Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.04.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order Monday, April 24, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Frank Cistulli Jules L. Francard Ruth E. Jacobs Charles W. Mink Thomas W. Sine, Secretary Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman Absent: Everett K. Kindig (necessarily absent) Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner Jerome F. Coleman, City. Attorney Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer Quorum present; Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman presiding. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held April 10, 1978 were approved with the addition that Commissioner Kindig was not in favor of retail sales in this area (Page 3, paragraph 3) . The minutes of the special study meeting held April 6, 1978 were approved with the following corrections: Page 2, paragraph 2, line 2, ". . with revenue being no more than 10 percent greater than costs to the City." The last sentence in that same paragraph should read: "She expressed the hope that the City would maximize access and open areas for public use." MINUTES of the April 24, 1978 meeting were approved as mailed with the deletion of the phrase "and were not good for a commission of five" under item #8, page 9, second paragraph, second line. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1978 Before proceeding with the agenda Chairman Taylor.thanked Commissioners Mink and Sine for their work on the Blayney Report during his absence, stating it required a great deal of their time. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO A HOUSE WITH A 17'6" WIDE GARAGE; PROPERTY AT 1608 MARCO POLO WAY (APN 025-202-180), ZONED R-1, BY WEYLAND LUM (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 28, 1977), Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, explaining the proposed addition as well as the rearrangement of rooms within the home. He noted that a variance is required because the existing garage is only 17'6" wide and code requires a full 20'; in the absence of additional off-street parking behind the front setback lines, a.building permit cannot be approved. He concluded that staff has no objection to the approval of the application although findings pertinent to variances must be made. He noted four points for Commission's consideration: (1) The existing floor plan does not easily lend itself to the addition of a new family room; the proposed plan will cause the loss of one of the existing bedrooms. (2) The rearrangement, including a new second floor bedroom, would be entirely to code; the addition would be 37' from the rear property line, and be partially screened by an existing oak gree (26" in diameter). (3) There is a full 20' between the front property line and the face of the present garage, which is sufficient to park an additional two cars off-street (photographs were submitted to the Commission confirming this). (4) As per Commission direction, the original plans were redesigned and the exterior elevations are now more in character with the existing home and neighbors' homes. Mr. Yost noted that Mr. Lum, the applicant and Mr. Button, the designer were present. Ralph Button briefly addressed the Commission, stating the size of the proposed upstairs deck had been reduced to a depth of only 24"; its purpose was only to enable the occupants to wash the second floor windows. He also stated that the oak tree foliage makes it very difficult for any view to be obtained from the second floor into the neighbor's rear yard. There being no further discussion, Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor of the application: Rich Bastas, 1605 Marco Polo Way, stated the addition was in good taste and would help the community; Mrs. DiPego, 1604 Marco Polo Way, stated she lives next door and had no objection to the proposal. Speaking in opposition to the application, Joseph Gilmore of 1613 Lassen Way presented a petition with 13 signatures and stated he felt his privacy would be infringed upon and he would lose the afternoon sun in his yard. He felt the code requirement pertaining to the "quiet enjoyment of neighbors" would not be met by the application and upon the request of Chairman Taylor Mr. Yost read the conditions required for variance approval from Code Chap.. 25.54. Mr. Gilmore continued, explaining that the living and dining areas of his home Took onto his patio and rear yard; he felt his privacy would be infringed upon by the second floor addition. He stated he had no objection to a first floor addition, but felt the second floor was unnecessary and there. was not a hardship on the Lums as their family had not grown since purchasing the home. He also felt there were no extraordinary circumstances as this home is no different than any other house in the neighborhood; they all have substandard garages. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1978 Mrs. Lum addressed the Commission, presenting photographs and noting that the oak tree is very large and in foliage year-round. She also stated that their home already has a second story, so they would not be adding a second story to a one- story home. She felt, since the home is well set back from the rear property line, that the addition would not block the sun to Mr. Gilmore's patio. Mr. Yost confirmed that the proposed addition would have a 37' rear yard and the City's minimum rear yard for a two-story house is only 15'. The photographs presented by Mrs. Lum- were retained for the record. Mr. Gilmore received permission to speak again, and noted that PG&E trims the trees along the back property line periodically. Chairman Taylor requested that the record show there were 13 names on the petition presented by Mr. Gilmore indicating opposition to the variance, although no reasons were listed. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. Commission discussed the proposal with Mr. Button and staff. Mr. Button confirmed that the forward bedroom is quite low and because of this the gable roof of the new addition was raised over the existing roof, making it about 24" higher. Mr. Yost confirmed that the Lum's garage would remain as it is now. He also confirmed that the only reason a variance is required is because of. the nonconforming garage. Commissioner Cistulli stated he would abstain from voting on this item as both the applicants and the opposition are neighbors of his. He stated he visited the site and the oak tree is very beautiful; he felt it would help obscure sight into neighboring yards. Chairman Taylor stated Commissioner Cistulli's abstention was justified. Concerning the variance findings, Mr. Yost confirmed the following points for Commissioner Mink: that the granting of the variance would not affect the zoning plan of the City because the proposed addition does not exceed setback, yard requirements or height limits of code; because of this it is not detrimental to the public health and welfare; there are three existing bedrooms and the new plan merely rearranges the existing bedrooms and adds�a family room; the extraordinary circumstances are that all the two car garages in Ray Park are substandard, although they were designed to City code at the time of construction. Based on the confirmation of these statements, Commissioner Mink found that the findings pertinent to variance approval had been met and moved that the variance be approved subject to construction as per plans presented. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 5-0, Commissioner Cistulli abstaining and Commissioner Kindig absent. Chairman Taylor noted that in the absence of appeal the approval would be effective May 2, 1978. 2. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.050 TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO WITHIN 12" OF A SIDE PROPERTY LINE; PROPERTY AT 824 ACACIA DRIVE (APN 029- 016-200), ZONED R-1, BY ROBERT BRISBEE Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, explaining the existing older home has no covered parking and code requires that not less than one 10' x 20' covered parking space be provided. He said the applicant could build a new garage of these minimum dimensions just behind his house and 5' off the side property line, and a variance would not be required; however, the applicant. would like to construct a 15' wide garage and use the extra space for storage as there is little storage area within the home itself. This additional width, Mr. Yost noted, would put the garage to within 12" of the side property line. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1978 He noted that Mr. Brisbee has several alternatives: one would be narrowing the garage and losing the storage space; a second would be pushing the garage to the back 30% of the lot, where code permits a garage to be constructed to a side property line; he noted that this second alternative may not be feasible because there is a large tree which would have to be removed and a new swimming pool for which plans were recently approved that would have to be relocated. Mr. Yost concluded the applicant has provided elevations of the new garage, as per Commission direction, and as this is a variance application, findings consistent with Code Chap. 25.54 are required for approval. He noted the applicant was present. Robert Brisbee, the applicant, made the following points: one, the property is very narrow (46' in front and 44-1/2' in the rear); and two, a letter from his neighbor, John Spicer, 818 Acacia Drive, was presented to the Commission which indicated agreement to the variance, and noted that this property would be the one most directly affected by the proposal. Mr. Brisbee also said a Mr. Brown, another neighbor, had given verbal support. The applicant went on to explain that if the garage were moved back into the rear 30% of the lot it would block sunlight into the Spicer's rear yard; as proposed, it only faces a bedroom window. Responding to Commissioner Francard's concerns, Mr. Brisbee stated the swimming pool and surrounding fence were being constructed to code and there would be a fence between the garage and the house. There being no further questions of the applicant at this time, the public hearing was opened. Joe Brown of 819 Crossway Road (home across the back fence) stated he was in favor of the application. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Jacobs stated she had visited the site and felt the applicant was doing a good job of upgrading the property. Commissioner Mink was concerned about the proposed sliding glass patio door in the side wall of the garage, noting with this glass door the.garage could easily be converted to a family/party room, especially as the sliding door looks directly onto the pool area. The applicant and Commissioner Mink briefly discussed this concern; the applicant, responding to Commissioner Mink's questions, indicated there would be electrical utilities in -the garage but not pool utilities or bathroom facilities. The Commissioner felt a garage meeting minimum code dimensions could be constructed and a separate auxiliary building constructed for storage purposes in the rear portion of the lot. Chairman Taylor felt the garage would not be used as a family room; Commissioner Mink pointed out the garage could be converted if there were a change in ownership. He felt the minimum garage with a separate storage building was a feasible alternative to the variance. Commissioner Cistulli asked if something other than a sliding glass door could be used. Mr. Brisbee stated he would agree to change the door if the variance was contingent on th.Ts, but explained the purpose of the glass sliding door was because it matches a similar door on the house and he could easily keep an eye on the pool area while working in the garage. He stated he has no intention of using the garage as a party room. Commissioner Cistulli agreed with Commissioner Mink's concerns but felt a different type of door on the side wall of the garage may be the best answer. This was briefly discussed by Commission and staff; Mr. Brisbee reconfirmed that only electrical utilities would be included in the garage but he did not know the exact specifications. Commissioner Sine noted there used to be a nonconforming carport on the site. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 24, 1978 Commissioner Jacobs felt that because this is a narrow lot with two trees in the corners (only one is shown on plans) the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood; she also felt the applicant would not be able to use his back yard if the garage were constructed in the rear 30% portion, and the application was not in conflict with the General Plan; she therefore moved for approval of the variance. Commissioner Cistulli felt the consideration of a different door should be included in the motion and perhaps the size of the window. This was briefly discussed and Commissioner Jacobs stated she would prefer not to make specifications as to window sizes. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion failed to pass, the vote being 3-3, Commissioners Cistulli, Mink and Sine voting in opposition and Commissioner Kindig absent. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Jacobs moved for approval subject to elimination of the sliding glass door with substitution of a single, standard size, solid core door. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and upon roll call the new motion carried 5-1, Commissioner Mink in opposition and Commissioner Kindig absent. Chairman Taylor noted that in the absence of appeal the effective date for this approval would be May 2, 1978. Commissioner Sine spoke with staff about procedures, i.e., properties with a nonconformity coming to staff for approval of other improvements and then further improvements being proposed which then require Commission approval; he felt much of this could be avoided if applicants are informed at their initial contact with staff. City Engineer Kirkup explained that in this case a standard garage could have been constructed, but it was the property owner's decision to have a larger garage which required the variance; under the circumstances staff had no reason not to issue a building permit for the previous improvements. 3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO A HOUSE WITH A 12'0" WIDE GARAGE; PROPERTY AT 450 CUMBERLAND ROAD (APN 029-164-190), ZONED R-1, BY FRANK AND SALLY CHAMBERS Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the home is only two bedrooms with one bath and a one car garage; since the applicants purchased it ten years ago their family has grown and the house is now too small. He explained that the proposal to add a third bedroom, second bath and small study meets code in every respect, except that the existing garage is only 12' wide and code specifies 20'. Mr. Yost reviewed the ordinance specifications regarding such situations, one provision of which allows the mandatory second parking space to be provided on a driveway of sufficient length that this second space can be behind the front setback. Here, he explained, there is a 33' deep driveway, but only 11' of this counts toward the code requirement. He concluded that staff has no objection to the application, as it seems a reasonable addition to a small home. He did note, however, that findings pertinent to Code Chap. 25.54 are required for approval and that the applicant and his designer were both present. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. The neighbor from 452 Cumberland Road, Al Escoffier, felt the proposal was a good one and would be an asset to the neighborhood. There being no further speakers, Secretary Sine noted the following correspondence: (1) a letter dated April 20, 1978 from Arden D. McGregor, 451 Cumberland Road, in favor of the variance, and noting they would hate to see.the family move because the home is too small; (2) letter dated April 18, 1978 from John Horgan, 471 Cumberland Road, in favor of the variance, noting they also would hate to see the family forced to move from the neighborhood. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1978 There being no further public input the hearing was closed. Commissioner Jacobs stated she had visited the site and noted there are other two-story homes in the vicinity and the proposed height would not create a problem. Chairman Taylor reviewed the Commission's past policies about parking and applications with similar problems, noting the City would prefer to have vehicles park behind the front setback, however, there are conditions when Commission has found that approval of a variance was better for the community as a whole. Commissioner Francard added that in his neighborhood about 90% of the cars seem to park in the street. Commissioner Jacobs stated the extraordinary circumstance is the garage situation, there is room to park cars in front of the existing garage, and the family needs additional room; she further noted that, in view of the testimony and correspondence presented at the hearing, the proposal would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. She therefore moved for approval of the variance. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously 6-0, Commissioner Kindig absent. Chairman Taylor noted that without appeal the approval would be effective May 2, 1978. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A JUDO CLUB IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1342 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-123-080), BY BENJAMIN PALACIO OF KOYUKAN JUDO CLUB (APPLICANT) WITH GORDON HAGSTROM (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -15-7P POSTED 4/10/78) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, referring to a letter from the applicant, Ben Palacio, dated April 2, 1978, describing the proposed judo club operation. The letter states that it would occupy 1,900 square feet in an existing office/warehouse and classes would have about 30 students with the majority being 6-14 years old; it also states the classes would only be held in the evenings during the week and this evening use (classes starting at 6:30 P.M.) would allow the club to use all available on-site and on -street parking. Mr. Yost noted the background material filed with the application, including a site plan, proposed floor plan and a letter from Victor Fink & Associates (occupying the space next door to the proposed judo club) which indicated support of the proposal. Mr. Yost further noted that other supporting letters were available for Commission's review and if approval is granted, the following points should be considered: (1) Daytime classes are not proposed, either during the week or on weekends. Classes on Monday, Wednesday and Friday evenings are to be from 6:30 P.M. but could extend over to Tuesday and Thursday if there were adequate demand. (2) Minimum number of students enrolled is estimated to be 30; however, the Building and Fire Departments advise that permitted occupant load could be as high as 50 without modification to the existing building. (3) The club is to incorporate as a non-profit organization. (4) The permit should perhaps be limited to Mr. Palacio and not be transferable. Mr. Yost further noted that a negative declaration was posted for this project, and concluded that staff has no objection to the application. Ben Palacio, the applicant, confirmed for Commissioner Mink that he would agree to limiting the hours of his club operation from 6:30 P.M., with a maximum occupancy of 50 and upon his obtaining non-profit status. City Attorney Coleman interjected that the non-profit status was not really a concern here; Mr. Yost explained this was included only because the applicant had mentioned it, but this was not the usual procedure in this zone. It was confirmed this use could be considered a commercial recreational use. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 24, 1978 Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. Betsy Tontini, 228 Clarendon Road addressed Commission speaking in favor of the application, stating such a club is desirable for the community. Gary McClellan, 1665 Hunt Drive stated this would be very beneficial to the youth in Burlingame. Noreen Nicholson supported the use in the community. Mike Baffico, 1316 Cabrillo spoke (briefly in support of the application. Bill Aven spoke in favor of the application, stating that such instruction gives children confidence in themselves. It was noted that the applicant currently teaches judo through the Burlingame Recreation Department and has an outstanding background and reputation. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. Chairman Taylor explained that the concern of the Commission was not whether such a use would be beneficial to the community, but rather whether the proposed location is a suitable one. The applicant, responding to Commissioner Mink's inquiries, confirmed he would operate from 6:30 to 9:30 P.M. and classes would not go beyond five days a week. City Attorney Coleman stated that judo is being discouraged in the Recreation Department because of insurance requirements and added he is glad to see it continue in the City even though it has been cut back in the Recreation program. Commissioner Mink moved the special permit be approved subject to the conditions that (1) the permit be nontransferable and issued only to Benjamin Palacio, (2) hours of operation be from 6:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., Mondays through Fridays, and (3) the maximum occupancy be limited to 50 people. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-0, Commissioner Kindig absent. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1300 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-480), BY DAVID KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (PROPERTY OWNER) WITH BILL BISCOE OF PAIGE RENT -A -CAR (ND -158P POSTED 4/20/78) Assistant City Planner Yost briefly reviewed the application, specifically making reference to a letter dated April 17, 1978 from Bill Biscoe, -the applicant, and a supporting letter dated April 12, 1978 from David Keyston. He referred to specific statements in those letters describing the operation, including a proposed fleet of 25 cars (1978 models); washing, waxing and minor servicing at the Mobil Station on Bayshore Highway; operation hours from 6:30 A.M. - 11:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 7:30 P.M. Saturdays and 8:00 A.M. - 11:00 P.M. Sundays. It was noted that 10 parking spaces had been allocated in the front of the property at 1300 Bayshore Highway, and any additional parking would be available at Anza Airport Parking; delivery of new vehicles would not be made to the Bayshore Highway location. Mr. Yost then referred to David Keyston's letter which confirmed the parking requirements would be satisfied by Paige Rent-A-Car taking over the area previously assigned to Star Rent-A-Car which is no longer in business. Mr. Yost noted both Mr. Biscoe and Mr. Keyston were present; Mr. Keyston thanked Commission for considering this item at this meeting. Commission briefly discussed the details of this application with staff, Mr. Biscoe and Mr. Keyston; the main concern being the washing facilities at the service station. City Engineer Kirkup stated he was unaware of a regular car wash at this station. There being no further discussion at this time, the public hearing was opened. As there was no public testimony, the hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 24, 1978 Mr. Keyston confirmed that the obsolete rent -a -car sign on the property at 1290 Bayshore Highway would be removed. There was some question as to whether the Commission could act on this at this time since the car wash facility question had not been solved. It was felt action could be taken and approval could be conditioned on Paige Rent-A-Car obtaining permission to wash their cars at a facility which meets City codes. City Planner Swan noted the present operator of the Mobil Station does not have a valid business license and felt this should be cleared up before action is taken. Commissioner Mink moved the above special permit be approved subject to the conditions that it be a two year permit with review in one year; that the hours of operation are to be as submitted in the documents presented;and that all servicing, washing and maintenance take place off-site and, if in the City of Burlingame, in a licensed operation. Commissioner Mink amended the last condition, stating that ". . . and, if in the City of Burlingame, the washing of cars to take place at a car wash facility meeting the codes of the city." Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion carried 6-0, Commissioner Kindig absent. 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1978/79 Chairman Taylor opened the nominations for Chairman, stating he enjoyed his term as Chairman. Commissioner Cistulli nominated Ruth Jacobs as Chairman and Commissioner Francard moved that nominations be closed. Commissioner Jacobs was unanimously elected Chairman (6-0, Commissioner Kindig absent). Commissioner Jacobs then presented Chairman Taylor with a plant in appreciation of his current term as Chairman. Chairman Taylor then opened the nominations for Vice -Chairman. Commissioner Jacobs nominated Commissioner Sine and Commissioner Cistulli moved that nominations be closed. Commissioner Sine was unanimously voted Vice -Chairman, Commissioner Kindig absent. Chairman Taylor opened the nominations for secretary. Commissioner Sine nominated Commissioner Kindig, noting this would be Commissioner Kindig's last year on the Commission after 24 years of service. Commissioner Cistulli moved that nominations be closed and Commissioner Kindig was unanimously elected. Newly -elected Chairman, Ruth Jacobs took the chair. MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. BURLINGAME BAYFRONT PLAN STUDIES City Planner Swan noted this was on the agenda so the Committee could report on it. Commissioner Mink updated the Commission, stating they hoped to have a draft for, study and, as a result of this study, there would be a great deal of Commission work to implement any action of Council. Chairman Jacobs thanked the members of the Committee for their service. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES This was briefly discussed with staff. The Commission agreed that having a full Commission for election of officers was unrealistic and Commissioner Sine suggested that a minimum of five members be required. Section III., Item B was briefly discussed regarding study items, and City Attorney Coleman advised that: "usually" provides that the Commission can study items at the second meeting of the month. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 24, 1978 Referring to Section IV, paragraph B, Commissioner Sine questioned the wording "notorious" and City Attorney Coleman agreed that this would be rewritten. It was noted that the record of a meeting can reflect outside knowledge, i.e., the fact that a Commissioner has visited a site or was called upon and given information about an application. Regarding Section III, Part A, regular meetings, it was felt that section should state "shall generally be held" and that an annual calendar be made. Commissioner Mink felt there should be language allowing the Commission to modify the calendar by a majority vote. City Attorney Coleman agreed that something giving more flexibility could be included. Regarding rules of procedure, City Attorney Coleman advised that "Roberts Rules" were designed for use in the English Parliament and were not good for a commission of five; he stated it is part of his role to advise the Comm=ission of due process and stated he would include a statement about this in the rules of procedures. COMMUNICATIONS - None. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan updated the Commission on actions of Council and items to be sent to Council from previous Commission hearings. He noted that two office buildings at Gilbreth and Hinckley Roads were approved by the City Council, and he updated Commission on EIRs and other upcoming items. He noted he would speak for the City at the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) meeting regarding land use plans. He also noted it was time to think about the budget and possible cuts in the event they are necessary. Mr. Swan reported he attended a meeting about idea the Commission might consider is keeping on the type of material, people attending, et the beginning of each meeting under the topic that staff feels the last two years have'been accomplished under the outgoing officers. rules and procedures and felt one the order of agenda flexible depending cetera, sometimes rearranging it at 'outcome of meeting.' He concluded very productive and a lot was Commissioner Cistulli congratulated Commissioner Jacobs and thanked Commissioner Taylor for his service as chairman. He noted Commissioner Jacobs would be the first woman chairman of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary