Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.08.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, August 9, 1982 at 7:34 PM. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Harvey, Leahy, Mink Absent: Commissioner Giomi (excused) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerome F. Coleman; Director of Public Works; Ralph Kirkup MINUTES The minutes of the July 26, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA Order of the agenda was unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 302 SF STORAGE AREA/CABANA IN THE REAR YARD AT 1441 DRAKE AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed this request for a 302 SF accessory structure in the rear of this lot at 1441 Drake Avenue. Reference staff report dated 8/9/82; Project Assessment filed 7/12/82; plans date-stamped 7/12/82; aerial photograph; memo from the City Engineer dated 7/19/82; memo from the Chief Fire Inspector dated 7/19/82; memo from the Chief Building Inspector dated 7/22/82; and letter from Mr. & Mrs. Elmer Bean dated 8/2/82. CP discussed the details of the application, code requirements, and staff review. Staff recommended approval with three conditions. The applicant, Mr. Sait Kilki, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor of the permit. Mrs. Marjorie Bean, 1445 Drake Avenue, spoke in opposition. She asked the Commission to require the cabana to be built at least 11' from the side property line if approved; the cabana was too large in area; still no garage on site; garage and cabana would exceed lot coverage. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed the application: clarified whether or not Council had re- quired an 11' side yard (previously recommended by staff but not required by Council), lot coverage is now approaching the maximum and a future garage addition would re- quire another variance; there is still no garage on this site; clarify that maximum height of the cabana (8'-3") is measured from top of grade to top of ceiling joists; drainage required by Chief Building Inspector to flow out to street and method to be approved by Public Works. C. Harvey noted the applicant's sincere attempt to comply with the City Council re- quirements in redesigning this structure; however, the major concern is that the existing house does not have a legal garage or carport and the cabana addition would eliminate the opportunity to construct a garage or carport in -the future without hav- ing to obtain a variance. On this basis, C. Harvey moved to deny the Special Permit Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 9, 1982 for the cabana/storage structure. Second C. Graham; motion approved 4-2 (Cers Garcia and Leahy dissenting, C. Giomi absent). 2. REQUEST FOR A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE APPROVED TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP PARCEL MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 16 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 35-51 EL CAMINO REAL DPW Kirkup reviewed this request for the extension of the approved Condominium Map, Parcel Map and Condominium Permit for this project. Reference staff report dated August 3, 1982 and applicant's letter dated July 13, 1982. DPW discussed the re- quest, code requirements, and explained the new Map Act regulations regarding two- year extensions for Tentative maps. Since this the applicant's Tentative Map was tied by condition to the approved Condominium Permit which expires at the end of a year, the extension of the map may be granted only a one year extension. The appli- cant was informed that he could request an additional one year extension of the permit if necessary. DPW Kirkup recommended that the Commission approve the Condominium Per- mit extension for one year and transmit the Map extension request to the Council for their concurrence. The applicant, Sheldon Ramsey, was present. C. Harvey moved to approve a one year extension of the Tentative Condominium Map, Parcel Map and Condominium Permit for this project. Second C. Cistulli, motion ap- proved unanimously on roll call vote. (C. Giomi absent). 3. VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF CODE SEC. 25.62.040 FOR A CONDOMINIUM AT 1449 BELLEVUE 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE R-4 DISTRICT FOR A FOUR STORY CONDOMINIUM AT 1449 BELLEVUE AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed this request to construct a 21 -unit residential condominium which will have a 15'0" front setback rather than 17'5" (average front setback) and which will have a maximum 49'6" height rather than 35'0" as required by code. Reference staff report dated 8/9/82; Project Assessment submitted 6/16/82; aerial photo; memo from the City Engineer dated 7/26/82; memo from the Chief Fire Inspector dated 7/20/82; memo from the Chief Building Inspector dated 7/7/82; memo from the Park Director dated 7/15/82; comparison of building heights on Bellevue Avenue dated 8/82; excerpt from the Burlingame Historic Inventory describing this site; letters from the appli- cants dated 6/17/82, 7/23/82, and 8/2/82; letter from the property owner dated 6/11/82; letter from Heather Sterner dated 7/19/82, letters from Elizabeth Mack dated 8/2/82; and plans date-stamped 8/4/82. CP discussed details of the proposed design, code requirements and staff review. Staff recommended seven conditions if the project is approved. C. Mink suggested that the Commission consider first the Variance and Special Permit requests and then act separately on the Condominium Permit. Staff and Commission agreed. The applicants were present. The public hearing was opened. Safwat Malek, archi- tect for the project, spoke in favor of the project; speaking in opposition were: Dr. and Mrs. Leo Paslin, (1435 Bellevue #108), Mrs. Hyman Zeitlin (500 Almer Road, #304) and Rose Freilich (1435 Bellevue #302). Discussion comments included: the granting of variance will defeat the purpose of the regulations to preserve the beauty of Burlingame and will end up changing the image of Burlingame; the raised height blocks light and air from other residences in the area; reducing the front setback will mean less landscaping and will be detrimental to the appearance of the street; it is possible for a developer to stay within the code when designing a building for this site. The applicant stated that because of the variations in the building Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 9, 1982 facade, only bay window towers protrude beyond the required 17'5", the main wall foundation is within the required setbacks; out of ten buildings used to calculate the average front setback, only two had deep setbacks which threw off the average; there will be alot of greenery to shield the building face; although the building exceeds 35', the structure acts as a transition between the 7 -story building on E1 Camino and the other shorter structures on the street beyond. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion included: architect's intent to design this structure as a transition between taller and shorter buildings; Code Sec. 25.54.020 for Variances requires that the Commission find exceptional circumstances and that the denial of the permit would be a hardship; staff has confirmed the applicant's front setback, noting that eight of the structures setbacks included in the calculations range between 11' and 16' and that two buildings have deep setbacks which "throw off" calculations; main foundation line stays within required setbacks; applicant's abil- ity to design a structure within code limits; Commission may grant a variance only when hardship is established which allows Commission more control over projects. C. Graham moved to grant the Variance based on the findings that: exceptional cir- cumstances are created because only two buildings out of ten have deep front set- backs which throws the average setback measurement off, hardship is created because of the same reason, the property is zoned for the intended use and will not be detri- mental to the environment nor adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. Second C. Cistul,li, approved 4-2 , roll call vote, Cers. Harvey and Leahy dissenting. (C. Giomi absent). In regard to the application for a Special Permit, discussion included: review of buildings on Bellevue Avenue which exceed 35' and their relationship to exceptional circumstances for the applicant; design of roof line; impact on other properties by reducing light access; shadow study not required of applicant because of high building (80') adjacent. C. Graham made a motion to approve the Special Permit for a 49'6" maximum height for this building. Second C. Cistulli, approved 5-1, C. Harvey dissenting. (C. Giomi absent). 5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 21 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1449 BELLEVUE AVENUE C.Monroe previously reviewed details of this project and suggested that Commission address the suggested conditions in the staff report in the discussion of this appli- cation. C. Mink reviewed the conditions. Public hearing was opened. There were no comments in favor; and there were no comments against the application. C. Mink re- viewed the two letters on file opposing this application from Mrs. Heather Sterner and Elizabeth Mack. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion included: the condition of the dormer windows and whether it is feasible to use them in the new structure; applicant's pledge to work with those concerned about maintaining the architectural features considered to be of histori- cal significance on the site in the construction of the project; incorporating the dormer windows and the front door elsewhere in the project, perhaps in the cabana; reasons for the multiple driveways and staff's recommendation to eliminate one which will provide an additional curb -side space; open guest parking available for four cars; staff to work with applicant in determining how to conserve architectural fea- tures and to develop an appropriate durable (metal) plaque to commemorate this site. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 9, 1982 C. Graham made a motion to approve the Condominium Permit to construct this 21 unit project with the Staff conditions as approved;(1) that the final working drawings for this project be consistent with the plans filed with this application and date stamped July 15, 1982 and August 3, 1982, and that the maximum height of the struc- ture shall not exceed 49'-6"; (2) that the conditions recommended in the City Engi- neer's memo of July 26, 1982, the Fire Marshal's memo of July 20, 1982, the Chief Building Inspector's memo of July 7, 1982 and the Park Director's memo of July 15, 1982 be complied with; (3) that the final landscaping and irrigation plans be ap- proved by the Park Department prior to the issuance of a building permit; (4) that the easterly of the two driveways providing access to the guest parking be elimi- nated and replaced with landscaping, and a pedestrian pathway from the sidewalk to the parking area be provided through the landscaping; (5) that four at -grade park- ing spaces be designated as guest parking on the plans; Staff condition #6 was amended to read (6) that the front door and pillared portico and dormer windows of the existing structure be incorporated into the new development as approved by Staff, and that a plaque be placed at the front of the site which depicts the existing structure and reviews its history, the plaque to be maintained by the owners of the project. Second C. Cistulli, approved 5-1, C. Harvey dissenting. Appeal proce- dures for the Variance, Special Permit and Condominium Permit for this project were advised. 6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR 21 UNITS AT 1449 BELLEVUE AVENUE DPW Kirkup reviewed the Tentative Condominium Map for this project. Reference Pub- lic Works memo dated 7/27/82. DPW recommended approval of the map. C. Graham moved to approve the Tentative Map and recommend it to the City Council. Second D. Cistulli, approved 5-1, C. Harvey dissenting. 7. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR 9 UNITS AT 616 ANSEL ROAD DPW Kirkup reviewed the Final Condominium Map for this project and noted that the map does not show any on-site guest parking since a security gate was added. DPW recommended approval and recommendation to Council. C. Harvey moved for approval and recommendation to the City Council of this final condominium map. Second C. Cistulli. All aye voice vote. STUDY ITEMS 8. VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ENCLOSE PATIOS AND DECKS WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK AREA AT 777 MORRELL AVENUE Commission discussed with staff the memo from the Chief Building Inspector which in- dicates the applicant's enclosed decks do not meet building code.requirements. The Commission asked whether there would be any option but to deny the application since the plans do not meet building code requirements. CA Coleman advised that because of the building code problems, the application is not complete and that there would be no option but to deny it. Commission required the applicant to revise their plans; this application will be set for public hearing when the plans are revised to meet building code requirements. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 9, 1982 9. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND ONE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE PARK AT 477 AIR- PORT BOULEVARD Staff to address portions of the public access pathway which contain sharp angles, floor area ratio standards and compact to standard parking study submitted by applicant. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed the Council meeting of August 2, 1982. OTHER BUSINESS C. Leahy introduced his daughter, Janet, to the audience. Ar) IN iDKIMERir The meeting adjourned at 9:56 PM. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary