HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.08.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 24, 1987
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame,
was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, August 24, 1987 at
7:30 P.M.
unr.r. rar.r.
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: Commissioner Ellis
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher,
City Engineer
Chm. Giomi introduced and welcomed newly appointed Planning
Commissioner A. C. "Bud" Harrison. C. Harrison stated he had read all
previous minutes and staff reports as well as inspected all sites and
felt he could participate in this evening's meeting.
MINUTES - The minutes of the August 10, 1987 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
CONSENT ITEM
1. MINOR MODIFICATION FOR A 644 SF SECOND STORY 2 BEDROOM/BATH
ADDITION BRINGING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ON THIS PROPERTY
TO FOUR, WITHOUT PROVIDING A SECOND CODE STANDARD PARKING SPACE
ON SITE, AT 609 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1
C. Jacobs had concern about the washer and dryer obstructing parking
use in the garage and wished to call the item up for review if these
facilities cannot be relocated. C. Garcia asked about possible
relocation of the laundry facilities and stated he wished to call the
item up. The Chair set this item for public hearing September 14,
1987.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 8, BURLINGHOME
SUBDIVISION, 1440 COLUMBUS AVENUE
Reference Agenda Memo, August 19, 1987, with attachments. CE Erbacher
reviewed the item: previous hearing in June, 1987, objections of the
then property owners and CA's advice at that time, map was then
withdrawn. Tonight's item opens map action on behalf of the new
owners. CE discussed the proposal for resubdivision of two existing
lots with a single family structure across the lot lines into two new
lots, size of similar lots in the area within 100' and 3001, staff
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
review and comments; all utilities were contacted, there were no
comments; should the existing structure be removed each of the new lots
would be buildable. CE recommended this map be considered as both
tentative and final. One condition was suggested for consideration at
the public hearing.
Chm. Giomi noted letter in opposition (August 24, 1987) from Molly
McGee, 2304 Hale Drive. CE stated the address for both lots would be
wherever the developer put the entrance; the front of both lots would
be on Columbus.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Charles Kavanagh, engineer
representing the applicant, stated the map is technically
straightforward, all utilities are present on site or nearby, there
would be little impact on the existing streets as far as utilities are
concerned. He discussed the size of the new lots; it was his
understanding both lots would front on Columbus, this would be
necessary to get the building setback shown on the map.
There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition,
Michael Murray, 1450 Columbus Avenue: he urged denial, applicant has
not submitted final construction drawings for the homes he proposes,
concern about homes which are much too large for the lot with not
enough open space; his other concern was the high level of traffic on
Columbus, it is a feeder street, cars park on both sides, in places
there is room for only one lane of traffic, with two new houses
additional cars will impact the area; he objected to developers who
demolish an existing house and redevelop by increasing density.
Pat Benson, 1435 Columbus Avenue: lives across the street, the existing
house has been there for approximately 50 years and many improvements
have been made; she objected to two story houses, everyone with double
lots will want the same; the probable addition of six more cars will
increase the on -street parking problems; concern about the
environmental impact on the neighborhood, demolishing a beautiful home
and grounds to be replaced by two small lots with two story houses; how
can both front on Columbus, lots will not have the depth.
Rita Lassahn, 2218 Hale Drive: concern about downgrading the
neighborhood; parking could be a problem, there is an on -street parking
problem on Hale and Columbus now; would not object to one nice big
house but don't want the neighborhood turned into a second San
Francisco.
Betsy Murray, 1450 Columbus Avenue: she urged all commissioners to
drive by the block in question, it is a very narrow street, there are
trucks and mobile homes parked in this neighborhood, it is unsafe for
fast traffic and difficult for fire trucks to get through, this
proposal could create further turmoil on the street. There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
Commission discussion/comment: this will affect the area, there is not
a lot in the neighborhood with depth as shallow as those proposed, it
is out of character with the rest of the lots on the block; this is an
established neighborhood, concern about changing orientation of the
buildings, the house at 2215 Hale will have the development's two back
yards along its side yard facing a bedroom, this is totally unfair;
character of the neighborhood will be compromised no matter what the
style of the houses or size of the garages, it is one thing to add on
to a house but something else to have two new houses; am a strong
believer that a property owner should be able to use his property and
develop it, but the size of the proposed lots is a problem, this
development will affect the quality of the neighborhood.
CE commented the map shows a 15' front setback and stated if applicant
builds with frontage on Columbus the front setback requirement would be
the average on the block on that side of the street. Further
Commission comment/discussion: property owner has his property rights,
CE has stated the plans meet or exceed all zoning requirements and do
not create any additional problems; regarding architectural design, the
city has no design review board; this property is now two legal lots,
applicant is requesting two new parcels, if property owner wished he
could demolish the existing house and possibly build two homes on the
two existing lots.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend to City Council denial of this tentative
and final parcel map; second C. S.Graham. Motion approved on a 5-1
roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting, C. Ellis absent.
Recess 8:10 P.M.; reconvene 8:15 P.M.
3. VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 31 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, question
regarding exterior stairway which was raised at the time this item was
called up for full review (applicant's letter of August 24, 1987
advised they do not intend to build the stairway on the west side of
the house). Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
CP explained applicants' misunderstanding that the Notice of Findings
for Minor Modification was approval of the project and therefore they
had gone ahead and started construction. Chm. Giomi opened the public
hearing. Allegra Hansen, applicant, was present. She noted their
misunderstanding of the Notice of Findings (this notice is sent to all
property owners within 75' of a site and indicates an appeal period).
They had thought it was a very short period of time for approval, but
about four days later received their building permit (plans with side
setback to code). Subsequently they learned the Notice of Findings was
not an approval and discussed with their contractor what might have to
be removed if their application was not approved.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
August 24, 1987
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Incorporating by reference the findings prepared for the Minor
Modification, C. H.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances,
the variance was necessary to preserve a property right, it would not
be detrimental to other properties and would not adversely affect the
zoning plan of the city. He then moved for approval of this variance
application with the following conditions: (1) that as built the
project shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped July 14, 1987 except that the exterior
stairway extending from the second floor rear of the structure to the
ground shall be deleted; and (2) that no portion of this structure
shall ever be used as a second dwelling unit. Second C. S.Graham;
motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
The Chair welcomed Councilman Don Lembi who was present in the
audience.
4. VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FOR PARKING FOR A RESIDENTIAL
REMODEL AT 716 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, letter in
support from Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Short, 804 Burlingame Avenue. One
condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP
clarified side setback data.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Neil and Nancy Dobson,
applicants, were present. Their comments: they have been working with
an engineer, at least two of their near neighbors have only single car
garages, they have received no objection about their plans from the
neighbors, the 4' requested on the garage side will simplify the gutter
system, roof angles make drainage difficult, they have looked at other
additions and feel this design complements the existing house, the
garage is now used for storage, one of the proposed rooms upstairs will
be a utility room and could be used for storage. A Commissioner wanted
to be assured there would be parking for at least one car; applicants
stated they would be striving for that and would have a place for
storage elsewhere. Possibility of parking another car behind the front
sidewalk was discussed.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. H.Graham found it would be a hardship upon the applicants to require
a 5' side setback given the placement of the original structure and
that allowing the side setback variance would not affect the zoning
plan of the city or the neighborhood; that there is room behind the
sidewalk for a second car, this is more than many three bedroom homes
with one car garages provide. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the
two variances with the following condition: (1) that the addition as
built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped July 10, 1987. Motion was
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
seconded by C. Harrison who incorporated by reference the findings
prepared for the Minor Modification.
Comment on the motion: called up this item because of the size of the
addition which almost doubles the size of the existing house, concerned
about the den which could in future be used as a bedroom, have a basic
concern about parking, this is a large house on a small lot; have no
objection to the variance for side setback but am concerned about three
bedrooms plus a den which could become another bedroom, there are
alternatives, the house has other rooms which could be converted, the
garage could be extended into the dining room, there is a possibility
of extending width of the garage another 10' without affecting the
front doorway, with redesign another code standard parking space could
be added; this proposal seems unique, expanding the garage and cutting
down the dining room would result in a disfunctional floor plan with
very little utility; alternatives suggested would change the
applicants' way of living, don't think it would be fair to ask them to
go without a formal dining room; with regard to the family room/kitchen
it is my understanding it's a kitchen with an eating area, would
suspect that a family room is what they are going to be using the den
for, doubt the den will ever be used as a bedroom.
Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Jacobs
dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOUR BEDROOM SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE
SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AT 2209 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter. One
condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
The possibility of adding to the existing garage was discussed. Chm.
Giomi opened the public hearing. Richard and Vicky King, applicants,
were present. They presented photographs of the existing garage
showing both cars parked inside and a letter from neighbors confirming
they do not park on the street. Mr. King's comments: they have a large
family with two resident children and two children who visit on
weekends, the home is much too small to accommodate their family, they
have looked at a variety of alternatives but have strong commitment to
stay in the Franklin School District, they would prefer to invest in
this property rather than relocate, there have been no four bedroom
homes on the market in their neighborhood during the last two years,
the addition will add to the value of their property and neighboring
properties, they have always parked both their cars in the existing
garage, there is also room in the driveway for another car, part of
their plans involve moving the washer and dryer from the garage to the
second story, adding to the garage would destroy the breakfast room.
They do not plan to use the playroom for a bedroom but have left the
closet there, without a basement or attic storage is at a premium.
Parking is a problem on their street, a number of neighbors do not park
in their garages. They would prefer to have all their bedrooms on
the same floor.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
A Commissioner confirmed there were oil spots in the garage as evidence
two cars parked there. CP read letter from Ernest and Elizabeth
Gentner, 2212 Davis Drive confirming the applicants do not park their
cars anywhere but in the garage and expressing the opinion the existing
garage area is adequate for this remodeling project. There were no
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: photo of the two cars parked in the
garage has alleviated some concern, it would not be feasible to move
the garage over, it would detract from the appearance of the house, am
in favor of the proposal; understand the applicants have good
intentions and will park their cars in the garage, but this is an
enormous expansion, have never voted for a five bedroom home without
parking to code, as children get older the number of cars increases and
children stay at home longer now, if this is granted it could set a
precedent for such requests; it is feasible to bring the garage to code
standards, this is a large home, would be willing to give a 1' front
setback variance to extend the garage, future owners might have two
large cars; this is different than other four bedroom additions, there
is a possibility of creating a full sized garage, with such extensive
remodeling do not think the variance is justified.
Have no problem with the project as presented based on the Minor
Modification findings, would defer to experts about the possibility of
expanding the garage; it is not the Commission's function to redesign
houses for applicants but rather to look at the proposed project;
Commission can look at alternatives.
C. H.Graham moved to deny the parking variance without prejudice, based
on the fact that the entire area around the garage is part of the plans
to remodel, it would create a need for a new roof but applicants are
remodeling anyway, because it is a 4/5 bedroom addition it would be an
injustice to approve it, have it called up and prolong the processing
time. Second C. Jacobs; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C.
S.Graham dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION
TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, City Planner comment, applicants'
letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
A Commissioner asked if the laundry area in the garage conforms to
code, CP advised if this installation had been done without benefit of
building permit the applicant would be required to pay building permit
penalty fees. Further discussion: the sliding glass door on the garage
which faces the pool was installed by the prior owner; possibility of
two garages on this property with two driveways and two curb cuts;
a garage in the front would be accessible; partition and amount of
storage in the garage; condition requiring the partition in the garage
be moved back would provide the code required depth needed for a
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
parking stall; code standard of 20' x 20' would still not be met; if
the variance for parking were not granted and applicant were required
to meet code standards lot coverage would exceed code and could be
processed under a minor modification; the condition requiring moving
the partition in the garage does not eliminate the laundry facilities,
to use the full length of the garage would require placing the washer
and dryer elsewhere. Distances from front of garage to property line
and between the garage and the pool were discussed.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Patrick Brosnan, applicant, was
present. He confirmed there is a spa between the pool and existing
garage and that the house is completely fenced. It was noted applicant
had said if Commission found it necessary he could bring the garage to
code standards. There was a concern about the garage area being used
as living area. Applicant advised he could expand the interior depth
of the garage but could not get 20' x 201, at present they are using
the garage for storage, distance from the main part of the pool to the
garage is approximately 31, the laundry facilities would be moved
upstairs in the new addition, he does need extra space in the garage
for the pump and pool equipment.
The following members of the audience spoke. Bill Van Horn,
1145 Bernal Avenue: he had always thought this was a small corner house
appropriate for a small family, Bernal/Broadway has a bad parking
problem, he had never seen the garage on this site used for parking,
his main concerns were parking impact and size of the addition. Vera
Foster, 1149 Bernal Avenue: she could sympathize with the need of the
applicants for additional space but with this addition her one story
house would be sandwiched between two 2 -story houses; she was concerned
about space, light, air and property values; she had no objection to
the variances but expressed concern about the size of the addition.
Jack Schakel, 1900 Broadway: he had no objection to the addition nor to
the variances. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: there are alternatives to this project. With the
statement it is imperative an addition with five bedrooms provide a
garage to code standards and recognizing from a site inspection the
applicants may need the addition in order to make room for storage in
the house, C. Jacobs moved to deny the two variances without prejudice,
with the request that resubmittal of the project provide parking to
code or close to it. Second C. H.Graham.
Comment on the motion: would prefer to act on the two variances
separately and approve the variance for side yard setback for the
reason that the existing house is already 3' from property line. Staff
requested for clearer procedure since lot coverage may become an issue
in expanding the garage to code standards a vote on the entire proposal
with clear direction to staff and the applicant. C. H.Graham withdrew
his second.
Motion was then seconded by C. Garcia with the suggestion that after
the garage is widened the gate could be removed and a fence installed
from the garage to the sidewalk leaving the driveway open to the
garage. Comment on the second: am concerned about providing
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
August 24, 1987
sufficient parking, think C. Garcia's suggestion merits consideration.
Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote,
C. H.Graham dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Recess 9:45 P.M.; reconvene 9:58 P.M.
7. THREE VARIANCES FOR PARKING, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS AND MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL USE IN TWO STRUCTURES TO ALLOW A FOURTH APARTMENT UNIT
ADDED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT TO REMAIN AT 1225 CAPUCHINO AVENUE,
ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request, noted processing of the application since May, 1987 and
discussed her staff report of June 8, 1987 with attachments: details of
the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions.
If approved two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing; if denied one condition was suggested. CP confirmed
that if this application were approved the Building Department would
ensure all corrections were completed to code. C. S.Graham advised she
would abstain on this item.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Frances Caldwell, applicant, was
present. Her comments: when she discovered this unit could not be
rented she suggested its rental be restricted to someone who does not
drive a car, there is a need for housing for seniors and the
handicapped, this apartment is on the ground floor and accessible to
Broadway, she requested the variance be conditioned accordingly; she
has completed some of the corrections required by the Building
Department and would like to finish the work so it would not be a
problem in the future. She stated she has always been able to find
parking in the lot across the street; she purchased the property in
February, 1987, would like to avoid any litigation in regard to the
matter. Applicant advised the lower unit would be made handicapped
accessible, a sliding door would be put in, there would be space
reserved in front of the unit and only one parking space. Staff
advised that regardless of the person occupying the unit the Fire
Department would require a 5' protected pathway into the unit so that
the door has room to swing and the person to exit, therefore a second
parking space would not comply with code.
Commissioner comment: Commission has never considered public parking
lots as a part of required parking; applicant replied because of the
public lot there are on -street spaces available. The request for a
stipulation in the variance that the ground floor unit be rented to
someone who does not drive a car was discussed, is it legally
enforceable, it would be difficult to police, how binding would such a
restriction be on a future owner. Applicant inquired about the
possibility of a permit with annual review. She also asked for an
interpretation of the condition should her request be denied, is she
restricted only to storage use in the lower unit or could it be a
laundry room or recreation room. She also felt that 30 days might not
be enough
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
time for conversion. CP advised the Commission could set a different
time period if they wished, as far as conversion to storeroom is
concerned it was her understanding -this was the original use, staff
would have some concern about using it for human occupancy such as a
recreation room because of parking in front of the door.
Speaking in opposition, Jean Brodek, one of the owners of 1217
Capuchino Avenue: her concerns were the parking problems which exist on
Capuchino, people blocking driveways, her tenants cannot always get to
their parking in the rear, recently a truck of a tenant at 1225
Capuchino blocked the driveway of 1217 Capuchino and it was necessary
to have it towed away, cars park in red zones all the time, tenants at
1225 also have noisy parties late into the night; her tenants have been
at 1217 Capuchino for years and do not park in public parking. In
rebuttal, applicant stated she has not noticed parking problems, she
did not believe all the vehicles on the street belong to her tenants
and her specific request is to have someone in the lower unit who does
not drive a car.
With the statement there is an incredible parking problem in that
area, closer to El Camino it gets worse, how can Commission consider a
variance on an apartment building, can find no reason to grant the
variances to this building and it would be helpful to those living
there to have some storage space, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the
three variances and for adoption of Commission Resolution Denying
Variances with the following condition: (1) that the existing fourth
apartment unit at ground level in the structure at the rear of the site
be converted to a storeroom within 60 days to be used only by the
tenants on the site for storage purposes. Second C. H.Graham.
Comment on the motion: with disclosure statements today applicant's
real estate agent must have explained to her when she purchased the
property the meaning of a 'red tag' and lack of building permit.
Motion to deny was approved on a 5-0-1 roll call vote, C. S.Graham
abstaining, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. SIGN EXCEPTION AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A 25.5 SF SIGN ON THE PORTE
COCHERE AT RAMADA INN, 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 8/24/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, history of signage on the site as discussed in
the staff report, staff review, applicant's sign exception request.
Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission determination: this is not the only site in that area with
two businesses located on it nor is total square footage of signage on
this site out of the ordinary.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Terry Green, 1128 Juanita
Avenue, salesman for the sign manufacturer, representing the applicant,
was present. He stated that the purpose of the sign is to direct
people to the lobby of the hotel, it is now difficult to find
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1987
especially with Max's restaurant in front. This is a unique situation,
most cities have separate addresses for separate free-standing
structures on a site. Commissioner comment: the Ramada pole sign could
be seen from the highway ramp and grade if brought down to 201. There
were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
In making findings C. H.Graham noted consensus in 1984 was if the pole
sign were removed the city would consider other signage, he felt Ramada
is entitled to a sign on the property at grade, this would not be a
grant of special privilege that other hotels do not have; there are
special circumstances applicable to this property because of two
different businesses located on the same site, this would justify the
hotel name on the porte cochere. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the
sign exception amendment with the following conditions: (1) that the
sign shall be placed as shown on the site plan submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped July, 1987 and shall be as
described in the sign permit application dated July 14, 1987; and (2)
that the sign shall not exceed 25.5 SF or be located higher off the
ground than the upper edge of the parapet on the porte cochere at the
front of the motel structure. Second C. Harrison.
Comment on the motion: it is difficult to find the main entrance to the
hotel because of the pool in front, this sign will help; has Ramada
ever considered a sign program (CP advised they had not); Ramada was
generous to Max's and do need this signage identification. Motion
approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting, C. Ellis
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
PLANNER REPORTS
- Lighting Plan Review - 3 California Drive (site inspection
indicated all conditions of this permit were being met).
- CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its August 17, 1987 regular
meeting and discussion at its August 19, 1987 study session.
C. Garcia who attended the August 19 meeting commented on the
study session.
Commission requested staff research methods to control density of
single family residential development.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S. Graham, Secretary