Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.08.28BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Ellis on Monday, August 28, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney MINUTES - The minutes of the August 14, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. Chairman Ellis announced the resignation of C. Harry Graham and welcomed C. Charles Mink who has been appointed by City Council to this vacancy on the Commission. Election of officers was set for the meeting of September 11, 1989. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 1212 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 DPW Kirkup noted a correction in the staff review sheet, size of accessory structure should read 812 SF. Requests: why is such a large size (812 SF) needed, is woodworking a business; why does applicant need higher plate line and higher height, could structure be lowered to code requirements; what utilities other than electricity are to be installed, why such large windows on the east side. Item set for public hearing September 11, 1989. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT - DISH ANTENNA - 4 LAS PIEDRAS COURT, ZONED R-1 DPW Kirkup noted corrections in the project description: height of antenna should read 8'-911, diameter is 7.041. Requests: maximum screening that could be installed without blocking reception, north and east sides; within what distance will all property owners be notified of this application; is antenna anchored to the patio or to ground. Item set for public hearing September 11, 1989. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 28, 1989 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR PRIVATE ART STUDIO AND PERSONAL OFFICE - 888 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: if special permit is granted could a portion of the building be rented out later, could approval be conditioned to require a hearing before the Planning Commission if this were done. Item set for public hearing September 11, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. VARIANCE TO REAR SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2320 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/28/89, with attachments. DPW Kirkup reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, findings required for approval of the variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Al Seyranian, architect representing Edward Arakoff, applicant and property owner, addressed Commission: he presented photographs and discussed the applicant's desire to expand his family room, add some work space and add a new two car garage; the new attached garage would extend 8' into the required 15' rear yard. He noted the triangular shape of the lot and that the front of the lot as defined by the zoning code is on the Davis Drive frontage; they have been careful not to get too close to the neighbor, there is only a garage wall within a 5' setback facing the project site which has no windows or doors, there would be no impact on that neighbor nor on the neighbors on the other side. Giacomo Franco, 2316 Valdivia Way, spoke in opposition to less than a 15' setback, he expressed concern that in the future the applicant might wish to build on top of this addition. Staff advised applicant would have to come back to the Commission if he wanted to put anything more there than a one story garage. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: front of lot as defined by the zoning ordinance. C. Jacobs found this is a good location for the addition to this house, it will not impact the neighbor, there are exceptional circumstances in the way the house is placed on the lot, it is in conformance with the general plan and will not affect the neighborhood. C. Harrison requested architect's arguments in point a. be included as part of the findings. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance application by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 28, 1989 built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 12, 1989; and (2) that the final plans shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. Discussion on the motion: why does the gas meter have to add 41 to the width, why couldn't it be moved, take out a storage wall and move the structure 4' further back from the neighbor's garage; think there could be a compromise on the part of the homeowner and developer to increase the space between his garage and the neighbor's garage by moving that storage space out, could keep the same size garage but put it up against the existing building and move the gas meter out. Architect commented this could be done but applicant wanted the storage space for his use, they felt they could get a two car garage in without changing the end wall of the existing building and leave the storage there. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TWO VARIANCES FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1801 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/28/89, with attachments. DPW Kirkup reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, findings required to grant a variance. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner questioned the staff review sheet which lists one covered parking space proposed. (Applicant is proposing two covered parking spaces but in a tandem configuration which requires a variance.) Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Richard Payton, representing the owner and builder, commented this proposal is an improvement over what is there now, this is the only way this can be done, it will pull two cars off the street. Responding to a Commissioner question, he advised area to the right where the present backyard is will be cleaned up, where the rear addition is going to go there is an old shed which will be removed. Speaking in support, Stephan Gogol, 1721 Adeline Drive: he lives across the street, had nothing negative to say about the proposal, there is an existing awning which is an eyesore, anything will be an improvement and a plus for that corner. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham felt applicant should be commended on adding parking, she found there were exceptional circumstances in that applicant has no garage at this time and this certainly warrants special consideration, it will not injure any neighboring properties or compromise any zoning. C. Graham moved for approval of the variances by resolution with the following condition: (1) that the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 28, 1989 project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 27, 1989. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO STORY HOUSE AT 2990 DOLORES WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/28/89, with attachments. DPW Kirkup reviewed details of the request, previous request for a hillside area construction permit at this site, staff review, detail on the plans which shows a comparison of the existing house, the first proposal and the current proposal, findings necessary for approval of a hillside area construction permit. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CA Coleman read code review criteria for hillside area construction permits and noted that except for view obstruction this house meets all the codes of the city. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Ignatius Tsang, architect representing the property owner, was present. With the use of a model and large sheet of photographs he discussed the impact of the new proposal and comparison with the existing house; roof line of proposed building will be broken up allowing views between the three peaks, because of the pyramid shape the neighbor can see around the house and view which existing house has blocked is being recaptured, the photographs demonstrate how new proposal enhances view from this house; regarding views from Dolores and Mariposa, all they see are trees and shrubs, none of the neighbors' distant views have been taken from them; it is a single story building as seen from the Mariposa side. Commissioner comment: roof has been brought down to the level of the existing house but has been expanded across the lot, when sitting in the bedroom of the house at 2999 Frontera view of the hills is blocked. Architect stated long distance view from 2980 Dolores would be of 2999 Frontera; he pointed out the three pyramids and commented two cannot be seen because of a big tree; some of the photographs were blown up to highlight existing roof and new proposed roof; other neighbors do not have windows in a habitable room which have a view into the proposed project, configuration of the next door neighbor's building goes further into the hill than the proposed house, they are protected; existing trees will help screen the new building further. Architect confirmed photographs on the bottom row were taken from a standing position 5' away. Jonas Harschel, 8 Mariposa Court, asked if there were no house on this site, from the viewpoint of the property owner at 2999 Frontera, how much view would there be, how much is there now with the existing structure and how much with the new proposed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 28, 1989 structure. Architect estimated with no building 100% view, with existing building 60% view, with revised proposed building view would be enhanced to about 75-80% view. Mr. Harschel stated he thought the view from the bedroom would be much less important than view from the living or dining rooms, if increase in view went to 75-80% the majority of that increase would come in the important living spaces of the house, Mr. Ayala's house at 2999 Frontera would be improved by this new structure as well as the house of the neighbor; it is an excellent structure, shows a great deal of care, he was very much in favor of this new proposal. The following spoke in opposition. Julio Ayala, 2999 Frontera Way: he presented photos showing the view that will be blocked; after measuring he thought the lines on the architect's plans were in error as well as the photographs; architect had told him he would give him more view on one side but then said he would cut the view on the other side, it seems he will end up with nothing; when the city passed the ordinance about view obstruction they said from one degree to 360 degrees, meaning of the ordinance will be lost if they start cutting here and there; in this proposal the setback will be closer to his house; he opposes this construction, there are not many houses this size in this area but his main concern is the view. Charles Heinbockel, 2980 Dolores Way: he had not been aware of the obstruction from his bedroom/sitting room at the time of the last proposal, this room looks west toward Mariposa, it is pleasant in the morning and in the afternoon; after a frame was set up in the backyard showing revised height and length of the proposed house he did become aware of the obstruction, view from his bedroom/sitting room would be completely blocked, all they would see would be a huge stucco wall with six windows and a big chimney, this room is used by his elderly mother as a sitting room. Irwin Berch, 3057 Mariposa Drive, directly across the street: he was not speaking on the question of his view but to confirm the statements of his neighbor at 2980 Dolores; he observed the sight line strings from the roof of his house, they seemed to be well below the height of the existing structure but it was his understanding the new structure will be at the same height as the existing house, he thought all sight line measurements should be verified as to actual height; from his roof he had the advantage of reverse angle, since 2980's view would go directly across his roof and past the corner he could see the view from there would be almost totally blocked, the view of the Skyline area, he concurred that there is a serious blockage of the view from 2980 Dolores. Mr. Berch added a comment on the roofing material proposed and the suggested condition, if approved, that it be nonreflective; he had raised the question of airline safety and contacted the FAA, they advised the proposed type of roofing material might well constitute an unacceptable glare for Runway 1L. The FAA asked him to advise Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 28, 1989 the Planning Commission if there is any question at all about the material the builder be asked to submit FAA Form 7460-1; if the application is approved, this will ensure that whatever material is used will not constitute a hazard to aviation. Responding to Commissioner questions, architect advised he was referring to the existing house when talking about the new proposal being a view enhancer; further, he did not deny it was not a view enhancer from the west side of that lot, this is a single story building which would become a two story building. Architect continued, the mock-up was measured and built correctly; the new proposal will break up the mass so that view can be seen around it, everything possible was done to reduce the view problem for the neighbor, view is downhill to the airport, there are some trees but long distance view is gained, neighbor will see all the way to the airport. A Commissioner noted that long distance views can also be uphill such as the problem at 2980 Dolores; architect had not addressed this, there were no photographs of it. Jonathan Horowitz (lives across the street): he was not sure where the ridge line is on the existing house and thought existing house superimposed on the revised proposal should be shown with elevations; views are defined ambiguously in the code, most residents of this area recognize there is a view in other directions, it appears that issue has not been addressed by the architect and is being overlooked. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison stated Commission has dealt with the line of sight, what is obstruction of the long distance view, etc. several times in the past months; this particular applicant is before Commission again, at the time of the previous proposal Commission did not even consider not having looked at the uphill view; cannot support this application, it does have a definite view obstruction for the neighbors next door, do not think one can see around the house or that view is recaptured as suggested by the architect. C. Harrison moved for denial of the hillside area construction permit. C. Jacobs seconded the motion for denial with the statement it appears there is an increased blockage of view compared to the existing house because the roof of the larger house is basically the same height as the existing house only wider. Comment on the motion: didn't support the previous request and cannot support this one, one of the reasons for not supporting the previous request was the structure was brought so much closer, possibly 20'-301, to the house at 2999 Frontera; it has been pulled back 41-5' since then but still think it is too close; although it is the same height as the existing house the fact that it is closer will create much more blockage; a site inspection showed it does Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 28, 1989 create considerable blockage up toward Skyline from the windows of the bedroom/sitting room at 2980 Dolores Way. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:00 P.M. 7. MASTER SIGN PERMIT AND SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE OFFICE BUILDINGS AT 100 EL CAMINO REAL. ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 8/28/89, with attachments. DPW Kirkup reviewed details of the request, primary and secondary frontages, adjacent land uses, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, findings necessary for approval of a sign exception, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. DPW advised two faced signs count as two signs. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Sandra Berger, representing Jens Corporation, applicant and property owner, was present. Her comments: there are two tenants which have signage, J. M. Tayler & Co. and Burlingame Chiropractic Clinic; the other tenants do not require signage. The lettering on J. M. 'Tayler and the Chiropractic Clinic signage was approved in 1977, they are incorporating this into the new application as part of their improvement plan for the structures; staff report states all signs appear to be under 121, in fact they are 6' or less. Responding to a question about Sign D, J. M. Tayler on the E1 Camino side, Ms. Berger advised in their proposed modification to unify the two properties they will move the letters from the center of the entrance over to the right (if one is facing the building), they believe that is where they were originally, this will be done only to accommodate the entranceway. A Commissioner asked why directory signs were needed since J. M. Tayler and Burlingame Chiropractic signs are on the building. Applicant stated for mail service, UPS deliveries, new clients for both the real estate and clinic offices, people frequently go to the wrong building. The smaller tenants do occasionally have walk- in clients. Commissioner comment: one of the problems in 1977 was because this is zoned residential and is on E1 Camino which the city has tried to keep noncommercial. Applicant noted her experience with this property in the last nine years has confirmed mail does not get delivered correctly on a regular basis. A Commissioner expressed concern about Sign B, it violates a lot of the things the city has tried to do along E1 Camino Real. He felt it was too busy and its location off E1 Camino could be a traffic hazard. He suggested a more appropriate sign for Sign B would be 11100 E1 Camino Real", "Enter on Primrose Road". A directory sign Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 28, 1989 out there was not needed because a car can It be parked there, directory signs do not belong on E1 Camino where there are no driveway cuts; he suggested Sign B could be cut down in size more than 50%. Applicant commented her research on signage conditions and requirements did not indicate that was a prerequisite in putting signage on E1 Camino, one of the requirements was setback; if the sign were installed parallel to the road (11100 E1 Camino Real") then a person driving by has to turn his head to read it, it would seem to be more of a potential hazard to have a driver turning his head on a main thoroughfare. The Commissioner stated he was not suggesting changing the orientation of the sign, just the copy. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff confirmed that if the suggestion regarding Sign B were implemented it will be a directional sign not counted in the total signage. Commission was in favor of a reduction in Sign B; applicant and Commission discussed size of this sign at length. C. Giomi found there were special circumstances applicable to this property in the unusual shape of the site and that it has two street frontages one of them being a major thoroughfare. C. Giomi moved for approval of the master sign permit and sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the location of the signs installed shall conform to the plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 13, 1989 and the size of the signs shall conform to the description of each sign given on the sign permit application date stamped August 17, 1989, with the exception of Sign B which shall be reduced from 3' in height to 11 in height with directional signage to read 11100 E1 Camino Real", "Entrance on Primrose", and Sign A shall remain as per revised sketch (not date stamped); (2) that the location of the CalTrans right-of-way shall be established before Signs B and C are installed and an encroachment permit received from CalTrans before installation if necessary; (3) that none of the signs on this property shall be illuminated by any means; (4) that Sign A shall be located at least 8' clear of the sidewalk at a location approved by the City Engineer; and (5) that there shall be no changes to the location or size of signs on this property without an amendment to the approved master signage program for the site. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: applicant should be aware if anything is changed this change will have to come before Commission; purpose of reduction in the size of Sign B, Signs A and B will not be aesthetically pleasing with the difference in size. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 28, 1989 Chm. Ellis scheduled a closed session of the Planning Commission at 7:15 P.M., September 11, 1989 in Conference Room A. PLANNER REPORT DPW Kirkup reviewed City Council actions at its August 21, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shelley S. Graham Secretary