Loading...
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