Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.06.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 27, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, June 27, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the June 13, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. VARIANCES FOR PERCENTAGE OF COMPACT PARKING SPACES, DIMENSIONS OF PARKING BACKUP AISLES AND HEIGHT OF BUILDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW OFFICE BUILDING WITH GROUND FLOOR RESTAURANT AND RETAIL SPACE AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: is this proposal covered by the previously certified EIR; what is unusual about this property to justify the parking variance requests; discuss how Title 24 handicap parking requirements have been met; will all CE's comments be addressed in time for the public hearing. Item set for public hearing July 11, 1988. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY FROM THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD Requests: does this site have excess parking in order to allow up to eight spaces for the car rental use; does Hertz operate out of other hotels and have they received permits for these operations, why did they not get one in this case; where have they been parking these cars; how many people are on the site actually renting cars or taking them for service; will a parking variance be required, how has rent -a -car parking been handled at other hotels; cars seem to be parked in the porte cochere area, is it part of the required parking for the hotel, would not want it used for rental car Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1988 Page 2 parking; where is the main Hertz facility, is it operated differently than the hotel operations. Item set for public hearing July 11, 1988. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF A 495 SF WAREHOUSE AREA TO OFFICE USE AT 1606 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: letter from applicant concerning what is unique about this site to justify the parking variance; are there other people on the site; clarify number of parking spaces provided; explain the current nonconformity in parking; is there a shop next door; could parking be provided in the building; clarification of project proposal, number of employees does not agree with applicant's letter. Item set for public hearing July 11, 1988. ACTION ITEM (NO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED) 4. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP EXTENSION FOR 11 UNITS AT 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE Reference agenda memo, 6/27/88, Brosnan, Tyrone Construction. CE one year tentative condominium under construction, final map is map extension period. with attached letter from John advised applicant is requesting a map extension for a project now to be completed in the requested C. Harrison moved to recommend to City Council a one year tentative condominium map extension to August 5, 1989. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved unanimously on voice vote. There was some discussion about an underground spring on this site, could it be capped for irrigation use rather than wasted into the storm sewer; CE advised there is a concern about using ground water that is not tested, a parallel distribution. system would be required and it would have to be kept completely separate from the potable system; it would require a big commitment by the property owner. ACTION ITEMS (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5. VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE AT 1556 CAROL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/27/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter, letters in support from Debra and Peter Tokarski, 1548 Barroilhet Avenue and Beverly and William Crosby, 1552 Carol Avenue (neighbors on either side). Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised it was not possible to park two cars in the garage. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 27, 1988 Chm.. Jacobs opened the public hearing. The applicants, Paul and Theresa Brown, were present. Mr. Brown stated they would probably keep the solar panels on the existing garage but had no plans for them at this time, the swimming pool will be filled in; CP commented the solar panels are not shown on the plans, if applicants wish to retain them they must put them on the plans. Mr. Brown advised they wished to insulate the new garage because they hope to use it as a laundry and workroom, the utility sink goes with the washer/dryer. Responding to a question about why a skylight in the garage when there are so many windows, Mrs. Brown said they wished to make it a workable/usable area, the sun doesn't come into their yard except over the west wall which is on property line, the only light that could get into the garage would be through a skylight. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement that a site inspection confirmed the noise generated by the laundry equipment in the kitchen, the present garage is in poor condition and looks more like a patio/shelter, this is a positive step and necessary to provide a usable garage and off-street parking for the site, C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 31, 1988 and that the additional lot coverage shall not exceed 44 SF; (2) that the! conditions of the City Engineer's memo of June 6, 1988, the Fire Marshal's June 7, 1988 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's June 13, 1988 memo shall be met; and (3) that the garage shall never be used for living area or separate residential purposes. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 9' FENCE ON REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES AT 709 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/27/88, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, seven letters in support from neighbors on Walnut. (Michael & Sophia Davos, 758 Walnut Avenue; Diane Brancon, 709 Walnut Avenue; Virginia Tait, 734 Walnut Avenue; Beatrice Marino, 750 Walnut Avenue; Roy Nelson, 774 Walnut Avenue; Frances Guynes, 754 Walnut Avenue; Cecil Oakes, 713 Walnut Avenue); one in opposition from Tony Garisto, 707 Walnut Avenue. CP noted that history of recent development of the flag lot at 707 Walnut had been discussed in the staff report. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 27, 1988 Commission discussed status of the construction at 707 Walnut, length of the fence requested by the applicant, the condition requiring fence be placed on property line as established by survey. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Ramona Martinez, applicant, told Commission the second story addition to the house at 707 Walnut looks directly into her backyard and house because of its reverse floor plan, the addition can be seen from her house no matter where one looks out, she would like to be able to use her yard again; she would consider screening with landscaping, which might take two years, but cannot put this in during the present drought. Commission comment: three more feet on a fence will not shield the addition next door completely, would applicant consider removing the fence when landscaping is tall enough to do the shielding; landscaping would soften the fence; have no problem with the request, the flag lot has an overpowering structure. The following members of the audience spoke in favor. Beatrice Marino, 750 Walnut Avenue: she has observed what has taken place on the flag lot, some illegally done in flagrant violation of all R-1 property owners and their rights, now this addition which is a terrible invasion of the applicant's privacy and property. Frances Sherman Guynes, 754 Walnut Avenue: she has been in applicant's home before and after this addition, there is no privacy in her home now. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Considering discussion this evening, C. Giomi was in favor of the fence exception, she found there were exceptional circumstances in that a flag lot is involved and there are few flag lots in the city, there will be no public hazard, neighboring properties will not be materially damaged, the zoning will remain the same and the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. C. Giomi then moved for approval of the fence exception and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Fence Exception with the following conditions: (1) that the fence as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 20, 1988 with a 6' board fence topped by 3' of latticework; and (2) that the fence shall be placed on the property line as established by survey. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: can sympathize with the situation but do not believe a 9' fence will solve the problem, trying to cover a neighbor's second floor level is not a valid reason for a 9' fence, will have to vote no; rarely vote for special exceptions but this is a flag lot, it should have been conditioned when it was created; don't think the intention of the 9' fence is to cut visibility from the second story addition, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 27, 1988 that will have to be taken care of by screening later, but in this case think the fence is deserved; Mr. Garisto, 707 Walnut, in his letter mentions the property value issue, it would appear that with his addition he has not only diminished his own property value but applicant's as well, think it is only fair to try to help the applicant. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN OVER HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 704 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/27/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of this request for a 7'-4" high fence in the front setback, staff review, applicants' letters, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: if applicant were to ask for only a 6' fence a fence exception would still be required, 5' is permitted in the front setback; penalty fees are 10 times for a contractor, only two times for citizens. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jose Leon, applicant, was present. He advised that double glass doors and a patio face the street, they use the patio for entertaining; with a lower fence people peer over and throw trash over; the new fence replaced a 6' structure which had been damaged by weather, they did not request a height, the fence contractor built it this high, they have received compliments on it; when the old fence blew over they put out for bids, they did not discuss height with the contractor. Responding to Commission questions, applicant advised none of his neighbors on the street have 7' fences, two or three have fences within the front setback, the original fence was about 61; they did enclose a portion of the rear yard as a sunroom which could have been used as a patio of sorts, the backyard itself is not landscaped, they removed an old greenhouse, the backyard is about 20' x 501; contractor has worked on the back, taking out a pile of dirt and removing the greenhouse; they did obtain a building permit for the room addition. The following members of the audience spoke in favor of the application. Jim Whiteside, 732 Vernon: he thought the fence was very attractive, it would not be detrimental to the appearance of the neighborhood, nothing would be accomplished by tearing it down, it is a beautiful fence. Alexandra King, 708 Vernon: lives next door, she felt it was a good looking fence and hoped it could be left in place. There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 27, 1988 Commission discussion/comment: have a concern under exceptional circumstances, when someone is taken by a contractor (CA commented that is not acceptable justification); there are exceptional circumstances in terms of availability of the yard to passersby and privacy, can see the need for a higher fence; have a problem with a 7' fence in the front yard, everyone has windows and doors which look out on the street, approval could set a precedent; corner lots are a different problem; 7' won't keep people from throwing garbage over the fence. Commission has studied fence ordinances of other cities and found Burlingame's were typical and not unreasonable, Commission must look at these applications on an individual basis, every yard has passersby; it seems the backyard was there when applicants moved in and they reduced it by the addition; would not want front yards to become back yards; not against nice fencing, would not ask that it be torn down, just lowered. Agree there is a need for a fence in the front since they entertain in the front, other neighbors on that block have the same situation, but think '7'-4" is a bit too high, could support 6-1/21; would prefer altering the fence, changing the placement of the lattice, cutting down the posts and making it about 6-1/2' high; have no objection to 7' fences if there are unusual circumstances, question that this is different than any other yard, can find no exceptional circumstances; a 6' fence would still require a fence exception. C. Giomi moved to deny the fence exception without prejudice, requesting that the applicants return with a lower fence. Staff noted Commission could make a motion to reduce to a lower height. C. Giomi withdrew her motion. C. S.Graham moved to grant the fence exception for 61-3-1/4" in front to 51-3-1/4" in back, removing one foot of lattice with the following conditions: (1) that the portion of the fence shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department: and date stamped April 5, 1988 shall be built to a height of 61-3-1/4" in the front and 51-3-1/4" in the back by removing one foot of lattice from the top of the structure; (2) that application be made for an encroachment permit and approved by the City Council; and (3) that a retroactive building permit shall be applied for and obtained including final inspection of the fence and a penalty fee charged according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code for failure to obtain a building permit. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Exceptional circumstances were found in the fact that this house was built with a patio in front which would generally permit entertainment in the front, unlike most houses where one entertains in the back; this block seems to have several homes with entertainment areas in the front; the fence is replacing what was Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 27, 1988 there; there will be no public hazard; neighboring properties will not be materially damaged and the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Comment on the motion: will support the motion, this house does sit farther back on the lot than most houses, don't think this height will be intrusive given the existing landscaping.. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and H.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1022 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 6/27/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission and staff discussed the variance request and tentative and final maps. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Zal Baron, applicant, was present. He stated they would prefer a 6" variance at the third floor level as opposed to a variance to the aisle requirement; it would not block views; they were concerned about possible trouble spots, possibility of roof leakage, with four owners there would be four times the trouble; this also gives them an opportunity to design a more attractive building; any changes would require the plans be redrawn, structural engineering work is now in progress; benches and tables in the recreation area are permanent, not movable. Responding to Commissioner question, applicant advised he was experienced in this type of project and construction costs, he has general liability insurance, he will hire a general contractor, storage units will be added. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Dennis Preger, 1012 Chula Vista Avenue: he suggested this project will add to the Manhattanization of Chula Vista, parking is bad on this street now, to add four single family units in place of one will increase the problems. CP reviewed zoning in this block, R-2 on one side of the street and R-3 on the other, this use is within the R-3 zoning. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have no real concern about a variance for 6" side yard or backup aisle but do have a concern with the cantilever, wonder how they can sell the units. Commission discussed not allowing the 5'-6" side yard setback at the third floor and instead moving the building over 611, requiring two 6' side yards and allowing a 23'-6" backup aisle. Staff noted for a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 June 27, 1988 50' lot the zoning code requires 4' side setback at the first floor, 5' at the second floor and 6' at the third floor. A Commissioner commented any leakage which occurs is the responsibility of the contractor. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the condominium permit and a variance to allow a 23'-6" backup aisle, and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 9, 1988 with updated pages A-1, A-5 and Sheet 1 of 1 except that side setbacks shall be 6' from property line and the backup aisle shall be no less than 23'-6"; (2) that the+ conditions of the Fire Marshal's June 14 and May 26, 1988 memos, the Chief Building Inspector's May 6, 1988 memo and the City Engineer's June 13 and May 23, 1988 memos shall be met; (3) that a final inspection and certificate of occupancy from the Burlingame Building Department shall be required prior to the close of escrow on any unit within the structure; (4) that the parking space designated for guest parking on the plans shall be so marked and available for use of guests at all times; and (5) that the final landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building permit and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks before issuance of an occupancy permit. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. The following findings were made: on a 50' lot to meet current code parking dimensions parking must be allowed to extend through the walls and some structural integrity would be lost; therefore it is difficult to meet parking requirements on a 50' wide lot. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FOUR UNITS -- LOT 23, BLOCK 10, EASTON ADDITION, 1022 CHULA VISTA AVENUE Reference CE's agenda memo, 6/27/88. CE Erbacher noted action on the condominium permit this evening will change the map. C. H.Graham moved to recommend this tentative condominium map to City Council for approval; second C. Garcia. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Jacobs dissenting. Recess 9:20 P.M.; reconvene 9:32 P.M. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES IN AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 6/27/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 June 27, 1988 comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner asked about the projected employee figures. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Richard Hickman, applicant, was present. He advised the projected figures in the project application were not for the school, they were for his personal consulting business, two employees and four visitors a day. He stated he did not expect the polygraph training classes to expand, this type of training must be highly personalized, there is a need to keep the classes small. Responding to a question about starting at 8:00 A.M. and leaving at 3:30 P.M. to avoid peak traffic hours, applicant had no objection but thought his students might, they come from out of state and have housing problems. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that classes shall consist of two eight week long courses a year to be held between 9:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. for a maximum of six students and one instructor and to be conducted from a 240 SF classroom area within Suite 331; and (2) that any changes in the conduct of the classes, including an increase in the number of classes, students or instructors, shall require amendment of this special permit. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 17 AND 18, KENMAR TERRACE, INTO THREE LOTS (2674 AND 2684 SUMMIT DRIVE) Reference staff report, 6/27/88, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this request to divide Lots 17 and 18 into three lots. He discussed conformance with zoning requirements, geotechnical report on the site, subdivision code review criteria, tables indicating lot areas and lot frontages on Summit Drive in this area, petition in support signed by nine nearby property owners submitted by the applicant, June 27, 1988 counter petition against the division or suggesting restrictions to assure conformance to neighborhood pattern. CE recommended four conditions for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Lois and Gus Gazis, applicants, were present. Mrs. Gazis discussed their desire to build a new home on this new lot, they are concerned about the neighborhood and have no intention of building a. monstrosity, they plan a one story home at street level, construction will remove some trees and neighbors will gain a view. She stated they have a new petition in support with 14 signatures including neighbors Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 June 27, 1988 across the street and immediately adjacent. At present they live at 2674 Summit Drive. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition. Peter Davidson, 2694 Summit Drive: after learning of the proposed split he came to the city and talked to the CE, learned a petition in support had gone around, some of those who signed this petition approving the split were now concerned, there are no lots in Kenmar Terrace with smaller than 80' frontages, average lot width is 1221, the proposed new lot would be half the size of the average lot in the area, it constitutes a threat to the integrity of the subdivision, such a small lot could have serious impact on property values; several petitions have been circulated and presented, one "for or against", another supporting the division but specifying height and setback requirements. Mary Ann Byrd, 2656 Summit Drive: concerned about the kind of structure that would be built, she would be the most affected, it would extend to within 2' of her driveway, she has a lot next to her house and has not been able to develop it because of its frontage size yet these applicants are asking for a house on a 62' wide lot, she did not think 62' would be enough for a house, garage and yard, she would not object to the right type of home which did not interfere with her privacy; on the west side of Summit there is a group of lots served by a common driveway which have narrower frontages, 75'-801, in this case it would be inconsistent to put in another lot. Dolores Rieman, 2705 Summit Drive: with a 62' wide lot and taking off 8' on each side there isn't much room left for a house and it's not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood; if allowed it should be set back from the street as are all the houses in the area, think most are 20' back. Gus Gazis advised re setbacks, 15' setback will actually be 25' because the property line is 10' behind the edge of curb, the proposed house will be one floor from the front and two from the back; if the proposed 62.5' wide lot is subtracted from the CE's map there is a 120' average on the block. Applicant advised he surveyed a bigger area. Mr. Davidson commented that with no height and setback restrictions the majority of the people he talked to were opposed. Applicant stated he had identified 11 lots in the area that were under 62.5' frontage. Responding to Commissioner question, applicant said he had no objection to the building restrictions set forth in the Davidson petition. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion CP explained that Mrs. Byrd's lot is a flag lot, now nonconforming, if one exists it can have only one structure on it. Commission comment: walked Summit and do have a concern we could be creating something which would affect this area for many Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 June 27, 1988 years to come, concern about compatibility of this new lot with others in the area; share this concern, especially incompatibility, do not think it is compatible at all with size in that area; agree, Commission has considered a neighborhood to be that particular block, in this block there are four parcels directly across the street two of which have frontages less than 62.5' but they are much larger in square footage, it would be more compatible if this proposed lot were larger; the downhill lots are larger than the uphill lots, regarding compatibility of the neighborhood the lots on the downhill slope are all much larger and on the other side they are larger except for one or two, think this proposal would destroy the neighborhood. C. S.Graham moved to recommend to City Council denial of this resubdivision map for the reasons stated, incompatibility with the neighborhood, with reference to the 6/27/88 staff report and attachments. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved unanimously on roll call vote. Staff will forward to City Council. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. PLANNER REPORT - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 20, 1988 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary