HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.05.29CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 29, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Graham on Tuesday, May 29, 1990 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham,
Kelly, Mink
Absent: Commissioner Jacobs
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 14, 1990 meeting were
unanimously approved.
GA ENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ADDITION TO AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE AT 204 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: ask applicant to expand his comments on why they need the
shower and toilet in the accessory structure; are there permits for
the existing bath, any photographs of the structure prior to the
present remodeling; is there any reason why the existing bath
should not be abated. Item set for public hearing June 11, 1990.
2. FIVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED THREE CAR
GARAGE AT 2999 CANYON ROAD, ZONED R-1
Requests: size of the existing garage; diagram showing support
members for the new garage; does the total project exceed the
cutoff limit for a nonconforming structure required to be brought
up to code; profile of area under the garage, will lower road
access be retained, will it continue to be used. Item set for
public hearing June 11, 1990.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD OFFICE AREA TO A WAREHOUSE/OFFICE
BUILDING AT 890 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1
Item set for public hearing June 11, 1990.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
May 29, 1990
ITEMS FOR ACTION
4. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE
AT 731 WINCHESTER DRIVE. ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/29/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Phillip DeRosa, applicant,
was present and addressed Commission: he has been a homeowner on
this site for 17 years, has been an employee of the San Mateo Union
High School District for the past 18 years, teaches at Burlingame
High School; he has upgraded the house over the years restoring it
to its present condition, it has no attic or basement storage, this
proposal would provide the needed work space and storage; the
addition would be attached to the existing garage and designed to
match it architecturally, with a Spanish tile roof; 12' plate line
height is necessary to gain the roof pitch for the tile, otherwise
the front of the roof would be too low to allow for the door;
proposal includes only minor electrical service, 110 volt plugs and
lights; sewer line ends in the middle of the house and could never
be extended to this structure; neighbor's garage to rear exceeds
the height of the proposed addition, neither applicant's view nor
the neighbor's will be harmed; the plans have been reviewed and
discussed with all immediate neighbors, they support the project.
Responding to questions, applicant stated the front plate line
height would be 91, they are trying to match height of the tile
roof on the existing garage, he had no objection to reducing this
plate line to 8' but would not want to reduce the rear from 12' to
11'. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission comment: with the proposed plate line height of 9' and
ridge height of 12' do not think a special permit is required, it's
not an issue, ridge is the highest part of the building, the
neighbor has a 14' height. CP explained the roof height in
accessory structure ordinance as it applies to this application,
ridge height is measured by distance from property line. Further
comment: given this clarification, have no problem with the
proposal, the garage behind is an odd looking rather square
structure, it does effectively screen this addition behind it,
matching the existing garage is a plus, average height would be
about 10-1/2'.
C. Mink moved for approval of the three special permits by
resolution with findings as presented this evening in testimony and
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
May 29, 1990
discussion with the following conditions: (1) that the project as
built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped April 23, 1990; (2) that except for
electricity there shall be no utilities or plumbing connected to
the garage or its addition and that no portion of the garage or
addition shall ever be used for living or sleeping purposes; and
(3) that, as built, the addition shall conform to all the
requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 6-0 on roll call vote,
C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 634 PLYMOUTH
WAY, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/29/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter.
Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. CP confirmed the 171-6" driveway dimension is to property
line, there is 2.1' from the property line to the inner edge of the
sidewalk. A Commissioner asked how expensive it would be to change
the garage, move the front back and extend the rear.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Nancy Nelson Coleman,
applicant and property owner, told Commission she had recently
married and needed to expand her house, she felt it would be a
problem to change the garage but did not know what it would cost;
the tree in the backyard will remain.
Douglas Tom, architect, was present. A Commissioner pointed out
discrepancies in the plans: regarding the staircase, 12 risers
would leave headroom of 5'-2"; hallway dimensions are to face of
stud, all hallways should be 36" clear; no extension is shown on
the chimney, needs to be 21 taller than new roof. Architect
advised plans will be revised to address these inconsistencies
prior to submittal for a building permit, the notation of asphalt
shingles is incorrect, it will be wood shake to match existing.
Regarding changing the garage, moving the front back and adding to
the rear, architect said it would be expensive and difficult to do,
would be literally moving the garage, he thought it an unnecessary
hardship for what is essentially a 21 code requirement, costs could
be $30-$50 a square foot, about $5,000.
A Commissioner questioned the logic of applicants response to
variance finding (d) which stated. "there is no new construction
proposed as a part of this variance application" since the new
proposal triggers the variance. In response applicant stated
adding two bedrooms will not change what can be put in the
driveway. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
May 29, 1990
Commission discussion/comment: not concerned about the garage
itself but it is tied into an addition at the back of the house,
wish changes had been included in the plans at this time, all
revisions will affect how the addition will look and possibly its
footprint; regarding the addition itself, it is a box thrown up on
the rear of the house, not integrated into the existing house;
regarding variance finding (d), the project may be compatible with
the neighborhood where there are second story additions but it does
not fit into the character of the existing house.
One Commissioner stated Commission is being asked to approve a
parking variance, Commission is not a design review board, comments
on the addition are irrelevant and not Commission's concern this
evening.
Others noted variance findings must be made with regard to
compatibility with the neighborhood, the second story which
actually triggered the variance is adding considerable bulk to the
house, putting a blank wall across the front and windows placed in
locations which detract from its architectural beauty, applicant
submitted plans which require a variance.
C. Galligan moved to deny the variance without prejudice, seconded
by C. Mink.
Comment on the motion: appreciate the concerns of other
Commissioners but do not see a problem with 17'-6" driveway
dimension to property line with 2.1' of public right-of-way to
inner edge of sidewalk, it is almost 20' to the sidewalk, there is
room to park, if the driveway were about 3' longer applicant could
get a building permit for this project; agree it's beyond
Commission's powers to comment on the total style of a home,
however given the inconsistencies in the plans would like to see
the revisions. Staff explained procedures with a denial without
prejudice.
Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Kelly voting no, C.
Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
AT 1109 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4
Reference staff report, 5/29/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions, changes from the previous application in
March, 1990. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at
the public hearing.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
May 29, 1990
Discussion: under Planning Commission Action in the staff report,
second sentence, remove reference to variances; condition #5 should
read "two guest parking stalls" rather than "one".
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robert Lyon and Ellen
Hartog of Robert Lyon and Associates were present. Mr. Lyon
believed all of the eight conditions have been addressed and noted
the Fire Marshal had indicated sprinklering might not be required
provided there were no penetrations of property line walls; it was
the property owner's decision not to incorporate the homeowners
association. A Commissioner expressed concern that no provision
for storage has been made in the plans, where will owners put extra
items? Ms. Hartog replied the bedrooms are oversized, storage area
is not a requirement, this would be an issue for the homeowners
association to decide. Mr. Lyon advised the garage area could not
be enlarged any further, full height storage would be nice but it
couldn't be provided without shoring and moving closer to the
adjacent property lines, some storage could be provided in the
overhead portion where there is no ceiling height requirement;
party wall insulation will be provided as required.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission/staff discussion: storage is a concern but not an
overriding one, applicant has come back with a plan addressing
Commission's previous concerns; CA stated the homeowners
association does not have to be incorporated; this is a fine
project but think storage is an important consideration which could
be taken care of at the design stage, possibility of putting
storage space under the stairs, the units are two level, there also
might be some attic space which could be created for minimal
storage, developer should be sensitive to the needs of future
owners. FM advised area separation walls in lieu of sprinklers is
allowed under present code, the newer version of the code will not
allow this.
Based on the statements in the staff report, testimony this evening
and the fact that this is a fine project, C. Galligan moved for
approval of the negative declaration and condominium permit by
resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project
shall be built 'as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped May 2, 1990; (2) that the project shall
meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by
the City of Burlingame; (3) that the conditions of the City
Engineer's May 3, 1990 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 27, 1990 memo
and the Chief Building Inspector's April 20, 1990 memo shall be
met; (4) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall
be provided for access to the designated guest parking; (5) that
two guest parking stalls be designated on site and not assigned to
a unit but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium
association; (6) that the landscape architect shall provide details
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
May 29, 1990
of how neighboring trees will be protected during construction; (7)
that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of
occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each
unit; and (8) 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 and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all
depreciable component parts of the property, including but not
limited to the roof, painting and common area carpets, drapes and
furniture.
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 6-0 on roll call vote,
C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
MAP FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 1109 BAYSWATER
AVENUE, ZONED R-4
DPW's memo of May 21, 1990 recommended this mapping action be
forwarded to City Council for approval. C. Ellis so moved, C. Mink
seconded, approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs absent.
V�
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF NINE CELLULAR TELEPHONE
ANTENNAS AT 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 5/29/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions, diagrams submitted May 21, 1990 by the
applicant. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at
the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Mitch Lyon, representing
the applicants, Cellular One, told Commission they need another
cell site in this area to cover additional customers, they are
trying to avoid using any type of tower, would rather use an office
building to give them height. This installation covers
approximately two to three square miles, they currently have about
65 in the Bay Area; he explained how the system works if one were
using a car phone on Highway 101. There were no audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement he saw no problem, the installation will not be
visible from ground level and it will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the area, C. Ellis moved
for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following
conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April
12, 1990 and May 21, 1990; (2) that the project shall meet Uniform
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
May 29, 1990
Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and
(3) that the antennas and the cable cover shall be painted to match
the color of the building.
Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call
vote, C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
9. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR RETAIL SALES AND CLASSROOM USE OF A
WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING AT 370 LANG ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 5/29/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letters,
study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Staff noted letter in support
from Richard Lavenstein, Lavenstein & Co., owners of properties at
380 Lang Road and 371-381 Beach Road.
Discussion: the 1988 application for a livery service (bus depot)
at this location had been denied on appeal to City Council;
suggested conditions #2 and #3 were discussed.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Paul Genzink, Golden Gate
Piano and Organ, applicant, was present. His comments: they would
like to move their entire operation from Daly City to Burlingame,
need more room to display the pianos and organs properly; he
referred to his letter of May 18 which summarized their intent,
they would like a permit to do business over a long period of time
and perhaps expand, expansion would not exceed limits stated in the
May 18 letter. It was noted by a Commissioner there are two
parking spaces of handicapped size, applicant did not object to
providing two handicapped spaces. May 18 letter states daily
lessons involve a maximum of 10 instructors and 10 students per
hour; applicant said when a piano is sold they generally give free
lessons, usually in the evenings; they hope to have two classes per
week with groups up to 10 people, these would be held in the
evening; private one-on-one instruction would be held all day long.
Applicant stated he had read the conditions, he was concerned about
a couple things, he would like the business to grow, if one-on-one
instruction is limited to two instructors it would probably limit
his business to some extent, if possible he would like 10
instructors for one-on-one classes. Applicant's real estate agent
stated there are 26 on-site parking spaces and the business does
not come close to having that many people on site at one time.
Applicant was also concerned about review of a permit in view of
signing a long term lease; CP explained procedure of review, as
long as an applicant is in compliance with the conditions of his
permit he would not have to worry about losing the permit.
Responding to a question about what area the 10 instructors and 10
piano students for private lessons would use, applicant said in the
office area on the mezzanine, they could also use the showroom
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
May 29, 1990
floor, offices could be used as studios. Possible need for
soundproofing was noted.
During discussion CP expressed her concern with 10 instructors and
10 students for one-on-one classes, this would be turning students
over every hour, some might be early, some might be late, there
would be an overlap; actual demand for parking for 10
instructors/10 students plus other parking during the day for the
employees and retail customers would be larger than 24 by the
nature of the business; it is also important to remember that use
permits run with the property, not the business, this property
could be leased to another business which did not keep to the
conditions; staff would prefer to be more conservative and
therefore the suggested condition limited one-on-one instruction to
two instructors.
Commission comment: would like to increase one-on-one instruction
but not up to 10, suggest increase to five instructors; it could
create a big demand at 6:00 P.M., would like to see one-on-one
limited so it is over at 6:00 P.M., with the suggested conditions
it can continue until 7:00 P.M. Discussion continued about the
number of one-on-one instructors and number of people in the group
classes which should be allowed; also discussed was the
advisability of requiring two handicapped parking spaces.
Applicant commented on the discussion, noting classes are. usually
families, a typical family could be five people all arriving in one
car; applicant did not want to limit the group class size. He was
told he could come back at any time and ask for a permit amendment
for any condition.
C. Galligan moved for approval of the two special permits for
retail sales and classroom use by resolution with findings a, b and
c subject to the following conditions: (1) that the project as
built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped May 18, 1990 with 26 on-site "parking
spaces including one handicapped stall and closing one roll -up door
at the rear of the property permanently to allow for additional
parking; (2) that the business shall operate with a maximum of
three employees, two full time (including the owner) and one part
time, and five piano instructors, and shall be open for retail
sales from 10:Q0 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday; (3)
that no group music instruction/classes shall occur before 6:00
P.M. except on Saturday and all group and individual piano
instruction shall be over by 9:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday; (4)
that individual or one-on-one piano and organ instruction shall
occur any time during business hours so long as no more than five
instructors are teaching at one time; (5) that any change to the
hours of operation, number of employees, number of instructors,
size of classes, hours of instruction or operation, items sold on
site or any other aspect of this business including subletting any
portion of the building or site shall require an amendment to this
J
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
May 29, 1990
use permit; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for
compliance with these conditions in one year (June, 1991) and every
two years thereafter or upon complaint.
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 6-0 on roll call vote,
C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORTS
- CONDOMINIUM PERMIT EXTENSION FOR AN 11 UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM AT 1117-1125 RHINETTE AVENUE, ZONED R-3
Reference 5/29/90 staff report with attachments. CP reviewed the
request. C. Mink moved for a one year extension to June 6, 1991 of
the residential condominium permit granted to the project at 1117-
1125 Rhinette Avenue, zoned R-3, on June 6, 1989. Motion was
seconded by C. Kelly and approved unanimously on voice vote.
PERMIT REVIEWS
The following permit reviews were noted in compliance: 801 Howard
Avenue (day care at Washington School), 3 California Drive (Putnam
Mazda lighting plan), 346 Lorton Avenue (grocery/specialty food
store), 55 Star Way (auto painting and body repair), 1028 Carolan
Avenue (auto sales), 1305 Carolan Avenue (auto body and auto repair
service), 1039 Edwards Road (retail sales, video rental service),
1872 Rollins Road (batting cages with classes and retail sales),
1710 Gilbreth Road (fence exception, 81), 50-60 Star Way (auto
repair, body and painting for retail, needs "employee parking"
painted in stalls, property owner notified). Two uses have not
been present on the site in six months and property owners will be
notified that use is terminated: 1177 Airport Boulevard (car rental
agency, Sheraton Hotel) and 890 Cowan Road (auto leasing and
sales). Three permits were found to be incomplete: 1730 Rollins
Road (Prime Time Athletic Club - storage shed not installed); 150
Anza Boulevard (no auto rental business on site, permit will be
terminated if this continues until November, 1990); 1070 Broadway
(Mike Harvey Acura, sign permit - all signs in place except pole
sign, application has been made for new pole sign).
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
May 29, 1990
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its May 21, 1990
regular meeting and May 23, 1990 study meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles W. Mink
Secretary