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