Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.06.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 11, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, June 11, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Mink Absent: Commissioner Kelly Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Deputy Fire Marshal - MINUTES - The minutes of the May 29, 1990 meeting were approved unanimously with the following correction: Item #5, parking variance, 634 Plymouth Way, final paragraph, page 4, vote on motion to deny without prejudice should read " . C. Kelly voting no, C. Jacobs absent." A ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES, FRONT LANDSCAPING VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1346 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 2. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 1346 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: calculation of front setback; address discrepancies on the plans: occupancy designation, type of construction, show location of furnace and water heaters in the building; front elevation on either side shows walls to the property line, what are they for, are they legal; rear setback is dimensioned at less than 201; side setback is shown as 61, shouldn't this be 71 since under the zoning code this is a three story building; would like more explicit statement addressing exceptional circumstances to support the variances; isn't the statement regarding drainage to the front a requirement rather than an exceptional circumstance, request CE's comment on this; reason for the roof peak, is it architectural or for utility. Items set for public hearing June 25, 1990 or a subsequent meeting when all questions have been addressed on the plans. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 11, 1990 3. SIGN EXCEPTIONS TO AMEND A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AT 1070 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: signage of the other auto dealerships, date of previous sign exception application; regarding exceptional circumstances, is it because applicant already owns a sign of this size or because of the speed of traffic on Broadway as compared to that along Bayshore which requires a sign of this size; minutes and history of previous application; will this sign be removed from the Miller site, is applicant proposing to reduce the Miller signage. Item set for public hearing June 25, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ADDITION TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 204 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/11/90, with attachments: CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised work on the cottage had been red tagged by the Building Department; she explained staffs determination of height of an accessory structure on property line. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Frank Doyle, applicant and property owner, presented a photograph of the cottage taken when they first moved to this site. His comments: he and his wife have full time jobs but use the cottage as an art studio, he for his design business and she for sculpture, painting, ceramics and pottery; the shower is needed because they both need a place to clean up, he works late at night and the plumbing in the house is old and noisy so a shower in the cottage would keep him from disturbing anyone and would keep the house clean; they are trying to get more space to raise a family and have a studio for their art work; the driveway and garage are usable; he has had a design business for six years, formerly with a partner and an office in San Jose, he has kept this business working from his home, generally deals with customers on the phone, uses his home address for the company. Applicant was advised a home occupation permit would be required for this business. The following members of the audience spoke in support. Jeanne Levy, 101 Bancroft Road: her only concern was they might rent the accessory structure, she believed applicants would be using the structure for the purposes they have stated and had no intention of renting it. Leslie Doyle, 204 Bayswater Avenue: she had visited all the neighbors and found no one in opposition. She presented a petition in support from neighbors at 210 and 213 Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 11, 1990 101, 109 and 117 Bancroft Road. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: like what applicants are doing to this older house, have some concern about the shower, possibility of approving the shower for a certain period of time, 10 years was suggested, allowing the shower might be tied to approval and payment of fees for a home occupation permit; staff believed this should be tied to the property for a certain period of time. C. Jacobs found this would be an improvement of the property, could understand the need for a shower in the accessory structure, it would not be detrimental to the neighbors, neighbors have indicated their support. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the four special permits 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 23, 1990; (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (3) that this detached building shall never be used as a rental unit or for sleeping purposes; and (4) that the shower in the accessory structure shall be removed in 10 years (June 2000). Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: by this action Commission is removing an unsightly freestanding building on this property; think that statement could be added as an exceptional circumstance, if the permits are not granted applicants could keep that ugly structure; Commission allows showers in accessory buildings when there is a pool. One Commissioner could not support the motion, he felt the applicant's design made sense and that staffs recommended condition that the building never be used for rental purposes was a sufficient deterrent to the property owners but putting a 10 year limitation on the shower was going one step too far. Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. FIVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO REPLACE A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2999 CANYON ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/11/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Two letters of concern were noted from Dorothea Anderson, 2715 El Prado Road and Lia Dewey, 3 E1 Quanito Way, retention of the oak tree on' this property was requested. Three conditions for consideration at the public hearing were suggested in the staff report and a fourth condition that no portion of the structure shall encroach into the 100' flood flow line. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 11, 1990 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Bill Covall, applicant and Gary Austin, Civil Engineer were present. Mr. Austin stated it is their intention to save the oak tree if it is structurally possible, they will not know until the detailed design phase whether or not they can have tree roots that close to the foundation on this steeply sloping site; there was a question whether there would be room for the contractor to do the work and save the tree; they located the garage specifically to eliminate nonconforming aspects of the existing garage and meet zoning requirements, they were aware there are trees along Canyon and E1 Prado. He advised there. was a problem with relocating the garage because of a public utilities easement along the north property line and the need to stay clear of it, corner of the garage is already quite close to this easement; they wanted to keep existing curb cut and protect the three trees which exist to the north of the curb cut along Canyon Road; these considerations basically dictated the location of the garage, the design just meets the 71-6" side setback requirement and is barely 41 from eave line which is also a requirement. Austin/Commission discussion: proposed garage is 24, deep, standard garage in Burlingame is 20, deep, at 20, it would be 41 farther from the tree; Mr. Austin stated they wished to keep the same size as the existing garage, could remove roof overhang which was included for architectural purposes; staff pointed out the typical exterior dimension would be 211. Evelyn Mickevicius, 2726 El Prado Road was concerned the garage enlargement anticipated enlargement of the house. Applicant advised he had no plans for additions to the house, only foundation repair work. Mrs. Mickevicius stated she has lived here for 16 years, there has been a degradation of the area due to large mansions being built, the soils are unstable, there has been earth movement during the rainy season, this is a large garage. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: there is no other place on the property to put this garage, decreasing the depth of the garage would provide only one space more than existing, the area is woodsy, why would one tree make that much difference, if there is a problem could condition to require another tree be planted to replace the oak tree; think it will be screened well enough from Canyon Road, the oak tree provides screening to those in the back on E1 Quanito and El Prado, suggest condition they make reasonable attempts to save the oak tree, if it cannot be saved screening material be planted and submitted to the Planning Department for review. Could find exceptional circumstances for a side setback variance, it encroaches presently 2-1/21 into the side yard but it is a steep slope, the floor line of the new three car garage will J� be 20' above the grade below, will have to remove much of the tree, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 11, 1990 even reducing the garage depth by 3' it will be necessary to remove two of the major limbs of the tree, do not like the project as it is now, the garage is too big, a two car garage could be built with adequate area for two uncovered spaces in the driveway, could put storage underneath, would vote against this proposal but if they came in for a variance to side setback would probably vote for it, this would give them a two car garage plus storage with two cars parked on the apron and would retain the oak tree. Further comment: unusual lots require creative thinking, presume prior to the earthquake there was a two car garage with a carport under the existing garage, think it could be redesigned to pick up storage space and parking below, it would not be bigger than existing and removal of the tree would not be necessary; can understand this house needing a third covered parking space, it is a problem to park on Canyon Road, would feel much more comfortable with redesign of the garage invading some of the setback areas, would like to retain the oak tree, would be willing to consider a variance as a more palatable alternative, still -keeping the three car garage. Continued discussion: it appears there is some Commission consensus, windows more than 101 above grade are O.K., plate line is O.K., think the real concern is some creative way to get a three car garage, save the oak tree and still make the garage usable for the applicant. Comment on this statement: second driveway is not good, there is advantage in a three car garage, would rather it be done off of one driveway; do not find 4' separation from the building to be an overriding concern. C. Mink moved that this application be denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in discussion this evening, seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. CP noted any redesign should be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days. 6. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT 1516 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/11/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested in the staff report for consideration at the public hearing and a fourth condition concerning the children's playhouse was also suggested by staff. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Bill Van Housen, architect/agent for the property owners, John and Regina O'Neal, was present. He stated this is a hardship case with preexisting nonconforming lot coverage, they are requesting replacement of a portion of a structure which exceeds allowable coverage under current code, hoping to upgrade a deteriorated structure and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 11, 1990 enhance an area at the second level in conjunction with a remodeled kitchen/breakfast nook, this will add to their recreational use of the property and extend their living area, it will not impose on the neighbors. He wished to clarify the CBI's fire wall requirement and not have it a part of the conditions of approval, the remodel will conform to code, there is no wall structure on property line. Architect/Commission discussion: applicant did receive a copy of the staff report but was unable to reach the CBI to discuss his requirement regarding 14' of wall; temporary post will be replaced, posts for the new deck allow clearance along the driveway, there is a post located beyond the temporary post. John O'Neal, property owner, stated that basically they are going to square off the deck, it will not extend further into the yard, they are trying to improve the steep stair and get something that is more serviceable. Responding to a question as to why he did not just replace what is there with the extension, applicant said they wanted to relocate the rear door when making the kitchen remodel, removing it from the landing; the crawl space underneath the landing has laundry facilities in an area about 10' x 101. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: can understand the need for replacement, have a problem with no two car garage on this 50' x 120' lot, a larger garage could add another 10% lot coverage and the site is already well over the allowed 40%; concur it is improper for Commission to allow more lot coverage with a finding that the exceptional circumstance is a nonconforming preexisting condition, the structure does need to be replaced but would like to seethe same amount of coverage, then the post would not be in the driveway to impede access to the garage. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the variance request for the reasons stated in discussion this evening, seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: can find exceptional circumstances in that this is a somewhat dangerous condition which will be made better by the proposal, think that is sufficient to consider this on its merits, share concern about the post, would prefer it be moved so that access would be easier to the garage, the garage is substandard, the only way too make it standard size would be to further encroach on lot coverage and the only area where some square footage could be picked up is the spa area in the back; agree there is possible danger in the way the house currently exists, certainly it is inconvenient, have been told by engineers and architects that they can design almost anything, this lot is amply covered now, think there is some way to stay within the present lot coverage. r Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 11, 1990 C. Jacobs revised her motion to deny the variance request without prejudice. This revision was accepted by the seconder, C. Deal and approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Galligan dissenting, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Staff advised any redesign should be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MORE THAN 20% OFFICE IN AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT 890 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/11/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Bert Sandell, Trammell Crow Company, Foster City (applicant) was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement that because of the amount of parking provided on the site and amount utilized by the building now this use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, it will be a quiet use, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the 1,097 SF of office area shall be added as shown on the plans date stamped May 8, 1990 and 65 parking spaces, to city code standards, shall be provided on site; (2) that the total building floor area shall be 11,685 SF of office, 3,909 SF of shop, 20,676 SF of warehouse and the square footage in Unit J shall be 1,862 SF of office and 2,489 SF of warehouse with no more than four employees in Unit J; and (3) that the site shall be reviewed for consistency with these conditions in June, 1991 and upon complaint thereafter. C. Ellis seconded the motion with the statement he could support this request primarily because of the limitation of only four employees in Unit J. Comment: this use falls within permitted uses in the code and all other requirements appear to be met. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedukes were advised. FROM THE FLOOR Deputy Fire Marshal Keith Marshall reported on the recent fire at The Seventh-Day Adventist Church, 707 El Camino Real. There were no other audience comments. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 June 11, 1990 PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its June 4, 1990 regular meeting and discussion at its June 6, 1990 budget/study meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary