Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.05.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 8, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, May 8, 1989 at 7:33 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; Ed Williams, Deputy Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the April 24, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - 1989-90 TERM C. Ellis nominated Harry Graham for Chairman. The nominations were closed and Harry Graham elected Chairman unanimously. C. H.Graham nominated Mike Ellis for Vice Chairman. The nominations were closed and Mike Ellis elected Vice Chairman unanimously. C. Harrison nominated Shelley Graham for Secretary. The nominations were closed and Shelley Graham elected Secretary unanimously. Newly elected Chairman Harry Graham accepted the gavel from C. Jacobs and thanked her for her leadership during the past year. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND VARIANCE TO PARKING DIMENSIONS IN ORDER TO LEGALIZE THE CONVERSION OF NONCONFORMING CARPORTS TO GARAGES, AT 1511 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: summary of 1970 use variance; brief explanation of how action to enclose the carports reduced the backup area; how long Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 8, 1989 has the present owner owned this property; how long has the enclosure of the three garages existed; what lighting exists on the street and in the rear area; allowable lot coverage. Item set for public hearing May 22, 1989. 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR AN 11 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1117-1125 RHINETTE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Requests: height of other buildings on Rhinette; would developers be agreeable to a requirement that a guarantee book be provided to purchasers and a condition requiring final inspection prior to the close of escrow; setbacks and how they are figured for both sides of the street. Item set for public hearing May 22, 1989. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF SNACK ITEMS INSIDE THE EXISTING GAS STATION AT 1100 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Requests: Where do employees park and where are cars being serviced parked; are these new owners, was the snack shop existing prior to their ownership; where will driveways be located after intersection improvements; where is parking proposed for existing uses plus those picking up snack items; CE comment on curb cut. Item set for public hearing May 22, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE IN ORDER TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING PATIO AREA AT 600 PLYMOUTH WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/8/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letters, letter from Tim Costello, 437 Dwight Road. She explained the entire patio area will not be enclosed. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: which neighbor bought the 71 wide portion of land along the rear of the lot prior to applicants' purchase of the property; staff advised this lot meets minimum lot standards for a residential lot. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Jamgs Leclair, applicant, responded to Commission questions: the study next to the garage was an existing room, they use it for storage of books, etc.; there is another room in the house which will be the nursery; the paved area off Dwight was used by the previous owner as a driveway, applicant has used it occasionally; the 71 strip of land sold before he purchased the property was on the long side of the site; the master bedroom has a large window which now faces the patio, with the enclosure they do plan to add windows and a sliding door, there is Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 8, 1989 also a large bay window in the kitchen which would be blocked, they intend to add windows and skylights where necessary; their fence is quite high, it should screen the patio from their neighbor; regarding landscaping, there is a medium sized apple tree along the fence; the fence was constructed many years ago. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement he made a site inspection and had no problem granting this variance to lot coverage, C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances, to get the most enjoyment out of the property the only way to expand would be in this manner in order to save the disruption of a second story, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the applicants, it will not be detrimental or injurious to other properties and it will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the area since it will not be visible from the street. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 14, 1989; (2) that the project shall be designed to meet all Building Code and Fire Code requirements and energy conservation calculations shall be submitted at the building permit stage; and (3) that only a 9'-10" x 15' portion of the existing patio area shall be enclosed. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: possibility of conditioning the variance to restrict utilities and require the patio enclosure never be used as a bedroom; staff advised it is habitable area and as such is required to have heat and all utilities; maker of the motion and seconder did not wish to add another condition; if there are not enough windows in the master bedroom they will be required at the building permit stage; will vote no, there are other alternatives. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. VARIANCES TO PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 125 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/8/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, Planning staff comment on a previous submittal which was denied without prejudice by City Council, applicants' letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised approximate size of the new bedroom, sitting room and sun room. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Terrence Freethy, applicant, was present. Commissioner comment: this is a big Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 8, 1989 addition, with two sitting rooms, a sun room and five bedrooms, how many people live here; applicant stated they have a growing family, it is necessary to go through another room on the first floor to reach one of the bedrooms on that floor, on the second floor there is a sun room in the back (about 7' x 71), the sitting room on the second floor is about 8' , the downstairs sitting room in the back is about 8' x 10' (staff thought this is 13' x 111/121). There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham found applicant has addressed City Council's concerns and provided two covered parking spaces, there are exceptional circumstances in the attached garage, it can't be made wider at that point, if a separate structure in the back yard were required that would be even more square footage and a bigger impact, applicant has done the best he can with an unusual situation, dealing with conversion of a nonconforming second unit. into a bedroom, the variances are necessary for preservation, of the property rights of the applicants, they will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not compromise the zoning. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the two variances and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 20, 1989; (2) that the existing studio apartment shall be converted to a fourth bedroom and the existing kitchen and bath shall be removed and this property shall be used for only one dwelling unit in the future; and (3) that the project shall be designed to .meet all Fire and Building Code requirements. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: there is room in the rear for a detached garage, there are other ways to do this project, think applicant should come in without any variance requests; difficult to find exceptional circumstances, there can be a drive-through and two car garage in the rear, with this size house and addition there should be a two car standard size garage; will support the motion, it is not a reasonable solution to put a garage in the rear, applicant has addressed City Council's concerns; this is much too ambitious an addition, too large considering the parking and side setback variances; don't believe the size of the addition has anything to do with it, applicant is going for a parking and side setback variance, he has done what was requested of him by Council, it would be presumptuous of Commission to do anything but approve; applicant has an unusual situation, layout of the house is poor, having to get to one bedroom by going through another room; an architect can design anything, this is a 43% increase in size, there are other alternatives; find the same reasons in support as stated in a motion for approval of the first submittal; there are Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 8, 1989 many homes in Burlingame and San Mateo County where tandem bedrooms are used individually as bedrooms; applicant could get a drive- through to the rear without tearing down part of the house. Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Jacobs and H.Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. The Chair recognized ex -Commissioner Chuck Mink and Mrs. Mink in the audience. 6. VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO USE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS A RECREATION ROOM AND TO ADD AN 80 SF BATHROOM TO IT, AT 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/8/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, neighbors' signatures submitted, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Allen Menicucci, applicant, was present. Discussion: applicant stated they do not need two metal storage sheds which are on the property, one would be sufficient, the accessory structure is more important to them now; house is approximately 1,700 SF; there are two bedrooms, 1-1/2 baths and a family room in the existing house, the bathroom is located the farthest point from the spa, it is a one story home. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: accessory structure is too bulky for the rear yard, it takes up too much space and reduces whatever usable space a subsequent owner might want to use, this structure could easily be turned into a second living unit, have no problem with the exercise room but cannot approve the addition of a bathroom; do have a concern with the potential for a second unit but not so concerned about taking up the backyard, that is the applicant's choice rather than lawn, suggested condition #5 regarding removal of the accessory structure in five years would alleviate concern about potential use of the structure; share concern about use of the structure as an illegal unit but think staff has addressed this adequately in condition #5, action will be by resolution and permit will be granted to a date certain, since it does not infringe on any of the neighbors applicant has the option to use his property as he sees fit; tend to agree with the previous statements, condition #5 will make it possible to remove the accessory structure in five years if the property is sold. C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances mentioned in the staff report, applicants' letters and Commission discussion, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 8, 1989 use of this particular structure as it is now with the addition will be the best use of this property, it is necessary for applicants' enjoyment of their property rights, it will not be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity and will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the general area. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance and two special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance and Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 23, 1989 and April 27, 1989; (2) that retroactive building permits shall be obtained for all work already completed and all appropriate penalty fees paid; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of March 31, 1989 shall be met. and the project shall be designed to meet all Fire and Building Code requirements; (4) that this structure shall be used as a family recreation room only and shall never be used for living purposes; and (5) that the existing 110 SF accessory structure as well as the 80 SF bathroom addition shall be removed in five years (May, 1994) or a new application shall be submitted to allow the structure to remain for a longer period of time. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi. Comment on the motion: can respect applicants' need but from a site inspection found it is difficult to navigate between this structure and the house, there is no open space, how would a fireman get around the lot, could reduce the size and keep lot coverage within code, existing building could still be used in that capacity, think this could be worked out without a variance to lot coverage; agree, cannot find exceptional circumstances for the variance to lot coverage, the way in which they use this structure cannot be considered exceptional since this finding must apply to the property itself; will support the motion, perhaps the laundry facility could be in the garage and shower in the laundry room area of the house but have no problem with the motion. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A TWO STORY ADDITION AT 151 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/8/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, applicants' letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained CBI's statement that the proposed work cannot exceed 50% of the assessed value of the structure, otherwise Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 8, 1989 the entire structure will be required to meet current code requirements. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Kurt Papenhause, applicant, was present. His comments: they expected to have to address only a side yard setback variance and had thought the proposed addition was exempt from the declining height envelope ordinance because of the two story house next door; the proposed work will not exceed 50% of the assessed value of the structure; his lot is only 50' wide, there are many in the area 100' wide; the bedroom cannot be added to the other side of the house, it will blend with the existing structure's design and general character of the neighborhood, that is why they chose a second story addition, a single story would cause disjointed rooms downstairs and negatively impact their neighbors, if it were one story it could easily be made into a duplex. Responding to a question applicant stated access to the kitchen is through the living and dining rooms or the back door; addressing exceptional circumstances, applicant said it is a very long 50' wide lot, existing structure has a 3' side yard setback, they cannot widen the sides, need to follow present line; with regard to the declining height envelope variance, they would have to remove 33% of the proposed upstairs bedroom, the house already has a jog on one side. A Commissioner commented on the size of the second story addition, it could be somewhat narrower except applicant wishes to go up on the same wall; applicant agreed. Regarding distance from the house next door, applicant stated there is a 3' side yard setback on his side and about 15' to 20' on the neighbor's side. CP addressed the declining height ordinance which indicates if there is a second story adjacent applicant may be exempt from the declining height ordinance providing the plate line of the proposed addition is no higher than the plate line of the adjacent property, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide staff with the information on the height of both of those plate lines and the presence of the second story. This information was not provided to staff with the application. Following some discussion there was consensus Commission would prefer to get all the information rather than make a decision at this time. Chm. H.Graham continued the item to the meeting of May 22, 1989 with instruction to the applicant to determine by survey the location of the plate lines and relative placement of the houses on this site and the site adjacent to the proposed addition. Submittal by Friday was discussed. Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 8, 1989 At the request of the applicant Item #9 was heard next. 9. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR LONG TERM AUTO LEASING AND RETAIL AUTO SALES AT 890 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/8/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion/questions: would like information on other tenants in the building, staff noted applicant's list; how busy are these tenants and can they park on the easement; staff advised .required parking for the site is 62 spaces, number of spaces on site is 65, none of these spaces are assigned; concern this type of business might generate a lot of activity. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Lily Toy, applicant, was present. She discussed the business: six cars for sale can be comfortably parked in the warehouse area; they sell high value cars; 80% of their business is financing, they do not actively retail cars as a major part of their business; they will no longer wash cars or do auto detailing work on site; she did not know the number of employees of other businesses in the building. Her business has two full time people, herself and her partner; they are brokers doing the financing, contracts, they work with other dealers; part time employees are outside representatives and on site only a few hours a day, they are on the road doing business with dealers; this business operates like a bank, it is basically an office, not a retail car operation; they advertise financing and sales. They had a business license when they operated on Marsten Road and notified the city of the change of address when they moved to Cowan Road. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have a problem putting an auto business into the industrial district, they have resale on this site, it seems more like an auto row use; it is really an office use, too, this is not a bad location for it, different from auto row but this type of business doesn't really fit in auto row, it wouldn't be a misfit business here. C. S.Graham found no problem with this business at this location, it would not be detrimental to the vicinity, car sales are inside, it is in accordance with the general plan. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the two special permits and for adoption of Commission Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 8, 1989 Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's March 31, 1989 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 3, 1989 memo and the City Engineer's April 10, 1989 memo shall be met; (2) that this business shall have a maximum of two full time and five part time employees working from the site Monday through Friday 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; (3) that cars on site stored for sale shall not exceed six at one time and shall only be parked within the warehouse area; (4) that no car washing or auto detailing or auto servicing or repair shall be done on this premise; and (5) that this site shall be limited to long term auto leasing (for a period of more than a year) and limited auto retail sales and shall be subject to review for conformance with the conditions of this permit in 90 days (August, 1989) and every two years thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IN ORDER TO ADD A SECOND STORY AT 1536 LOS MONTES DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/8/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, letter in opposition from Mr. Chan, 1547 Los Montes Drive, findings for a hillside area construction permit. Another letter in opposition from H. Cho, 1540 Los Montes Drive was noted. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. H.Graham opened the public hearing. Bob Zuk, applicant, was present. He discussed his proposal to reduce the roof height of the addition 3' which he felt would have a substantial impact on minimizing the view obstruction; he said he has spent considerable time evaluating view and submitted a series of photographs taken from neighboring properties; 1547 and 1545 Los Montes are partially impacted by the addition, both have panoramic views, 1547 has a panoramic view from both levels; he understood the spirit of the ordinance is to minimize view obstruction; in order to maintain construction costs, retain views and retain architectural design of the house he changed the roof line and reduced the height of the structure 31, he will keep two trees which impact views of 1547 and 1545 trimmed. A Commissioner noted there is a very large back yard, it looks like an area which could be used to add onto the house and get the needed space; applicant replied he needs to add a master bedroom and family room, it makes sense to have the family room adjacent to the kitchen; to put the master bedroom on grade level next to the two bedrooms would be a more expensive remodeling project, would Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 8, 1989 increase the amount of foundation work, increase amount of wood framing and increase costs due to remodeling on two sides of the structure; the neighbor at 1532 Los Montes has a kitchen window at that location, construction would block his view and block light coming into his window. Applicant commented further that he moved into this house as a good investment, the situation has now changed, he will be married next summer and needs more space. Speaking in favor, Charles Mink, 1541 Los Montes Drive: he supported the revised plans with a 3' reduction in height and the modified roof line, a hip roof, which conforms to the construction of the rest of the house and makes it architecturally more consistent with what is already in place; the reduced height has lowered the roof line to the point where it cuts off the bayshore but doesn't cut off the runways or the bay; sight line will cut out manmade structures and trees which are downhill; Mr. Mink commended the applicant for cooperation he has extended to the neighborhood, he met with people and tried to get a -reasonable situation for everyone. Further, he requested the trees not be trimmed until they are dormant. The following spoke in opposition. Aki Sato, 1545 Los Montes Drive: he presented a letter, photographs indicating that the view from his living room would be blocked by the proposed addition and a sketch to illustrate the view from his bedroom will be blocked. He did not think the view shown by the applicant from 1545 Los Montes was accurate; even with a 3' reduction the addition would block his view from his living room; applicant has a large back yard, his house could be extended in another way. Jose Franco, 1532 Los Montes Drive: he was not actually opposed to the project but wanted to request the following from the owner: match existing type of roof and materials used; match the color of the home and the trimming; delete one or two windows in the master bedroom, two windows in a master bedroom seem to be enough to bring in the view, the addition appears to have five windows. Mr. Franco commended the applicant for considering the impact on his neighbors, the addition would block some of the view from his deck but it could be much worse. He commented that prospective buyers should look at what they might need in the future and the possibility of expansion when they purchase a house. A Commissioner asked the applicant where he was standing when he took one of the pictures from 1545; Mr. Zuk said he was standing on the front porch of 1545 in front of the picture window. The Commissioner had a problem because Mr. Sato's photo from inside 1545 was considerably different from the one presented by the applicant. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 8, 1989 Commission comment: view from Mr. Sato's living room will be disturbed by the addition, one-half of the addition will block some trees, one-half will block some of the bay view, trees are an important part of view, can sympathize with the applicant but think neighbors' views will be compromised; agree, photos do not do justice to the impact this addition will have on Mr. Sato's property, inside view is different from pictures from the porch, the stakes put up for the applicant's photos were the plate line of the second story addition, the roof line of the new addition will block view even further, applicant has worked with the neighbors but Commission is looking at an obstruction of view, think the addition would significantly obstruct the property across the way, applicant's rear yard is very deep, a good architect could design an addition to protect the views of the neighbors. Also agree, knowing that area, there are other ways for adding onto this property, code states "based on obstruction. by the construction of the existing distant views", view is in the eyes of the beholder, if a neighbor feels there is a problem will have to agree; applicant has done a good job, if this were a different house, a different site, could go with it, there are other locations on the site to put the addition and there is no way to put up a second story without someone being able to see it. C. Harrison commended the applicant for trying to accommodate everyone; having seen the photographs this evening, he also noted view is in the eyes of the beholder, this is a subjective action. C. Harrison moved for denial of the hillside area construction permit. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved unanimously on roll call.vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - City Attorney memo, May 25, 1989, Summary of the Brown Act. PLANNER REPORTS - Progress report on American International Rent-A-Car, 820 Malcolm Road - Notification of U.C. Extension course, Santa Cruz Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 8, 1989 - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its May 1, 1989 regular meeting C. Harrison offered congratulations to the new Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary of the Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shelley S. Graham Secretary