HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.09.13THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 1976
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli None City Planner Swan
Francard Asst. City Planner Yost
Jacobs City Attorney Coleman
Kindig City Engineer Kirkup
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by
Chm. Taylor at 7:33 P.M.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
C. Mink requested a change on page 6, last full paragraph, fourth sentence: delete
the word "bad" and change the sentence to read, "The Commissioner thought detached
living quarters on the property line were inconsistent with General Plan elements
on housing and open space." The minutes of the August 23, 1976 meeting were then
approved as mailed and corrected.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1(A). RESOLUTION NO. 3-76 RECOMMENDING PROPOSED FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THE
CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDE OFF-STREET PARKING.
C. P. Swan commented that this draft resolution had been prepared as directed by
the Commission. He restated the basic formula and pointed out the revision in the
August 5, 1976 memo (Exhibit B) to base the project contribution upon the net number
of parking spaces deficient. This Exhibit B is actually a summarization of background
work done by the Joint Committee. Exhibit C was added to show the supportive position
of the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. He discussed Exhibit A, Findings, and
commented that the proposed formula would be applicable to Parking District projects
which exceed the prescribed review lines, that is, a building or use which has a
gross floor area of more than 15,000 SF or which covers more than 75% of the total
lot area. Any project below these review lines does not require parking and is
exempt. The C.P. suggested that if the intention of the Commission is expressed in
this resolution it can be a recommendation to Council in response to their request
for a report back.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
September 13, 1976
Discussion between Commission, City Attorney and staff followed. C. Jacobs questioned
the need for review when there -is a change in use in an existing downtown building.
C. P. Swan assured her a major development would present an opportunity for the
staff to review plans and building modifications. The telephone company building
was mentioned, but it was pointed out that any addition to this site would require
a special permit, and thus would be before Commission for review. It was noted that
under item 6 of the Findings the current cost per parking space would be adjusted
annually. C.A. Coleman advised that Resolution No. 3-76 is a policy statement;
if Council adopts it by resolution, it would take a resolution to change it.
C. Jacobs expressed concern regarding the formula of 2/3 as compared with the
previous Parking District formula. Chm. Taylor believed this 2/3 share, as suggested
in the sub -committee by C. Sine, was fair. C. Sine did not feel it was a deterrent
to growth. He noted that in a shopping center at the present: time a project is
required to pay the cost of a parking space, which is substantially above what a
business would be paying in Burlingame based on this 2/3 formula. Chm. Taylor
discussed development, comparing downtown with the C-4 District; an applicant in
C-4 would not be allowed to come in without adequate parking. In the downtown area
Commission cannot require parking spaces since they aren't there, and therefore a
project is required to pay for it (still a better bargain berause'of the 2/3 formula).
C. Sine considered 2/3 a fair assessment and pointed out if it isn't found to be fair
in the future it can be revised.
C. Mink moved adoption of Resolution No. 3-76; second C. Cistulli and approved on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR
NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
The Chm. announced this resolution would be transmitted to Council in the usual
fashion. Assurance was given that although C. Jacobs voted for this formula at the
sub -committee meeting she could vote as she pleased tonight.
1(B). (ITEM #9 ON THE AGENDA).
PROGRESS REPORT: FINAL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LANDS OF
KATHLEEN DORE AT MARSTEN AND ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-134-100), ZONED M-1;
TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1975.
Chm. Taylor requested and received Commission approval to move Item #9 on the agenda
to Item #1(B) for action. The tentative map for this property had been approved
by Commission September 8, 1975. Commission had received copy of a letter from
Don Yarbrough of the Bank of America requesting
the final map. C. Sine moved Commission grant a
map as requested by the applicant's letter dated
and all aye by voice vote.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
an extension of time for filing of
six months' extension of the final
September 8, 1976. Second C. Jacobs
2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME
PARK NO. 2 (APN 028-291-010) AT 1500 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (LOT 3) and R-3
(LOT 2), BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR SOL AND HOPE GITTELSOHN.
C.P. Swan explained that one residential building is located on portions of two
different lots which are zoned R-1 and R-3. It was his recommendation that the
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1976
parcel map and reclassification application be scheduled for hearing September 27.
C. E. Kirkup confirmed the parcel map was ready to be heard on September 27. Discussion
ensued regarding -the necessity of a reclassification application in addition to the
resubdivision. C. A. Coleman told Commission by adoption of the parcel map the
resultant zoning would be R-3 in accordance with Ordinance Code regulations. He
felt that an additional rezoning action by the Commission would be the best process;
a formal reclassification in the record was considered advisable.
The C. E. was requested to report on the adequacy of existing utilities, and
Chm. Taylor set both the parcel map and the reclassification application for hearing
September 27.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING AS A LIBRARY/RECREATION
ROOM/GUEST QUARTERS AT.1521 CABRILLO AVENUE (APN 025-224-150), ZONED R-1, BY
GEORGE DERUGIN.
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application and detailed the history of the main house
located closest to the street and the second dwelling unit constructed without a
building permit on the other side of Mills Creek. He stated the present owner wishes
to use the second dwelling, a three room, two story cabin, as a study/library,
rumpus/recreation building and as a guest house when needed; and that the application
is technically complete and could be set for hearing. Discussion brought out the
present cabin may be used as a storage building if it fully meets building code
requirements. The special permit could be granted to Mr. George Derugin but the
C.A. felt such action might be inadvisable. He stated any Commission action on
this application should be followed by a resolution to be recorded. A detailed
plot plan was requested, particularly to indicate how far the cabin is from the
property line. C_hm. Taylor set this application for hearing September 27.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 2828 TROUSDALE DRIVE
(APN 025-011-230), ZONED R-1, FOR CHURCH PURPOSES BY THE CONGREGATION OF
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES (BUYER); CHRIST EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (SELLER).
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the history of Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 located on
Trousdale Drive. Christ Lutheran Church received a permit in May, 1958 for a church
and parking area covering Lots 21-24, with Lots 25 and 26 to be kept in reserve.
A building permit for the new church was issued in September., 1960 but, as constructed,
the parking lot was considerably smaller than shown on the plans submitted.
Subsequently Lots 21 and 22 were sold and single family homes built on them. He
noted two conditions of the present purchase contract: (1) that a permit be obtained
from the City of Burlingame for church purposes, and (2) that Lots 25, 26 and a 10 ft.
wide portion of Lot 24 be resubdivided into three R-1 lots. A parcel map would be
required to establish the new property lines. This resubdivision will be back before
Commission for review, but the immediate question concerns whether Lots 23 and the
remainder of 24 will be adequate for the intensity of use proposed. As of this
evening staff had received no site plan of the present church nor its parking plans.
The Asst. C. P. noted C. P.'s negative declaration stating no environmental impact
report is required, but his reasons for a conclusion included the statement that
church use should be conditional upon there being adequate off-street parking.
Mr. Yost suggested that if parking does not meet requirements, either a variance
will be required or additional terracing may be necessary to park more cars up the
hill at the back of the site.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1976
Grant Ellis, Presiding Overseer of the Burlingame Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses,
addressed Commission stating the applicants' understanding there may be a parking
problem and that they were prepared to do whatever might be necessary to bring this
up to code. Chm. Taylor told the applicant plans would be required for the proposed
use and how Lots 24, 25 and 26 will be used. During discussion it was determined
that two congregations would be using the church, thus the additional evening meetings;
the minimum lot size in this area is 7,000 SF; parking requirements are determined
by the structure, not size of the congregation.
Asst. C. P. Yost noted that in creating an additional lot this would come under the
Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act. The City must receive a geologist's report
and file it with the State Geologist. C. Mink commented that the hearing for a
special permit for use as a church will incorporate all of the requirements, including
parking, and access and egress from the lot. C. A. Coleman said that for purposes
of the special permit the subdivision was not necessary. In further discussion the
applicant assured C. P. Swan they would do their best to present a site plan and
proposed parking layout to staff by Wednesday, September 15, 5:00 P.M. latest.
5. VARIANCES) FOR PROPOSED SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 958 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
(APN 026-201-140), ZONED R-3, BY TOM MC LAUGHLIN.
Asst. C. P. Yost explained this application, noting the property had a two story
four bedroom house and at the back of the lot a garage 17' wide by 36' deep. A
room over the garage has been used at various times in the past as a recreation room
and as a studio apartment. The property is zoned R-3. There is a 3 -unit apartment
house next door at 952 Chula Vista and the Volker Company's parking lot is located
just to the east. This present application requires three variances. He noted the
application is technically complete and could be set for hearing.
Discussion ensued between Commission, staff and the applicant. Mr. McLaughlin said
he was occupying and remodeling the main house which had been damaged by fire in
1974. The McLaughlins own the adjacent 14 ft. wide lot that is encumbered by an
easement and two box culverts. It was suggested that approval be conditioned upon
filing of a parcel map to erase the lot line between the 14 ft. wide lot and the
958 Chula Vista property. The applicant was cautioned concerning the need for
demonstrating to Commission the conditions for approval of a variance, that the
variance is needed for continued enjoyment of his property. Speaking to the alleged
historic value, Mr. McLaughlin told Commission the main building had been built in
1905 and was claimed to be one of the first houses in Burlingame. Discussion
continued with regard to the 14 ft. easement. The City does have an access easement,
but no information on the strength of the culvert. C. Sine commented it had been•
checked once and there seemed no problem for normal usage, but an 8-10 ton truck
might cause problems. The C.P. directed Commission attention to the rear elevation,
and the possibility of conditioning approval with some landscaping requirements was
mentioned. Chm. Taylor set this application for hearing September 27.
A recess was declared at 8:40 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1976
6. GUIDELINES FOR GARAGES AND COVERED PARKING SPACES (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 9, 1976)
C. P. Swan briefed the Planning Commission on regulations for the size of garages in
single family dwellings, duplexes and apartments. He described the functional need
for adequate width to park and open car doors. Parking spaces next to solid walls
and the location and size of columns affect width of parking space. He noted the
minimum for single family dwellings is 10'0" x 20' in contrast to a duplex or
apartment requiring a minimum width of 9'0". Sewing room or family room additions
to single family dwellings are permitted irrespective of existing garage width;
whereas the addition of a third bedroom requires two covered parking spaces.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding garages having less than 18' of inside clear
width. Ralph Button (building designer) recommended the minimum clear inside width
be 18'0". He felt Ray Park houses should be permitted to enlarge garages and
reduce side setbacks to 3 feet. Mr. Button stated many proposed improvements die
if a variance is needed. C. P. Swan suggested Commission be cautious about
perpetuating a growth inhibiting regulation. C. Sine asserted that many people
don't even use their garages; there are many cars on the street. C. Mink suggested
a petition or letter requesting an exception be considered for additions to houses
with narrow garages where an exception is a less stringent regulation than a variance.
The Commission maintains its desire to review remodeling requests when bedrooms are
added to houses having narrow garages. Future consideration is to be based upon
information justifying specific dimensions. No code amendment, administrative
policy, guideline or change is proposed.
7. REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (CONTINUED FROM
JUNE 14, 1976)
The April 12 staff report to the P.C. highlighted four general problems or concerns
with accessory buildings. Construction and use regulations were proposed. The
review line concept incorporated in the proposed sign ordinance is suggested.
Commission review would be required for projects that exceed the review line.
The majority of the Commission did not believe that new regulations for accessory
buildings deserved priority. Commission members were reluctant to spend time unless
Council support could be obtained. It was decided that the Chairman would transmit
the staff report on accessory buildings in residential districts to the Council for
consideration. The purpose would be to gain feedback from Council and to find out
if this is the way they want it done.
8. PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR A HOME OCCUPATION BUSINESS
LICENSE ISSUED TO D. C. MILEY, JR. TRUCKING AND EXCAVATING, 2531 POPPY DRIVE
(APN 027-172-290), PROPERTY ZONED R-1.
Asst. C. P. Yost outlined the chronology of events that had taken place concerning
the D. C. Miley, Jr. home occupation business at 2531 Poppy Drive. Three of the
residents who had signed a petition alleging violation of code requirements were
present. The alleged misuse of the residential property and zoning code requirements
for a home occupation were aired. C. A. Coleman indicated that an official warning
would be sent to the D. C. Miley, Jr. Trucking and Excavating business. He indicated
that hard facts and complete information will be essential for effective enforcement
and,`if necessary, to gain an injunction from the Court. The, revocation of a
business license would likely require a public hearing. This, progress report is to
inform the Commission about the problem and the process of information gathering.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
September 13, 1976
C. Mink expressed three main concerns which are prerequisite conditions to obtain a
home occupation business license: circumstances of the d anestic employee, no change
in residential character, no additional traffic and parking..
10. PROGRESS REPORT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR R&R AUTO REPAIR SERVICE AT 1244 ROLLINS
ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026=134-100); APPROVED SEPTEMBER 8. 1975 FOR ONE YEAR.
It was reported that the special permit for R&R Auto Repair Service at 1244 Rollins
Road would expire September 16. The Commission will expect the staff to abate
the use when it is no longer permitted.
11. OTHER
C. P. Swan reported on recent City Council actions: adopted the reclassification to
establish an overlay district; sustained the Planning Commission and approved the
Flodin special permit; approved HCDA funds for loans for conservation and
rehabilitation of single family dwellings; and supported a resolution of intent
to explore creating a convention center/hotel addition/golf course project adjoining
Bayside Park. The C. P. also reported that funds are available to finance
attendance of one Planning Commissioner at the League of California Cities Conference
in San Diego in October.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary
EXPANDED MINUTES FOR ITEMS 6 AND 7 - BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 13, 1976
(Revised 10/13/76)
6. GUIDELINES FOR GARAGES AND COVERED PARKING SPACES (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 9, 1976).
C. P. Swan briefed the Planning Commission on regulations for the size of garages in
single family dwellings, duplexes and apartments. He described the functional need
for adequate width to park and open car doors. Parking spaces next to solid walls and
the location and size of columns affect width of parking space. He noted the minimum
for single family dwellings is 10'0" x 20' in contrast to a duplex or apartment
requiring a minimum width of 9'0". Sewing room or family room additions to single
family dwellings are permitted irrespective of existing garage width; whereas the
addition of a third bedroom requires two covered parking spaces,. Staff preliminary
draft guidelines had suggested the following for alterations to existing houses with
narrow garages: less than 20' but more than 18' - plans to be approved by the City
Planner; less than 18' - a petition (or exception) to be approved by Planning Commission;
and less than 16'8" - a variance to be approved by Planning Commission.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding garages having less than 20 feet of inside
clear width and the handling of remodeling requests for additional bedrooms in such
instances. Chm. Taylor thought the code should be used as a guideline and not as an
absolute requirement; C. Cistulli concurred. C. Jacobs commented that if an apartment
requires a 9 foot wide parking space, an 18 foot garage for a house seemed reasonable.
She also felt there was a loophole in the code in that it permits the addition of a
sewing room (which could easily be used for a bedroom) regardless of existing garage
width. Chm. Taylor pointed out that Commission must deal with a 20 foot requirement
in the present code, and thought a variance application should be presented when a
garage is 18 feet in width. C. Cistulli noted a new dwelling must meet code requirements,
but in remodeling an existing structure he felt Commission had been too strict and that
each case should be heard on its own merits. C. Cistulli and Chm. Taylor did not think
the preliminary guidelines should be adopted.
C: Kindig was not so sure Commission would want to change the zoning ordinance so that
some cases could be handled administratively. The C. P. said the guidelines were
drafted for Commission review so that staff would know when to require an application
for a variance. C. Cistulli stated he did not think there should be any guidelines and
each application should be considered on its own merits. He felt it would be discouraging
improvement of existing properties in Burlingame. Chm. Taylor reiterated he felt
Commission should retain the present code and examine each application on its own merit.
C. Jacobs expressed her concern that she was not able to make as clear findings as she
would like to make when dealing with the four requirements for a variance. C. Sine
questioned going to the trouble to obtain two car garages when many people are not
using their garages for night parking anyway, and nothing is being done to enforce it.
C. Jacobs suggested retaining the existing code for applications for new houses and
considering 18 feet as a review line for enlargement to existing houses, letting staff
work administratively from 18 to 20 feet. C. A. Coleman cautioned there is a code
section which specifies when enlarging or remodeling existing single family dwellings
by the addition of one or more bedrooms there shall be at least two garage or carport
spaces of legal dimensions. A code amendment would be needed to reduce this to 18 feet.
C. Kindig did not think a change to 18 feet would help much as most of the garages in
Ray Park have less than 17 feet clear width.
Ralph Button (building designer.) recommended
He felt Ray Park houses should be permitted
to 3 feet. Mr. Button stated many proposed
C. P. Swan suggested Commission be cautious
regulation.
-1-
the minimum clear inside width be 1810".
to enlarge garages and reduce side setbacks
improvements die if a variance is needed.
about perpetuating a growth inhibiting
C. Mink believed that Commission should determine a reasonable width so that a new
figure could be arrived at or Commission could decide to keep -the present one. He
suggested measuring some cars with their doors open to develop a rationale for a change
in the code. He did not want to shelve this matter, but also did not want to move too
quickly toward 18 feet without a basis for making a change. Chm. Taylor again stated
his feeling that following the legal requirement of the code is the only guideline
Commission could sanction. C. Mink liked the suggestion of an exception based upon a
review line, or a less stringent application than a variance, noting the following
example: if the inside clear width were more than 16'8" and less than 20', it would
be a garage exception; if it were less than 16'8", it would be a variance. He commented
that reconstruction might require a lower standard than new construction.
C. Sine advised he has never parked his car in his garag?i rather than enlarge his present
garage, he has left his car in the driveway all the time )C. Mink remarked it would
certainly be better to stay completely away from any guidelines if they could not be
administered fairly. The Commission appeared to maintain its desire to review remodeling
requests when bedrooms are added to houses having narrow garages. Future consideration
might be based upon further information justifying specific dimensions. No code
amendment, administrative policy, guideline or change was proposed by Commission consensus
at this time. (*) He commented it was questionable to penalize a property owner and require
garages when there is no enforcement of the overnight parking code. (Rev. 10/13/76)
7. REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (CONTINUED FROM
JUNE 14, 1976).
C. P. Swan noted that many of these accessory buildings do not come to the Planning Dept.
directly, but are brought to staff's attention after the fact. This might be a result
of a report from the Building or Fire Departments, a neighbor's report, or an
associated development in connection with another application. Staff is then obliged
to undertake enforcement a long time after the structure has been there. Mr. Swan
suggested a subcommittee of the Commission work with staff to bring a recommendation
back to the Commission as a whole.
C. Kindig noted that one of the P.C.'s original concerns had been height, something that
is now regulated by code. C. Jacobs said she would like to serve on a subcommittee;
she felt something should be done now or the matter of accessory buildings should be
dropped. Commissioners Kindig and Jacobs commented that Commission did have specific
direction from Council for study of this matter; staff had completed its work, and it
was now up to the Commission to take the next step.
C. Mink thought the report was an excellent assessment by staff, and that the matter of
regulations for accessory buildings would implement some parts of the Commission's
general plan study. The Commissioner cited an example: site lines and solid walls
close to property lines are contradictory to the ideas contained in the Open Space
Element of the General Plan. It was C. Mink's belief that the Commission should be a
planning commission, not a reacting commission; the staff memo is more than just a
beginning, with valuable ideas and information. Chm. Taylor thought Commission could
take this staff report and formulate a resolution.
C. Sine remarked he had stated his feeling many times before. Commissioners Mink, Sine
and Francard were reluctant to spend a lot of time on accessory buildings if the matter
were merely tabled. Chm. Taylor stated what he thought Commission consensus was; the
matter did not have a very high priority, or require further action.
It was decided that the Chairman would write a letter to the City Council and transmit
the staff report on accessory buildings. It could inform Council that this matter had
been discussed by Commission several times, that it generally expressed the area of
study that might be pursued, but the Commission wanted to check if this is the way
Council would want it done. The Chairman would ask whether Council wished Commission
to proceed or did they wish to give redirection.
-2-