Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.09.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 1989 A closed session with the City Attorney was held at 7:15 P.M. with all members present. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, September 11, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, Graham, Harrison, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the August 28, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved ELECTION OF OFFICERS C. Jacobs nominated C. Ellis for Chairman, the nominations were closed and Mike Ellis elected Chairman unanimously. C. Harrison nominated C. Graham for Vice Chairman, the nominations were closed and Shelley Graham elected Vice Chairman unanimously. C. Harrison nominated C. Kelly for Secretary, the nominations were closed and Patrick Kelly elected Secretary unanimously. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO FRONT SETBACK TO ADD A GARAGE AT 1240 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP confirmed because the house is placed at the rear of the lot the proposed addition is allowed next to the existing structure and average setback if this house were not included. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Robert Cartwright, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: one of the features of the house is a large flowering tree in front of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 11, 1989 existing windows which they would like to keep, they wanted to preserve the existing house, using the average front setback they would lose the tree, the other homes on the block have garages in the back, he did not believe any other plan would accommodate preserving the existing house, the front of the house would look no different than it does now with the fence with a 15' setback or the required 211-6" setback. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison found this is a unique home and stated he would concur with the statements in the application describing exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 11, 1989 except that the front of the garage and garage door shall face on Paloma; (2) that the applicant and Director of Parks shall work out a solution to the problem of the street trees before a building permit is issued; and (3) that the final plans shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes before a building permit is issued. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT A FAMILY ROOM INTO A BEDROOM AT 1300 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, required findings, letter in opposition from Barbara Hickey, 1321 Montero Avenue (September 10, 1989) listing five concerns. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: side gate to the back yard does not have a latch, could security for the pool area be required as a condition; applicant has received a building permit for part of the remodeling, this is not a code enforcement item. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Ramon Regala, property owner, was present. His comments: they have been doing work inside the property, have not touched the attic, one full size and one compact car will fit into the garage, the three archway doors between the parking area and the pool were there when he purchased the property, he intends to leave them open and install a childproof pool cover. Commissioner comment: have been in this house before, on a site inspection Saturday went upstairs and found there was a difference in the upstairs; applicant stated they did rebuild the stairs to meet code requirements, the existing carpet and bath were there. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 11, 1989 A Commissioner noted the previous owners never put a car in the garage, he was curious regarding applicant's intent to leave it open and use of the garage for parking as opposed to using it as an outdoor enjoyment center. Applicant stated he would prefer to use it as a garage rather than an open patio area. A Commissioner thought it possible the cars would be moved out when applicants entertained; applicant said they did not entertain a lot and would entertain inside, since they are situated on a corner there is a lot of parking available, they will put a cover on the pool; there is a small family room between the dining room and the patio, they would like to convert it, it would be large enough for them. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Les Terry, 1316 Montero Avenue: he has lived here for many years and is very familiar with this house, Montero is narrow particularly at that end, two cars cannot pass when two cars are parked on each side of the street, it is used as a through street from Easton to Hillside and they have always had a problem with speeding in addition to the traffic; Montero is an angled street making visibility difficult; this building has had 4-5 cars for the last 10 years and never was a car parked in the garage, the current garage space is not a garage, it is a cabana, it has one solid wall, three arches that face the pool, the floor is carpeted blue matching the tile, it has been used as a cabana for 15 years since the pool was installed, there is not enough space to park outside, a car would overhang the sidewalk. Adding another bedroom to this house which was sold as a three bedroom is beyond the capacity of the house, there is no guarantee it will not be resold to a longer term resident and others on the block will be saddled with insufficient parking for an excessive number of bedrooms. Jaime Rapadas, designer, addressed Commission: when the owner bought the house they saw the attic with existing bath and closet and thought it a shame to leave it like that, they discussed it with the Building Department, they want to legalize whatever is there, the open carport would take one big car and one small car, there is a 6'-6" side setback accessible in the back giving them 41, for tandem parking. Responding to Commissioner questions, designer said applicant plans to park one of the cars in part of the rear setback, there is a closet and bath upstairs now and one large room, it had been used as a bedroom. A Commissioner pointed out there is a difference between a family room and a bedroom. Further Commission questions: does the washer/drier area cut into the tandem parking area; designer stated carport is in the basement, washer/drier is at that same level, there is a door at grade. Discussion continued about location of the washer/drier, does it encroach into the parking area, garage is not 14, wide its entire length, at the rear it is 10-13' wide, 4' of its width is taken up with the door and washer/drier room. Commissioner comment: plans are inaccurate, cannot approve these plans; could Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 11, 1989 the washer/drier and door be put in another place. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found the inconsistencies in the plans were dramatic and unexplained, even if the washer/drier were taken out she would not want to approve the application, there would be parking in the side setback and she didn't think the carport would be used for parking. C. Graham moved for denial of the parking variance, seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: concur, if laundry facility were moved to another location would not object if the applicant would enclose the parking area all the way; this is a somewhat creative solution to a problem which has existed for along time, am a little surprised Commission is condemning the new owner for practices of previous owners but believe new owner has to come the other half of the way, plans as submitted are a 14' clear wall to wall garage, so he has to take out whatever else is there, conditions require construction according to the plans as submitted, the building inspector will see that this is done, concur that the arches are lending to the problem, closing the arches with the possible exception of a passage from the pool to the house might be O.K.; possibility of denying without prejudice; have a couple of concerns, one, the arches which are not only conducive but almost demanding use of the parking area as something else, the other is parking in the rear/side setback because of the open end of the back of this parking, don't think using that for required parking is appropriate, don't particularly care what the previous owners did. C. Graham withdrew her motion and moved to deny the variance without prejudice. Seconder, C. Kelly, agreed and seconded the motion to deny without prejudice. Staff noted applicant must come back with a change that is reasonable addressing Commission's comments this evening. Comment on the motion: think very stringent conditions should be met, enclosing the garage, dealing with the arches so that it is not a substitute patio room. Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TWO VARIANCES FOR TANDEM PARKING AND LOT COVERAGE FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AT 1356 VANCOUVER AVENUE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment and previous variance request, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted September 7, 1989 letter from Stephen Gardner, 1352 Vancouver Avenue requesting a continuance and stating his reasons Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 11, 1989 for opposition. CP clarified parking requirements at the time this application was submitted and those in effect if submitted now, calculation of number of bedrooms and proposed parking area. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Joe Matiasic, San Bruno, cousin of Remigio Becher, applicant, addressed Commission: he has been in construction as a carpenter for 20 years, applicant has been living here for 18 years, his newly married daughter and her husband plan to move in with her parents; they calculated the existing house at 1,800 SF, the new addition at 599 SF and thought it would be close to the 40% maximum lot coverage allowed; CP explained staff's calculations to arrive at 42.3% lot coverage included the covered porch. Allen Dadafarin, engineer/ architect, referred to the lot coverage figure and his discussions with staff, the patio with roof has to be.included in lot coverage and the 42.3% figure is based on that, removing the post holding the patio roof would solve the problem of the variance for lot coverage, the existing garage door is 7'-911, it will be enlarged to 91/9'-6". This house has been there for a long time, enlarging the garage would solve the problem of parking, two cars could easily be parked there, several cars could be parked in the driveway, there is an easy slope, it is easy to back up; this is a five bedroom house, family room opens into the kitchen, they would like to make one room into a study. The main entrance to the house is into the family room, this is the living room and opens into the kitchen. Staff discussed the suggestion for amending the plans so lot coverage would be 40% and was reluctant to make that a condition of approval, CP felt it would be better to consider 42% lot coverage at this time. Responding to a question about the possibility of redesign to 40% lot coverage and a concern that the neighbor will be looking at the entire addition, engineer stated after the study meeting they decided to bring it down to 40% lot coverage, the overhang is supported by beams coming out of the building for almost 80% of the structure, if the problem is only the patio roof that part of the overhang can be easily removed; regarding the neighbor's comments the owner has decided to put in French windows on the side so it will look better, also plant trees for screening, this neighbor does not have a view. Commission comment: Commission must find exceptional circumstances applicable to this property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district, how will this finding be satisfied. Applicant's cousin commented the overhang should not be considered in lot coverage; regarding the tandem parking there is no problem backing out, applicant backs all the way now; this will improve the whole area, providing a two car garage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 11, 1989 C. Giomi stated she could find exceptional circumstances for the variance for tandem parking because of the original construction of the house, the way it is laid out, there are no other reasonable alternatives. She had a problem with 40% plus lot coverage, thought it could be done to code and wanted to add a condition that the garage door be enlarged to a 9' width. C. Giomi moved for approval of the variance for tandem parking and for denial of the variance for lot coverage with the conditions in the staff report and an additional condition requiring the garage door be enlarged to a 9' width. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. Comment on the motion: the first condition is that the project shall be built to conform to the plans submitted, how will this be done, what plans; would like to see more clear language. C. Giomi withdrew her motion; C. Graham withdrew her second. C. Giomi moved for denial of the application without prejudice with instruction that a resubmittal not exceed 40% lot coverage and the garage door be enlarged to a 9' width. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M. 4. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1212 EDGEHILL DRIVE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/11/89, 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. CP suggested a fifth condition, that the structure shall not be used for living purposes. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Jay deWolf, applicant and property owner, was present. He circulated a rendering of the proposed project. They purchased the property in May, 1989 and plan to upgrade it, the first step is to replace the garage, the present structure is nonconforming and in poor condition, proposal is to construct a garage which is compatible with the architecture of the house, the footprint is 660 SF including a two car garage and a 220 SF workshop area, the only utility will be electricity. The area in the rafter will be used for his wife's dried flower arrangements. They intend to park two cars on a daily basis in the garage, he does woodworking, they will store dried flower arrangements and Christmas decorations in the structure. These are hobbies only and for personal use. Commission/applicant discussion: usable footprint of the structure is 660 SF, regarding plate line there is a grade change from one side to the other, possibility of moving the ridge over and making Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 11, 1989 a 10' plate line. Applicant said the design was for architectural reasons, pitch on the house is the same. Margie Ungar, 1200 Edgehill Drive was not opposed to the application; she inquired what applicant does for a living. Applicant replied he is a facilities engineer working on renovation of large industrial buildings; he does not do business work at home. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussed size of this structure, storage space, plate line. One Commissioner commented she had no problem with this project other than the plate line height. Another responded she didn't have a problem with 6", if did not have the grade change it would not appear to be any taller, it's a small amount. C. Graham moved for approval of the four special permits by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that a property line survey shall be completed and submitted to the Building Department prior to approval of the building permit; (2) that the project shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 24, 1989 and shall include no water or sewer connections; (3) that all roof drainage from the new structure shall be kept on this property and shall be carried forward to the public street or to a location determined by the City Engineer, and plans should be checked for this prior to issuing a building permit; and (4) that the structure shall not be used for living purposes. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY DECK ADDITION AT 1787 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. This project was called up for review by Mrs. G. Giller, 1793 Escalante Way. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. At the request of the Chair CA reviewed required findings for a hillside area construction permit. Commission/staff discussed size of the deck, hedge located on property line, impact on neighbors. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Suheil Shatara, designer, was present. His comments: he was under the impression the complaint came from the other side, not from the side with the hedge; this will be an enclosed deck, think the problem is the size and style, there is a large eucalyptus tree on the Trousdale side. With the use of slides he discussed the relationship between the owner's house and neighbor's house, eucalyptus tree and planting Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 11, 1989 between the two houses, foliage around the neighbor's house, back of owner's house where deck addition will take place, they are trying to capture the view toward the bay; Mrs. Giller's house with foliage, there are two windows which overlook owner's house, her main view is toward the east, photo of windows on the east side of her house; back of owner's house; view across Trousdale; view toward the bay from owner's back window; view of front of the houses. Mr. Shatara's further comment: deck could be a little smaller and still fit the house; width was based on possible future remodeling, opening up the living room and dining room below and in the future adding a small sunroom below the deck; they resubmitted plans to the building department with lattice below the handrail to meet safety requirements. CP advised she added the suggested condition regarding the hedge after talking to the neighbor. There were no audience comments in favor. June Kaufman, 1760 Escalante Way: her house faces the applicant's house; she asked if all the trees would stay or will they be cut down for the deck; looking out her windows downstairs and upstairs all she can see are the trees. Designer advised the trees will stay, owner will plant more trees. Barbara Becker, 3000 Arguello Drive, speaking for her mother, Mrs. G. Giller, 1793 Escalante Way: she thought if all the trees are to stay they will obstruct the view applicant's are trying to achieve from the deck; with plans for breakfast on the deck, will there be a cooking facility upstairs; what is the purpose of the deck, there are two people living in this house and rarely is anyone else there; object to the unsightliness, how can one see through the latticework. Nabil Khoury, property owner, responded: two people live in the house now, his mother and father, all the children have married and left, his parents want to enjoy the view of the bay; there was a fire and they want to take advantage of this opportunity to add the deck when fixing up the house; the house has been vacant about three months since the fire. Responding to a question regarding how good will the view be if enclosed by the latticework, Mr. Khoury stated the way the house is set up now there is no sun to any of the bedrooms, they want to relocate the master bedroom to get some sun with a balcony for his parents; there will be no cooking facilities upstairs; there is a lot of view. Designer added it is not a heavy lattice, one can see through it but it does create a sense a privacy, lattice will add architecturally. Commissioner comment: sat in Mrs. Giller's front bedroom, could see through the trees and the greenery and could see the apartment buildings, Mrs. Giller will be looking at the deck instead of through to the greenery. Mr. Shatara responded she will look at Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 11, 1989 the deck but the deck will be airy enough to see through, the major view is toward the east. Commissioner statement to Barbara Becker: in the photos presented this evening Mrs. Giller's blinds were drawn, on a site visit her shades and blinds again were drawn, she seems much more interested in privacy as opposed to view. Barbara Becker responded that her mother is ill, she is concerned about her privacy but she is also concerned about the view. Designer commented the windows on these houses face each other so privacy will always be an issue. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham stated she had not heard or seen any evidence this evening that Mrs. Giller's view would be substantially obstructed or be diminished to an appreciable degree, it is basically a flat land view, there are no violations at all by this construction; what is done on the deck or seen from it is totally irrelevant, Commission should confine itself to long distance view; she did not think any long distances views would be harmed to any degree. C. Harrison concurred with these findings and moved to approve the hillside area construction permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. In comment on the motion a Commissioner requested that the condition regarding maintenance of the hedge along side property line be removed. Maker of the motion and seconder agreed to remove this condition. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the 435 SF deck as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 14, 1989; and (2) that all of the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code shall be met on the plans before final inspection. Further comment on the motion: visited Mrs. Giller's house and looked out her windows, she will see the deck but that's not the issue with this ordinance, the issue is view; have a problem with the size of the deck, seems quite large for a breakfast deck, it may not be applicable but it is a concern, as far as the view goes it appears the adjacent house could screen further by planting, that might be an alternative for Mrs. Giller, would like to keep the condition for maintenance of the hedge; it appears that the deck will substitute view of a deck for view of the side of a house, it will not affect long distance views. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA IN THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK AT 4 LAS PIEDRAS COURT, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 11, 1989 conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. September 5, 1989 letter in opposition from Janet Gruner, 2713 Mariposa Drive was noted; this letter enclosed photographs of the project site from the front of Mrs. Gruner's home. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Applicants were unable to be present this evening. Speaking in opposition, Janet Gruner, 2713 Mariposa Drive: she asked about planting applicant might put in and discussed with staff the height of fences/hedges; this antenna is the first thing she sees when she opens the shutters on her front windows, the dish looks terrible from her house. Commission comment: satellite dish antennas are allowed with certain code criteria, including at a location which is the least disturbing to surrounding properties, this is the back yard of this property, the hedge will help screen the dish, Commission is trying to screen the dish.so the neighbor sees the least amount of it as possible. Mrs. Gruner stated she can see it from every room in her house, she has lived here for 25 years and it is very annoying. A Commissioner noted she talked with Mrs. Gruner this morning about possible planting by the applicant, he could put up a 7' wood fence, she thought planting would be much more desirable. Mrs. Gruner said she didn't care what applicant used as long as it kept the dish covered. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi stated she was sympathetic with the neighbor across the street but Commission must deal with the right of a property owner to receive transmission. C. Giomi moved to grant the special permit by resolution with the three conditions in the staff report. She felt this would best address the concerns of the neighbors, it will be a vast improvement over what they are looking at now. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. Another Commissioner noted there is a way to screen this dish, applicant will plant an oleander and a tree. Maker of the motion and seconder agreed to add this requirement to the conditions. For the benefit of Mrs. Gruner, CA commented that the courts have held dish antennas cannot be prohibited, CA has advised Commission there is a letter in this application file which says this is the place on the property with the best reception, it also appears to be the place which is least obtrusive. A Commissioner asked for a fourth condition requiring the surface of the dish be treated with a nonglare material and be maintained in that condition. Maker of the motion and seconder found this fourth condition acceptable. Conditions follow: (1) that the satellite dish antenna shall only be placed at the location on the lower patio in the rear yard as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 27, 1989; (2) that the dish shall have a maximum diameter of 7.04' and a maximum height from patio to top of dish of 8.75' and shall never be permanently affixed to the patio; (3) that Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 11, 1989 the hedge at the rear property line shall be allowed to grow to a height of 71, shall be permanently maintained at that height by the property owner so long as the satellite dish antenna remains in place on the lower patio, and that the rear of the dish as presently placed shall be covered by at least an oleander and tree, existing holes shall be used; and (4) that the face of the dish shall be resurfaced with a nonreflective material which blends with the color of the house and shall be maintained in that condition. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Staff was requested to advise the applicant of the recent change in the fence/hedge ordinance when he is notified of approval of his application. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AS A PRIVATE ART =STUDIO AND OFFICE AT 888 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 9/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised of a phone call received today from the applicant, applicant wishes to retain right of office use of the entire building in the future. Responding to a question, staff advised if this applicant wishes to sell art from the site Condition #1 will prohibit it. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Leon Rosenthal, president of Wornick Properties, applicant, was present. Responding to a question from Mr. Rosenthal, CP confirmed that should Mr. Wornick decide too give up his art studio the property would revert to normal C-4 use as previously existed; further, any change in the use would take amendment of the use permit as long as the art studio is there. There were no audience comments and the public hearing,was closed. C. Jacobs found this is a less intense use than a normal C-4 use, it is compatible with the area since it is a small and private business. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that this site shall be used as an art studio and office by a single craftsman and no retail sales shall occur from the site; (2) that all signage for other businesses on this site shall be removed; and (3) that currently available public access shall be allowed to continue in the same manner as when the site w4s fully in office use. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 .September 11, 1989 8. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND REZONING TO R-3 FOR 15 PROPERTIES WITH DOUBLE STREET FRONTAGE ON EDGEHILL DRIVE AND CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 9/11/89, with attachments. With the use of the overhead projector CP Monroe reviewed this item. She pointed out the area under consideration, present uses, the specific proposal, history, Council study, environmental review, Planning Commission action this evening. Staff and Commission discussed height review line, lot dimensions and requirements referred to in the proposed ordinance. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. The following members of the audience spoke. Bob Cameron, 1200 Majilla Avenue: he thought it was a good idea, would eliminate someone coming in and opening a car dealership; he discussed with staff the proposed 30' maximum height on Edgehill, slope on some of these lots, if a structure were destroyed to more than half of its value (residential, commercial), why not continue the rezoning to Majilla, apartment development on these lots. Mr. Cameron thought traffic might be increased by rezoning to R-3. Tom Giannini, resident of 861 California Drive and owner with Jack Giusto, Jr. of 855 - 861-1/2: he presented a letter requesting their property be excluded from the rezoning and remain C-2, and discussed their reasons: they do not have access to the Edgehill side, it would be a financial burden to them, especially in making plans for the future; the property has a flower shop at street level, second floor is residential, two dwelling units and one commercial unit at present. Vincent Struck, 659 - 29th Avenue, San Mateo spoke for his aunt who owns the corner property at 1108 Palm Drive: what does this proposal do to the value of the land when property is downzoned, what will it do to setback. Staff advised front setback would be on Edgehill, rear on California, side setback on Palm; he could request a change of address to Edgehill for this site if he wished. CA commented on property value, there is no evidence this is an upzoning or downzoning, present use is multiple. CP advised this matter came up because there had been increasing concerns by the property owners of the 15 properties which are shaded on the map, they were concerned about the impact on their properties of their neighbors, properties going fully commercial lot line to lot line; C-2 is a heavy commercial district, in addition the properties across the street on Edgehill are fully developed in duplex residential, they felt commercial development was not compatible with their residential use, this proposal is the result of concerns by both the property owners in the shaded area and those across the street. Mr. Struck noted someone put up a garage in the area, he Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 September 11, 1989 has an eight hour job during the day and runs his machines at night, nobody was concerned about that. He felt office use brings less crime than an apartment building and parking would be a problem with apartments. Ted Skinner, 814 Edgehill Drive: he purchased this C-2 property hoping to build a commercial use, if this is rezoned R-3 he will not be able to do what he planned, he cannot sell the property because of the possible zoning change. Mr. Skinner suggested a change from C-2 to C-1 or mixed use, residential off Edgehill and commercial off California; he was opposed to a change to R-3, property values would go up because of new commercial development. Fred Gruber, owner of 840 Edgehill Drive: he has a store on the California side, would like to see California continue with small shops as opposed to apartments, apartments with only garages on California would not be good, small shops add to the feeling of California Drive. Jay deWolf, 1212 Edgehill Drive: with this number of lots zoned residential approximately 60 cars would be added in the area, agree this neighborhood is somewhat unique, would suggest going with R-3 with an entrance for two units on California and one entrance on Edgehill, frontage on Edgehill would look like an R-1 neighborhood, his concern was number of cars and parking. Marjorie Ungar, 1200 Edgehill Drive: concern about dogs, cats and children with the possibility of more cars/traffic in the area, liked California Drive frontage with traffic on that side. Frank Gandolfi, 825 Edgehill Drive: how much on-site parking is provided for the units and businesses on California now, many have to park on California or they park on Edgehill; biggest problem is parking on Edgehill, they have garages on California with entrance on Edgehill so they park on Edgehill and leave the garages empty; not against apartment development if there is enough parking provided, support this proposal, do not want any more commercial between Edgehill and California. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: concerned about the neighborhood on Edgehill but also concerned 'about people who buy property in the area; regarding the parcel on Palm next to the fire station, this corner should have frontage on California; California has been traditionally a C-2 street, think these parcels should be zoned to quiet commercial on California and somehow allow a frontage on Edgehill so there can be residential on that side, then whichever use is requested Commission could consider rather than flatly rezoning to R-3. Don't think Lot 5, the one at the end, should be included; there is a problem in that someone will be unhappy no matter what is done; would prefer to see the 14 lots, excluding Lot Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 September 11, 1989 5, zoned quiet commercial and possibly have all projects come to the Commission for review. Further Commission comment: uncomfortable with the entire project, think the parcel at 855 - 861-1/2 California Drive should be excluded, do not want to see an increase in traffic on Edgehill, R-3 would tend to do that, object to commercial on Edgehill, how does one implement a quiet C zone with a review of each parcel. Staff commented one of the problems is the size of these lots, 50 x 100, it is hard to mix a use horizontally when the lot is only 50 x 50, it is somewhat easier when there is an extreme change in grade (by layering), problem on the south end of this area is that the land is flat and the lots are 50 x 100, think that needs to be considered, don't want to end up with a zoning on a property that couldn't be developed; regarding mixed use, there is no provision in the code now, could be zoned for a C use and that automatically allows residential above the first floor, when zoned for a C use the setbacks of the C district would apply which are lot line to lot line. Commission continued: would like to commend staff for a good solution to a difficult problem, good planning says when you have transitions you don't go face to face, i.e., commercial on one side of the street and residential on the other, transition is usually done across rear lot lines; the economic value of the property is not going to be significantly changed, people are more afraid of change itself than anything else. Concur with these statements, it is a reasonable solution, sensitive to the property owners, will serve as a buffer zone, as far as traffic is concerned it might not affect traffic at all. C. Kelly moved to recommend to City Council this amendment to the general plan and rezoning to R-3 with the exclusion of the parcel at 855 - 861-1/2 California Drive, this action to be taken by resolution with the finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi. CE stated his concerns about traffic and backing onto California Drive. Staff confirmed the zoning of the excluded parcel would not change, it would be a continuation of the C-2 properties adjacent to it. Commission comment on the motion: will support, think the character of California Drive would best be served by some commercial, was concerned with the proposed commercial use Commission considered recently, if the whole lot is commercial then there are zero setbacks. Expressed concerns earlier, support exclusion of the parcel at 855 - 861-1/2 California and will support the motion. The city has discussed and tried to encourage higher residential uses on major transit corridors which could use public transit. Would like Lot 5 included in the motion, think excluding it will create more problems than it will resolve, will Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 September 11, 1989 end up with R-2, R-3 and commercial all coming together in one spot. Because of its width think California is a good street for some kind of commercial, would like to be more creative, look at each project individually and protect R-2; California is a good street for quiet commercial such as bookstores, antique shops. The uncommon character of the parcel excluded in the motion is because it does not front on Edgehill. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Jacobs dissenting. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to Council. 9. PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A COMMERCIAL RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 9/11/89/ with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request including Planning staff comments. Two additional conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Graham moved to extend the special permit and variances granted August 15, 1988 to August 15, 1990 for construction of a commercial retail/office building at 1800 El Camino Real by resolution with the following added conditions: (1) that the San Mateo County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division, -shall approve the plan for decontamination of the site and shall oversee its execution prior to commencement of construction and the Burlingame Fire Department shall approve both the cleanup plan and the execution of the plan; and (2) that the final plans as approved by the city shall address all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as adopted by the city prior to commencement of construction. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi and approved on voice vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. FROM THE FLOOR - There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its September 6, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary