet code requirements and be safer, if this means extending closer to the sidewalk would not object. Staff advised in changing the slope applicant could probably save the part closest to the garage, at least the first 81, they would have to do some additional walkway work getting into the house, it is a very nice cement job. Commissioner comment: if it had come to Commission before it was constructed would probably not have supported it, but it is there; if this were 25% on an upward slope and driveway were higher than the street, could support it; this is lower than the street, there is a safety issue, cars are going to roll into the garage, they won't be hanging in the driveway. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 5 January 11, 1993 C. Kelly found that since the slope of the driveway is toward the house, not toward the street, he was more inclined to let it stay as is, it is not a very long driveway. C. Kelly moved to grant the variance request for an over -sloped driveway, seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: this is a difficult determination, property owner is a victim of circumstance and he has come forward to ask for _relief, there are substantial reasons to support his request, but have a concern about what might happen during an earthquake, concern about ice, concern about safety and future homeowners of this site. Maker and seconder Qf the motion for approval added the following condition: (1) that if any future city street improvements require changes to the driveway these shall be made at the property owner's expense. The Chair discussed the necessity when granting a variance to find there are exceptional circumstances related to the property and that the variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship, he could not support approval since the reason for the hardship was self imposed. Motion to grant the variance failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Galligan, Mink voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1301 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 1/11/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required. findings. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/ staff discussed/ clarified code requirements regarding setback, unprotected openings on property line, habitable area. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. David McKenzie, representing the property owners, Kathryn and Tom Newburn, was present. He discussed the reason for the request, with a full size car they need 24' to get around the front and back, they are asking for storage space on the second floor of the accessory structure because the house is so small, there is no room to locate an accessory building for storage on this lot because of its size; they have asked for extra height because a flat roof would not look good from the street and a man could barely stand up with a 14' ridge. Addressing exceptional circumstances to support the variance request, Mr. McKenzie said this is a small lot, 35' x 1001, the existing house takes up 1,080 SF, existing lot coverage is 37% and existing garage is a little too small for a full size car; the "false window" is a recessed stucco panel to break up the front. A Commissioner was concerned about 40.8% lot coverage, the house has only two bedrooms and there is not much alternative if property owners want to add to it. Designer said they would be over lot coverage if Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 11, 1993 - they added anything to the house and they don't want to go to a second story on the house; the .8% over allowed lot coverage is 28 SF, if this were eliminated it would reduce the garage by 21. Kathryn Newburn, property owner, stated they are replacing the garage because the foundation is cracking, retaining wall is split, they need a new garage; the requested height is because the garage 'is so much lower than the house and they need additional storage space desperately. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. The Chair noted three letters in support from the following neighbors: Daniel Eisan, 1305 Sanchez Avenue; Steven Underwood, 1221 Sanchez Avenue; and the residents at 957 Laguna Avenue. C. Galligan made findings: with this 3,500 SF lot and 35' frontage there is not much space, applicants are asking for a minimum amount over allowed lot coverage for the variance; regarding roof height and plate line special permits, this is a small lot, there is a need for storage space, the structure will not affect neighbors because of the lay of the land, it will not be offensive and is the expressed need of the applicant; regarding the special permits to exceed allowable square footage and percentage of storage in an accessory structure, this is a minimal amount in line with the needs of the property and its topography. C. Galligan moved for approval of the four special permits and lot coverage variance by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and a condition requiring the property owner to come back to the Planning Commission if an addition is made to the house. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. There was some discussion about ensuring the storage space in the accessory structure not be habitable area, it was suggested condition 16 be amended to read "ceiling joists" rather than "a beam". Another condition was added to approve a real window in place of the false window. Conditions of the motion follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 21, 1992 Sheets 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo date stamped December 21, 1992 and the Senior Building Plan Checker's memo date stamped December 21, 1992 shall be met; (3) that the roof ridge height on the new detached garage shall not exceed 16'-6" from average top of curb along Laguna Avenue and that the roof framing shall be surveyed and this survey approved by the Chief Building Inspector before the roofing material is attached; (4) that the plate height on the new detached garage shall not exceed 14'-6" from average top of curb along Laguna Avenue and this plate height shall be surveyed before the roof framing is attached and that survey shall be approved by the Chief Building Inspector before the roof framing is attached; (5) that the floor area of the new detached garage shall not exceed a total of 522 SF with 288 SF on the first floor and 234 SF on the second floor and that plumbing shall not be extended to this structure and no portion of the accessory structure ft Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 11, 1993 shall ever be used for living purposes; (6) that ceiling joists shall be installed at a height no greater than 6'-10" above the finished floor on the second story; (7) that the total structural lot coverage shall not exceed 40.8% of the existing 3,500 SF lot; (8) that the project as built shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (9) that the property owner shall be required to come back to the Planning Commission for approval should any addition be made to the main house; and (10) that a real window shall be allowed in place of the false window shown on the plans. Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR STORY, 20 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 7. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 6, MAP OF BURLINGAME TERRACE - 820 EL CAMINO REAL Items continued to the meeting of January 25, 1993 at the request of the applicant. S. PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF RETAIL SPACE TO HEALTH SERVICE USE AT 1846 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 1/11/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised a retroactive building permit will be required of this applicant even though the work was done on the site by the previous tenant; Building Department will check ADA parking requirements. Commission asked how many patients this use expected, found storage located close to the waiting room rather than treatment rooms unusual; is parking use pooled in this area. CP noted easements among lots and past use of S.P. right of way for meeting parking requirements of these larger buildings. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Applicant, property owner or a representative were not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this area has a parking problem, on a busy morning people go all the way over to the train station to park; there are only four parking spaces for patients/ customers of this use; question layout of storage next to the waiting room; do not think a parking variance should be granted in this area, it's a problem now. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the parking variance, seconded by C. Deal. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 11, 1993 Comment on the motion: at 3:00 P.M. today the parking lot was packed, except behind this building; concern that applicant is not here, would be more comfortable with a denial without prejudice; staff noted this is a code enforcement item, applicant should be given clear direction for how the project should be revised if it is denied without prejudice, item could be continued to next meeting;'see no reason to deny without prejudice, item was noticed, applicant was informed, agree with the reasons cited for denial; this is a unique application, with sporadic hours, understand parking problems in the area but the question is does Commission want to keep the matter before them or send it to City Council on appeal, would prefer applicant came in and talked to Commission first; plan Commission has is of the existing building, want to approve plans of what will be there, not what is there; staff advised this is the floor plan applicant intends to use unless there are required changes under the UBC. The Chair asked for a vote on the motion to deny the parking variance. Motion passed on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN EXCEPTION AT 65 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB AREA D Reference staff report, 1/11/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Joyce Amsden, Cole European, applicant, was present. She noted the photo submitted of the Subaru sign has 4' x 4' letters, their proposed Subaru sign has 3' x 3' letters; responding to a question she thought the manufacturers might require the two service signs as presented rather than combining them. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: Subaru sign is out of character, it is too large, and signage on the secondary frontage is too much. C. Deal found no problem with the Subaru sign, it looks as good as any sign on Auto Row; on the California Drive frontage they are asking for a little less square footage than they are allowed, several places have more than allowed; regarding combining service signs, they can't be seen until one is in the driveway; secondary frontage is on the parking lot, he had no problem with the wall sign on the secondary frontage. C. Deal moved for approval of the master signage program and 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 January 4, 1993 Sheet Al - Plan, Perspective and Elevations, and Sheet A2 - Site Plan and Elevations; (2) that the existing 'Premier Sales and Leasing' pole sign along California Drive shall be removed; (3) that an encroachment permit shall be obtained for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 11, 1993 the proposed 'Subaru' sign before a building permit is issued; (4) that the temporary service entrance sign shall not be located on the sidewalk or in the public right of way; and (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. PERMIT EXTENSION 10. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT AT 2652 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/11/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the request. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, CP advised this building was required to be fire sprinklered. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. John Lee, architect, was present. He stated they need the extension due to delays in selecting a contractor whose signature is needed when picking up a building permit. There is also extensive site work to do which cannot be done until March or April. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to grant a one year extension to September 17, 1993 of the hillside area construction permit and creek enclosure permit with the following condition: (1) that the project shall meet all current Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the date of the planning permit extension. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. C. Jacobs requested that on any future permit extensions the action minutes be included in the packet. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its January 4, 1993 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary