HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.06.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 12, 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 12, 1989
at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs, Kelly
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos,
Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank
Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 22, 1989 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. VARIANCES TO HEIGHT, PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK AND
SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - 824 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1
Requests: size of the recreation room, study and sun room; who did
the work adding partition walls to the accessory structure; is
applicant the same owner who applied for the use permit for the
accessory structure in 1986, was action on the use permit taken by
resolution; why not provide a standard 20' x 20' garage, why is
this property unique. Item set for public hearing June 26, 1989.
2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND EXCEPTION TO CONDOMINIUM STANDARDS,
AND CONDOMINIUM MAP - 1443 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3
Requests: further explanation from applicant regarding why common
open space is not needed; where will guests of the residents park.
Item set for public hearing June 26, 1989.
3. PARKING VARIANCE FOR USE OF A SECOND FLOOR TENANT SPACE -
1105 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1
Requests: more explanation of the second fire exit and how it
related to the last proposed use of this property; how can these
businesses operate with so few clients; is this the same art
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
June 12, 1989
gallery that is now operating on Hatch Lane; where will they park.
Item set for public hearing June 26, 1989.
4. VARIANCE TO PARKING STANDARDS FOR A NEW BUILDING AT 701
CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-2
Requests: would like an example of what will be called bulk
merchandise, type of business; do they have any potential tenants;
is applicant aware of the CE's conditions; is the mezzanine
included in the parking requirements. Item set for public hearing
June 26, 1989.
5. AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL PERMIT ALLOWING PROPERTIES TO BE USED
FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING - 615, 701 AND 731 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Requests: who will be noticed for the public hearing; memo from CA
with summary and identification of alternatives; city's liability;
history of permits on this property, status of landscaping;
clarification of the maps in the packet; would like an overhead of
the map. Item set for public hearing June 26, 1989.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL OPERATION - 1755 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1
Requests: when did previous car rental use leave this site; turning
movement onto Bayshore Highway; what will be done with the front of
the property along Bayshore Highway, what landscaping will be
provided; storage space requirements for a fleet; where will rental
contracts be written. Item set for public hearing June 26, 1989.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
At this point in the meeting it was noted PLR Adriana Garefalos
would be leaving June 14 for a position as Senior Planner in
Mountain View. Commission congratulated her and expressed its
regret that she was leaving. The Chair read Resolution of
Commendation and Appreciation and presented this signed resolution
to the Planner.
7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A THIRD BEDROOM AT 928
LINDEN_AVENUt. ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/12/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, applicants, letter. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
It was determined this is a standard sized lot.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
June 12, 1989
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Matt Palahniuk and Carole
Sykes, applicants, were present. Mr. Palahniuk.stated they did not
want to extend the garage to the rear and provide tandem parking
because of a large tree in the rear which they did not want to
remove, the tree is 18' back from the rear of the existing garage,
the existing garage is 21'-611; there is an exiting rear door now,
with the addition they plan to move it to the outer wall.
Commission/applicant discussion: structural changes to the house
would have to be made in order to extend the garage, extending the
garage to the side would require removing two existing bedrooms, if
extended to the rear they would lose the tree and the roof line
would require a ridge line taller than the existing house or an odd
slope on the rear and would displace part of the rear bedroom.
Commission comment: there appears to be a bedroom window that would
be blocked if the garage were extended to the rear, otherwise it
would create a courtyard effect between wings of the house.
Applicant advised they had not considered removing the garage
entirely and putting a two car garage in the rear.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in the
location of the house and garage on this lot as stated, the
variance is necessary for the property rights of the applicants
because there is no real viable alternative and it will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood. C. Jacobs moved for approval of
the parking variance by resolution with the following conditions:
(1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 31, 1989;
(2) that the proposed bedroom/bath addition shall never be used for
separate living purposes; and (3) that the project shall be built
to conform to all Building and Fire Code requirements. Motion was
seconded by C. Ellis.
Comment on the motion: there are viable options, garage could be
extended to the rear to provide tandem parking, a detached standard
garage could be built at the rear, this is a level lot, standard
for the city. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C.
Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE FOR AN ADDITION AT 961 CHULA VISTA
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/12/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, previous request which was denied
without prejudice, applicant's letter. Four conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. - Thuan duc Tran,
representing the property owner, advised they had redesigned the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
June 12, 1989
project to include a two car garage and have set in the 562 SF
addition to the house 6' to allow for access to the garage; the
small portion shown on the structural footprint is an enclosed
patio and was included in the lot coverage calculations. There
were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. S.Graham found the applicant has returned to the Commission with
a proposal which meets what was requested, there are exceptional
circumstances justifying the additional lot coverage in that he
could not provide a two car garage in any other way, the variance
will not affect neighboring properties nor the zoning of the area.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the variance to lot coverage by
resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project as
built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped May 17, 1989 which show a 562 SF
addition to the house set in 6' from the existing side wall of the
house in order to provide sufficient room for access to the two car
garage at the rear; ( 2 ) that the new code standard two car garage
shall have minimum interior dimensions of 20' x 20' and shall have
an 18' wide garage door in order to allow access to the second
parking space inside the garage; (3) that the garage shall only be
used for parking cars and shall never be used for residential
purposes; and (4) that the house shall be maintained as a single
family dwelling and shall not be separated into two dwelling units
and the existing kitchen shall be removed when the new kitchen is
constructed.
Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 7-0 roll call
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
9. VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK FOR A NEW GARAGE AT
3109 CANANEA AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/12/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request and noted this is a redesign of an
earlier proposal which was denied, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants' letter. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. It was determined the
existing garage is not considered oversized since it is an attached
garage, existing garage meets code requirements. The addition will
be a single story.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Debbie Sanders,
applicant, was present. She commented these plans are the same as
submitted in 1985 for a building permit except for the property
line location; they have concerns about cutting back the foundation
and possible problems with underlying fill and undermining the
construction strength of the garage itself; they did have an
engineer redesign part of the foundation because of the height of
the back wall in the original permit. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
June 12, 1989
C. Giomi stated that with staff recommendations and conditions
attached she did not have a problem with the requested variances,
the whole structure is a considerable distance from the adjacent
house, if the CE's memo is followed and this area used as storage
only, never for residential, concerns would be alleviated. She
found there were exceptional circumstances in the shape of the lot,
with placement of the adjacent property this structure would have
no impact, with the setback and vegetation it will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood and will not change the zoning of
the city, it will be compatible with the adjacent properties.
C. Giomi moved for approval of the two variances by resolution with
the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped May 26, 1989; (2) that the existing garage and curb
cut shall be retained as the required parking for the site and the
new first floor storage area shall never be used for residential
purposes nor shall it ever contain a mechanical hoist or other
fixed equipment for auto repair nor shall any part of this property
ever be used for or in association with an auto repair business;
(3) that no portion of this structure shall ever be used for a
second residential unit; and (4) that the project shall be designed
to meet all Building and Fire Code requirements. Motion was
seconded by C. Kelly.
Comment on the motion: will support the motion primarily because of
the shape of the lot and the fact that the property to the south
will not be impacted; cannot support, this is a garage for storage,
the city will have a future enforcement problem, cannot support a
storage garage of this size in a residential neighborhood, the
drawings were not correct when they were first submitted and that
is why this request is before Commission now.
Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting.
Appeal procedures were advised.
10. VARIANCES TO PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK TO MAINTAIN AN
EXISTING GARAGE AT 1619 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/12/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. It was determined this is
larger than a standard city lot, the site is level; the floor plan
for the house is the same as approved by the Building Department,
the site plan differs showing the existing garage rather than a new
two car garage; existing garage is 1' from property line; if the
garage were set back there would be no turn -around problem, in this
residential zone both cars would be allowed to back out into the
street.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
June 12, 1989
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Hozhabr Afshar,
applicant, was present. His comments: he would like to keep the
existing garage, it was necessary to redo the entire house,
existing garage is not that much smaller than a standard garage,
keeping it would make quite a difference to him financially. There
is no pavement on the side of the street so no need for a setback,
the Newhall right-of-way is wide and there is quite a bit of room
in the undeveloped portion of the right-of-way on the side of the
street to park. He purchased this property recently, termite
report did not look under the exterior, they said they were not
required to drill holes, only report what they were able to see;
the new addition was to be of stucco so exterior shingles of the
old house were removed and water and termite damage was discovered;
he stripped the existing garage and will need to add stucco to
match the new house.
A Commissioner advised the applicant that findings of exceptional
circumstances to support a variance must be findings applicable to
the property itself, financial considerations are not
justification. Applicant stated he felt since the garage does
exist and it is not far from code requirements he would ask for
this variance. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
With the statement he could not find exceptional circumstances
relating to this property, C. Harrison moved for denial of the
variances to parking and side yard setback. Motion was seconded by
C. S.Graham.
Comment on the motion: a code standard garage can easily be
provided, the added cost would not be that great, see no reason not
to provide a 20' x 20' garage. Motion to deny was approved on a
7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 8:40 P.M.; reconvene 8:52 P.M.
11. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 2668
MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/12/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, applicant's letter, letter in
opposition from the neighbor at 1600 Toledo Avenue, Hillside Area
Construction Permit. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. CP clarified habitable area
and long distance views; revised parking requirements for single
family homes were noted.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Diane Johnson, applicant,
was present. Her comments: she is seeking a permit to develop the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
June 12, 1989
house she grew up in, house was built in 1958, she has been a
resident of Burlingame since 1947, she has multiple sclerosis and
has been using a wheelchair more and more, is an industrial
designer and designed the project herself, would like to develop
and improve her property to its maximum. The kitchen will have to
be remodeled and the informal dining area will be lost; the family
room becomes the dining area, the fireplace will be removed from
this room because she discovered it would block her neighborls
view.
She has two children, one is now in college. She wanted a library,
it could be used for studying and as part of her office should she
be able to operate as a consultant in the future; the elevator is
needed for the wheelchair, there are hydraulic lifts for the pool
area; there are new 81 doors for wheelchair access, currently this
house is not very accessible and she uses her wheelchair most of
the time; she would like to put a washer and drier in the bathroom,
it is a hazard for her to go up and down stairs.
Applicant/Commission discussion: the room at the back of the garage
is a game room, it is on the original plans for the house, some new
windows and doors have been added. A Commissioner asked if
applicant would be willing to consider a smaller project, perhaps
staying on one floor and eliminating the pool and having a large
Jacuzzi. Applicant stated it is only a small swim pool with spa,
the bedroom needs to be the size it is so that she can navigate in
her wheelchair; the library is out of the way, it was designed at
an angle to conform to the existing trees which will screen it; the
boat in the side yard will be sent to Seattle; when the stored
items are removed it will be possible to use the garage for two
cars. Responding to a question regarding the large amount of
storage space, it is such a large project, the ground floor is all
storage, applicant said that area could be used as a gym and the
equipment takes up a lot of room; 80% of her time will be spent on
the upper level. She has not visited the home on Toledo whose
residents objected to the addition, but relied on her engineer's
information that it would not block their view, the engineer did
visit the Toledo property.
Speaking in support, Charles Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering: he did
a survey from the deck of the Toledo residence, profiles developed
are reasonably accurate, within 611, for the adjacent property and
more accurate for the proposed construction, sketch shows a hip
roof, the portion that is highest is much narrower than the whole
roof, roof to be extended is near the same elevation as the
existing roof of the existing bedroom, the proposed roof is not a
uniformly sloping roof, roof that is a little higher than the
existing bedroom was done that way for enough slope to get shingles
onto the roof, the existing roof is shake and that was about the
minimum slope on which to place a shake roof. The new proposed
roof is lower than the highest point of the existing roof.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
June 12, 1989
Commissioner comment: sitting in the living room of the house on
Toledo and looking straight ahead toward BIS, could see only the
roof; Mr. Kavanagh advised he stood on the deck. Further
Commissioner comment: there were two additional fireplaces on the
plans, applicant spoke of eliminating one. Mr. Kavanagh advised
the fireplace in the family room will be eliminated, applicant is
planning to put one in the library, this would be further away from
the neighbor. With use of the overhead projector Mr. Kavanagh,
Commission and staff discussed location and height of the fireplace
in the library, height of existing house and the addition, size of
several of the rooms.
There were no audience comments in favor.
The following spoke in opposition. William Vaccaro, 1600 Toledo
Avenue: he stated the addition would affect his view, it is a large
addition, not an addition to a home but big enough to be a duplex,
it will affect the value of his property and neighbors' property,
in time it will affect the entire neighborhood.
Elizabeth McTiche, 1 Karen Court: she lives two doors to the north
and had concern for the land being built upon, the effect on
soil/slope stability, there are springs under the homes here,
concern about drainage from the project site and its effect on
adjacent properties. Mr. Kavanagh advised a soils report was made
on the hill, the hill is already in an excavated state, in most
instances the ground is stable, regarding drainage there is water
now going from applicant's property into a drainage swale toward
Karen Court, this has not been maintained and he advised the
applicant not to use that drainage course. They will put in a new
drainage system bringing drainage forward to the street and will
not be contributing to the drainage problem any more. Applicant
stated the retaining walls are rapidly deteriorating, they will
build concrete reinforced retaining walls, terrace and relandscape;
she has no intention of disturbing her neighbors' view and is
willing to be flexible if need be.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion/comment: redirected drainage will be reviewed
as a part of the building permit; concern about impact on the view
of the neighbor to the south, sitting in the living room and
sitting on the outdoor patio to the rear both views are impacted,
from the living room the shorter long distance view is obstructed,
from the patio the entire view would be lost, this may not be
considered habitable area but have a problem with the impact; have
a similar concern, sat in the neighbor's living room, for a person
of about 5-1/2' tall everything below the railing would be blocked,
trees would be blocked, it is not only what you don't see but what
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
June 12, 1989
you do see, think it would have a dramatic impact, the rooms are
very large, do not believe this addition needs to be so big, can
sympathize with the applicant's needs but also can sympathize with
the neighbors', the Vacarros' view will be impacted, they will
still see the bay but the trees will be gone; share these concerns,
think there are reasonable alternatives to what is being proposed
which would alleviate much if not all of the concerns regarding
views.
C. Jacobs moved for denial of the variance to side yard setback and
of the hillside area construction permit. Motion was seconded by
C. S. Graham. Comment on the motion: will vote to support the
motion, sitting in the neighbors house one would see a wall, the
closer of the long distance views would be lost. Motion to deny
was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
12. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
AT 1216 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 6/12/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letters,
study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. It was determined the attic
area would be usedfor mechanical equipment, accessed only by
repair people.
Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Jack Klein, applicant and
property owner, was present. His comments: attic area will be a
big help in seeing if there is a problem and locating it; his
attorney will deal with access to these attic areas through the
respective condominium units; regarding the roof structure, he owns
the building next door and is trying to give light to the structure
next door; he felt accessible loft area as proposed was a plus in
the design.
Commission/applicant discussion: a Commissioner had concern about
the height of the building and asked if applicant planned to have
8' interior ceilings. Applicant said they will make sure the
structure does not exceed 35, in height, he has left all details in
this regard to his engineer. He would like to have a security
gate, staff had advised him the problem was in redesign and
blocking a required second exit to the building, a gate could be
addressed by possible redesign, if a gate were installed each unit
would have to be supplied with an intercom and that gate could only
be 61 high, it is a fence.
Jean Brodek, one of the owners of 1217 Capuchino Avenue had a
concern about water drainage. CE advised that problem will have to
be worked out before a building permit will be issued. There were
no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
June 12, 1989
CE stated the state does not like drainage to be relocated from its
original pathway onto a state route; a Commissioner pointed out the
CE's memo which is included in the conditions on the project will
require review and approval of drainage at the building permit
stage.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the condominium permit by
resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions
of the Chief Building Inspector's May 23, 1989 memo, the Fire
Marshal's May 10, 1989 memo and the City Engineer's June 1, 1989
memo shall be met; (2) that the overall height of the building, the
ceiling height of the loft areas and finished clear height between
the garage floor and any obstruction on or at the ceiling of the
garage shall be measured and found to meet code requirements before
a building permit shall be issued; (3) that one of the on-site
parking spaces shall be designated for guest parking and if a
security gate is installed it shall include an intercom system
installed at the security gate and in each unit to ensure the
availability of this space to guests; (4) that escrow on the sale
of a unit shall not close until the final inspection and a
certificate of occupancy has been issued by the city for that unit;
(5) 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, pool
equipment and common area carpets, drapes and furniture; and (6)
that any change to the building including expansion in square
footage of habitable areas, enclosure of balconies or modification
to attic area, parking and landscaping shall receive a building
permit from the City of Burlingame and an amendment to the
condominium permit if necessary. Motion was seconded by C.
Harrison and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
13. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FOUR UNITS, LOT 4, BLOCK 17,
MAP OF BURLINGAME GROVE. 1216 EL CAMINO REAL
Reference City Engineer's memo, 6/12/89. C. Harrison moved to
recommend this tentative condominium map to City Council for
approval. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved unanimously
on voice vote. Staff will forward to Council.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
- New application forms
- New application submittal deadlines
- Review of signage for Holiday Inn
Boulevard
- Hillside Area Construction Permits -
Dolores Way
PLANNER REPORT
Page 11
June 12, 1989
Crowne Plaza, 600 Airport
1531 Alturas Drive and 2990
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 5, 1989 regular
meeting and June 7, 1989 study meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley S. Graham
Secretary