HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.06.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 26, 1989
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman H. Graham on Monday, June 26, 1989
at 7:31 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H.Graham, S.Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs, Kelly
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 June 12, 1989 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Item #6 (Parking Variance, 1105 Burlingame Avenue)
and Item #8 (Special Permit, 1755 Bayshore
Highway) were continued to the meeting of July 10,
1989. Order of the agenda was then approved.
ITEM FOR STUDY
1. FENCE EXCEPTION, 481 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1
Requests: have the findings necessary for approval of a fence
exception been explained to the applicant; are the lots level and
level to each other; how long has the present fence been in place;
could the fence be screened by providing some type of adjacent
planting; applicant's letter says there are no exceptional
circumstances, could staff explain the necessary findings to
applicant again. Item set for public hearing July 10, 1989.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND LOT COVERAGE FOR AN ADDITION AT
1356 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/26/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, Planning staff comment,
applicants letter. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Comment/discussion: declining
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
June 26, 1989
height envelope was considered; could garage be made tandem;
variance in lot coverage figures of staff and architect.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Allen Dadafarin, engineer
and architect for the project, was present. His statements: the
reason for his 40% lot coverage figure was because he did not
include the basement; they decided to make the existing master
bedroom into a family room so there would be only four bedrooms
with the addition; the footprint would be 44.9% lot coverage.
Responding to a question of why the house needs to be so large,
architect said applicant and his wife live there, his daughter
recently married and will be moving in, they need more space;
applicants had told architect they wished to use the room
downstairs at the end of the garage for storage; he had discussed
with them the possibility of taking down a wall and extending the
garage to provide tandem parking, applicants did not wish to do
this.
There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition,
Steve Gardner, 1352 Vancouver Avenue: he lives next door, his
driveway will abut the new addition, if it is built he will be
looking at a 28' wall 35' long which will completely block one side
of his house; his concerns were architecture, aesthetics; privacy
of his residence, new windows will look into his yard and deck; if
he sold in the future, inability to get top dollar for his property
because of this addition; legal problem, there is no survey on this
property, plans show a setback which may not be there, there is a
property boundary dispute, another variance might be needed for
side setback.
Architect spoke in rebuttal: neighbor just completed a two car
garage; if he will have a wall blocking his view, applicants will
have the same problem looking at the top of his garage from their
bedroom window; data obtained from city files by the applicant
indicated side setback from the garage is actually 31, not 2'-4" as
shown on the plans. Responding to questions, architect said the
addition will be about 23.5' tall, neighbor's new garage is about
13' tall; he thought view of garage could be screened with plants;
applicant's lot is higher so impact will be more. A Commissioner
stated his concern about the variance in lot coverage figures and
discrepancy in other measurements on the plans as well as the
dispute about location of fences on both properties, he did not
want to act on this project without a survey. There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: despite the errors and property line problem
cannot support the application, think 40% lot coverage is too much,
44.9% is too much; it is a very large addition and would impact the
neighbor.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
June 26, 1989
C. Giomi moved for denial of the variances for lot coverage and
parking; motion was seconded by C. Jacobs.
Comment on the motion: concerned about lot coverage, also think
applicant should take another look at providing at least tandem
parking; would like to have a survey; there are alternatives to
this proposal. Staff noted, if denied, a resubmittal would have to
be a substantial change; a survey would be required on any
subsequent project.
Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
3. VARIANCES TO HEIGHT, PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A
SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING BASEMENT
INTO HABITABLE AREA, ADD A ONE CAR GARAGE AND ADD PARTITION
WALLS TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 824 FAIRFIELD
ROAD, ZONED R-1
Refergnce staff report, 6/26/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, special permit granted in 1986,
present property owner's remodel of the pool house, construction of
a paved area within the drainage easement at the rear of the
property which has been red tagged, staff review, applicant's
letter, letter in opposition from Virginia Hvid, 845 Paloma Avenue
(received 6/26/89), study meeting questions. No letter has been
received from the property owner responding to some questions asked
at study. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Discussion: partition wall in the pool house; special permit
conditions agreed to by the previous owner.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Rick of Lan Del
Construction, contractor, circulated photographs of the site. and
addressed Commission: the pool house was in a shambles, it was
unsound and never could have been used as a garage, applicant spent
$30,000 on remodeling it, they put in new foundation, one hour fire
walls, disconnected bathroom facilities, added custom cabinets,
added a partition to separate the weight room and recreation room,
bathroom will not be connected until permit is issued for
remodeling of the main house. In the basement area of the main
house they will be willing to reduce the wall between the rec room
and family room by 50% thus eliminating a bedroom, there will be
one bedroom downstairs and three upstairs; height will not change,
from the back it looks like a three story building now; lowering
the floor area in the basement won't change the look, new footings
will make the house more stable.
The garage will keep the same Spanish architecture, they will meet
all fire codes and add an exit from the second floor; will be
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
June 26, 1989
turning a three bedroom house into a four bedroom house with some
more recreation room; area they are reconstructing is unsafe now;
basketball court which was started in the easement can be
eliminated, applicant understands this cannot be done; he was aware
it was not right to put the partition wall in but at the time they
were thinking of safety. Commissioner comment: it appears
applicant will ultimately have a rec room, family room, sunroom, a
study, weight room and another recreation room plus the full house,
that is a lot of recreation space. Lorenzo Naranjo, applicant,
advised one reason for the recreation room downstairs is so the
children can play; there are eight people living in the house now,
three of his children plus two children he is taking care of, one
of his cousins and his wife and himself. They have three cars now.
Commission/contractor/applicant discussion: contractor advised he
is a builder and does get involved in design, different people did
the drawings; a Commissioner pointed out most cities require
parking and asked why so much money was being spent for the house
and very little for parking, this property has never supported
itself with regard to parking, garage was converted to a pool house
a long time ago; in a few years the children will be older, all
with cars. Applicant commented the house is unsafe at the present
time, it is a fire trap, he is just trying to get the house up to
code and make it livable for his family and relatives; he was aware
of the use permit when he purchased the property, the accessory
structure was a disaster, he knew he would need a lot of work and
he wanted to do this work, it's a beautiful home and has a lot of
opportunities for his family needs, if this project can't be done
it won't be livable.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition. Philip Rossi, 820 Fairfield Road: he lives on the
south side of this property, the proposal will make a large house
much larger, with more people, noise and vehicles, will exceed the
tolerance of the neighborhood. R. J. Edwards, 1429 Palm Drive: he
was aware of Commission's problems, spent eight years on the
Planning Commission, this property has about six variances on it
now, previous owners dug a hole in the ground in the back, they put
in bath house and toilet, kitchen facilities and barrel under the
house for sewage, had overflow under the garage, brought to the
neighborhood a bad odor for a long time; house has been sold two or
three times in the last eight years; at one time there were eight
cars located on the site, neighbors have complained continuously;
in reading what the present owner is requesting, there is not one
request he would support, think applicant should find a house that
is suitable for his existing family needs.
Evelyn Harper, 832 Fairfield Road: she lives immediately to the
north, there are more people than room in the house, this is a
single family house in an R-1 neighborhood, she wants to keep it
that way, ambience of the neighborhood is being spoiled by the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
June 26, 1989
overpopulation on that site with noise, number of people and cars;
the owners are very nice people and may not be aware of the custom
of the neighborhood; extending the basement will increase living
area and will bring more people with more cars and more noise;
dollars spent should have been for repairing the house, not adding
to it.
Chris Daskalakis, 836 Fairfield Road: if sold in the future what
would prevent someone from renting the house and bringing in more
cars and more people. Ellyn Freed Wickman, 815 Fairfield Road
expressed her concerns: what does habitable mean, does it mean
there would be kitchen facilities in the basement so the property
could be divided into more than one unit; size of this structure
compared to the houses on either side of the property, those houses
are single story.
Applicant commented: each Commissioner probably has a family and a
house adequate for his needs, he is just trying to make this house
livable for the family members living there, it is not livable or
safe now; when the children reach 16-17 years of age he will buy
them a car and will deal with the parking problem when it arrives.
Commission comment: Planning Commission is not unsympathetic to the
needs of people in Burlingame, there are properties which are
problems and Commission must make findings to support approval of
these variances and special permit amendment; think it's
commendable to take care of one's family but am concerned by
applicant trying to put the monkey on the Commission's back, that
is if Commission doesn't approve this proposal applicant will have
to move from this unlivable, unsafe house, Commission tries to help
people. Have a problem with applicant's comment regarding parking
and dealing with parking for children's cars in the future, now is
later for many homes, parking is something which has to be dealt
with now. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: variance findings must be made relating to
the property itself, size of family and expense of doing these
things is not an acceptable reason for a variance; have had
problems with this property for a long time, the lot is almost
9,000 SF, a lot that large should be able to provide parking to
code, they shouldn't have spent $30,000 on the accessory structure
before remodeling the house, accessory structure could have been
made into a code standard garage, the city is being asked to give
but can see no give on applicant's part.
C. S.Graham could not make findings to support the variances,
particularly a finding of exceptional circumstances and that the
use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass,
bulk and character of the existing properties in the general
vicinity. C. S.Graham moved for denial of the three variances and
special permit amendment; motion was seconded by C. Giomi.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
June 26, 1989
Comment on the motion: will support the motion, variance finding
(d) regarding compatibility with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the neighborhood is not met, variance finding (a) that
there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property
involved is not met. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, EXCEPTION TO CONDOMINIUM STANDARDS FOR
COMMON OPEN SPACE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1443 FLORIBUNDA
AVENUE, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 6/26/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, June 15, 1989 plans which show an
area for guest parking in the garage, staff comments, Planning
staff comment on front setback and redesign of landscaping at the
rear of the building, letter in opposition (June 26, 1989) from the
property owners of the apartment building at 1446 Floribunda, study
meeting questions, applicant's letter. Seven conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: CP's note regarding parking in the required backup
area; will garage doors be roll -up; guest parking policy.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect,
addressed Commission: guest parking has been addressed in the
alternate plans (June 15, 1989), they have provided one space;
regarding landscaping and the gate in the fence at the entryway to
Unit C, Commission has a landscape plan which addresses this, there
is clear access all the way around, there will be a fence where the
gate is that allows exiting from the back area; regarding common
open space and private open space, because of the townhouse concept
they would like to provide common open space as private open space
to each individual unit so it can be used as a yard is used by a
single family house; parking is below grade so that the on-site
open space could be used individually; with a larger project, even
10 units, common open space makes sense; regarding front setback,
the packet has a breakdown of eight properties along the street, it
is full of apartment buildings with approximately 15' setbacks, one
house is set back 531, because of that one house the average
setback is 181-611; with the zoning on this street this one house
undoubtedly will be sold and developed as a multiple family unit,
the site developed with a number of units and the front setback
changed to 151.
Comment: it appears the house with 53' setback has more than one
unit. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
June 26, 1989
Commission discussion: letter in opposition from the property
owners of 1446 Floribunda; this is a creative project; open space
proposal is a good idea, common open space is not needed with three
units; don't see why an 18'-6" front setback needs to be required,
if the 53' setback were dropped out the average would be 141.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the condominium permit and the
front setback variance by resolution with the following conditions:
(1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's June 5, 1989 memo and
City Engineer's June 6, 1989 memo shall be met and that all
requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code
shall be met to the satisfaction of the city; (2) that the
structure shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped June 15, 1989 as amended
by the conditions of this permit; (3) that an uninterrupted
continuous pathway a minimum of 4.5' in width clearly separated
from the at grade common open space of the adjacent units shall be
provided in such a way so that the walkway will always remain clear
of obstacles; (4) that upon completion no unit shall have less
private open space at grade and above grade in decks than 307 SF;
(5) that final inspection shall be complete and a certificate of
occupancy shall be issued before the close of escrow on the sale of
each unit; and (6) that the developer shall provide to each initial
purchaser of a unit and to the board of directors of the
condominium association an owner -purchaser manual which shall
contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work
on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of
appliances or fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all
depreciable component parts of the project, including but not
limited to roof, painting and common area carpets, drapes and
furniture.
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis with the comment that even if the
53' front setback were 18' it would still drop the average to 141.
Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM, LOT 9, BLOCK 9, MAP NO. 2 OF BURLINGAME LAND
COMPANY, 1443 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE
Reference CE memo, 6/26/89, Item #5. C. Harrison moved to
recommend this tentative condominium map to City Council for
approval. Second C. Ellis; motion approved unanimously on voice
vote. Staff will forward to Council.
6. PARKING VARIANCE - 1105 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Item continued to the meeting of July 10, 1989 at the request of
the property owner.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
June 26, 1989
Recess 9:02 P.M.; reconvene 9:10 P.M.
7. VARIANCE TO PARKING STANDARDS FOR A NEW BUILDING AT
701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 6/26/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicantfs letter, study meeting questions and
applicants response. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: car sales in this zone; CE explained his concern about
vehicle visibility backing out onto San Mateo Avenue and the rear
exit door, he is requesting a 3' minimum setback at the rear to
give more visibility; mezzanine area is included in the square
footage for bulk sales. Condition #3 allowing sale of bulk
merchandise as determined by the terms of the zoning code as
reviewed by the City Planner was discussed; concern was expressed
about car sales at this busy corner.
Chm. H. Graham opened the public hearing. Bill Britton, applicant
and property owner, noted most bulk sales in this area are
automobiles, he did not feel that auto sales on this site would be
dangerous; he would like to stay away from restrictions in the
deed, deed restrictions affect lenders much more than a resolution
of record or something of that nature; he has tried to purchase the
gas station structure on the site next door several times without
success.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: this item was duly noticed; previous
proposal needed a parking variance in addition to a variance to
parking standards and had quite a bit of opposition, staff has
received no negative comments on this proposal; applicant has
returned with a proposal which does not require a parking variance,
this is a difficult place to put anything, am concerned about auto
sales, can understand applicant's concern about deed restrictions;
several businesses back out onto San Mateo Avenue, it is not the
best way but can be done.
C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance to parking standards
based on Commission comments during discussion by resolution with
the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City
Engineer's June 6, 1989 memo shall be met; (2) that the project
shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped June 14, 1989; and (3) that
the building shall be used only for businesses selling bulk
merchandise as determined by the terms of the zoning code as
reviewed by the City Planner. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
June 26, 1989
Comment on the motion: this action will not restrict car sales,
doubt anyone would try to put an auto sales business on this site;
auto sales would need to be approved by the DMV and they would have
to show they have a showroom and parking.
Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi and
Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL OPERATION - 1755 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY
Item continued to the meeting of July 10, 1989.
9. AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AIRPORT PARKING AT
615, 701 AND 731 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 6/26/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, CA's review of legal arguments and
suggested actions for the Commission (CA recommended his 4th
alternative), Planning staff comment, study meeting questions
(notification of public hearing, history of permits on this site).
CP reported a telephone call this morning advising the landscaping
has been completed and discussed the lots involved with the use of
a map on the overhead projector. One condition was suggested as a
replacement for Condition #2 of the September 7, 1988 use permit.
Discussion: use permit required one access point if used for
airport parking; leasehold from the state; public access. CP noted
the lots shaded on the map are excluded from the September, 1988
permit and the parking lot operator must get rights of easement
across nonparticipating lots in order to use them as access to
participating lots; applicant has said he cannot get easements
across these lots; the city is saying in the fourth alternative
suggested by the CA that all the lots can be used for parking with
only one access point, let the operator and various property owners
work out the access question.
Chm. H. Graham opened the public hearing. George Corey, attorney
representing Metropolitan Parking Corporation, applicant, addressed
Commission: he stated Metro Parking is merely the operator, the
operator gets leases from various owners to use the lots for
parking; he understood the landscaping is now complete; Metro
Parking is applying only for those lots over which it has lease
rights. Regarding the CA's recommendation, his client would prefer
that the language be changed from easements to licenses, they will
be satisfied with the CA's recommendation.
Michael McCracken, attorney representing Richard Szeto and Gordon
Wong who own or lease 50% or more of some of the nonparticipating
lots and have not signed a lease or license agreement with Metro
Parking, addressed Commission: he stated the problem is disparate
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
June 26, 1989
ownerships; there is a dispute now about who is going to operate
the parking lot presently and when the present lease expires in
1991, the city should not be involved, reason for the problem is
there is only one entrance onto Airport Boulevard, if all lots are
allowed to operate out of one gate the situation will be the same
as it presently is forcing owners of the participating lots to
illegally cross state leased land without full permission of all of
the owners; by this amendment Commission is being asked to grant a
use permit for parking use for lots where all of the owners haven't
consented, a use permit cannot be granted where all the owners do
not agree. If all the lots are allowed to operate out of one gate
Commission is forever foreclosing the shaded lots to the right from
use of the gate because the owners of the unshaded lots will not
allow them to cross over, there will be a stalemate; a license
won't be satisfactory, it is not an interest in land. Mr.
McCracken suggested the status quo be maintained with one access
point and that cross easements be obtained; how does the fourth
alternative suggested by the CA enable the owners of the shaded
properties to use their property.
CA and Attorney McCracken discussed what might result if Condition
#2 were amended to include all the properties; Mr. McCracken
contended this would be rewarding the present operator, how are
those not under the Metropolitan lease going to use their
properties without access onto Airport Boulevard; he stated the
solution would be to maintain the permit granted in September,
1988. Commission/attorneys discussion: Mr. McCracken's clients
were present at the hearing in 1988, they recognized the reality
and they did not grant easements, they have not had the use of that
property for years; there is a dispute over two operators.
Attorney McCracken commented Commission didn't create the problem
but it cannot take what he would consider an illegal action to
rectify it, that action would be granting a use permit across
properties without the consent of the owners.
In response CA noted Attorney Corey's argument that permission can
be granted to use a property by part of the property owners, the
city is suggesting removal of the condition which reflects what is
out there now, CA could not understand what anyone would lose by
granting the use permit for all of the properties and confirmed it
is down to an issue of license versus easement, let the courts
decide. Mr. McCracken stated this action would overturn the status
quo everyone has relied on up until now. CP noted this use has
been here since the 19601s.
Further discussion: why not apply for another gate for Lots 10-13,
Block 7 to give them equal treatment; there is a parking demand out
there and there is another operator ready; is there that much
difference between the two operators; problem is not the operators,
it is the enmity which has developed between the owners over the
years. Attorney Corey stated the legal argument should not be
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
June 26, 1989
before Commission but they do not want to stop the parking
operation, CA's recommendation will let it keep going until the
problems are worked out.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed. Staff and Commission briefly discussed the history of this
site, permits granted and litigation.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit amendment as
recommended by the City Attorney for the reasons stated in his memo
of June 6, 1989 with the following condition: (1) that this use
permit shall include the parcels identified as Block 5, Lots 8, 9,
10, 11, 12 and Block 7, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
and 13 and that circulation in and among these lots shall occur
only internally to the lots. Motion was made by resolution and
seconded by C. S.Graham.
In comment on the motion it was determined the CA still stands by
his recommendation. Further Commission comment: in 1988 voted
against the special permit because it brought the permit up before
Commission again, contended in 1988 that it was an interim use 20
years ago because they had problems selling the land and getting
construction started, this land has a much better and higher use
than a parking lot, will vote against the special permit amendment.
Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham voting no.
Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CP memo - change to 2112 Hillside Drive plans
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its June 19, 1989
regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley S. Graham
Secretary